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



## rb2013

While the discussions on my thread about the new class of XMOS USB processors rages on along with all kinds of USB gizmos to fix it's follibles.  A new paradigm of computer audio is not here.  This is different then the UpNP/DLNA - it that this new Audio over IP Ethernet std will allow you to use any audio player and will have compatibilty amoung many audio devices - all operating on a LAN!
  
 So here is what I feel is going to be the new computer audio std:
*AES67 Audio over IP Ethernet!*
  
 http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2015/11/4/aes67-what-is-it-and-why-should-you-care
  


> What Is AES67?
> It is an interoperability standard
> It is for audio transport only
> It isn't a complete system. AES 67 is a feature or option in a wider audio system which can fulfil other tasks such as routing, monitoring, discovery or system control.


 
  


> Why All The Fuss About AES67? It is deployable - It is very limited in its scope. It does audio transport and that's all, by audio transport I mean moving audio around a network


 


> *There are many things which make AES67 exciting. *One of the most significant is that it is very limited in scope. The two technologies which have received the most attention on the blog are Dante, as implemented by Focusrite in their RedNet systems, and AVB which Avid are using in their S3L live sound system. The biggest differences between these two systems are that Dante is proprietary and operates on layer 3 of the OSI 7 layer model. AVB is an open set of standards and it operates on Layer 2. While AVB is a fantastic technology, it is broad in scope and its future definitely lies in more areas than just pro audio. The biggest limitation on its uptake in pro audio is probably the relative indifference end users have to which technology they use combined with the fact that Ethernet switches used on an AVB network have to have specific AVB features, ruling out old or non-AVB switches.* AES67 is an interoperable stream with moderate latency, each data packet contains roughly a millisecond of audio and the total latency is 6ms, though lower and higher latencies are available as an option. It supports both multicasting and unicasting - multicasting makes all streams available everywhere but requires good quality switches. Unicasting is useful for point to point scenarios over distance where the quality of switches can't be guaranteed. AES67 speakers are coming*, the Genelec 4020A prototype has AES67/Ravenna inputs eliminating the need for any extra network node/AD-DA hardware. Just plug the RJ45 into the back of the speaker - install designers will love that! Just as important as what AES67 does is what it doesn't do. It offers no routing and control protocols, no online metering or remote control and no easy web GUI management.


 
  
 Ok what does AES67 and it's current implementations like DANTE and RAVEENA offer:
  
 1- Near zero latency - even over a LAN and long distances
 2 - ASIO support and Apple support, as well as Linux.  So you can use your current favorite audio player or software.
 3 - Full layer 3 TCP/IP support - no special swtiches needed.
 4 - Current PC Ethernet port works just fine, or add a PCIe card.
 5 - 1 GB massive data throughput
 6 - As with all 1GB or higher LAN - native galvanic isolation
 7 - No USB gremlins like clocking and Async packet noise or loss
  
 Well you may say great - but this is ll vaporware - I can't get this right now.  Can I?  Oh yes you can, but in a rather expensive fashion, but as this AES67 protocol is only 2 years old the adoption is occring right now.  Mainly amoung the Pro-Audio companies, but I firmly believe high end consumer audio products will see this as the replacement for USB and maybe i2s on the backs of DAC's and DDC's - just a plain old RJ45 jack is all that's needed (and the AES67 compatible Ethernet internal board).
  
 So here are two products available now for audio using AES67 as their main connection (with SPDIF as the legacy connection)
  
 Merging Technologies NADAC: http://nadac.merging.com/

  
  

  
 From the positive-feedback review
 http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/
*INPUTS*
*AES INPUT*

Connector: gold-plated female XLR
Input impedance: 110 Ohms
Sample rate: 44.1 kHz—192 kHz

 *S/PDIF OPTICAL INPUT*

Connector: Toslink
Sample rate: 44.1 kHz—96 kHz

 *S/PDIF COAXIAL INPUT*

Connector: gold-plated RCA jack
Input impedance: 75 Ohms
Sample rate: 44.1 kHz—96 kHz

 *NETWORK INPUT*

Connector: Neutrik EtherCon RJ45
Bitrate: 1 Gb/s (Gigabit Ethernet only)
Sample rate: 44.1 kHz—384 kHz, DSD64, DSD128 and DSD256

 *WORDCLOCK INPUT*

Connector: BNC
Input impedance: 75 Ohms
Termination: 75 Ohms, software selectable
Sample rate: 44.1 kHz—192 kHz

 *MISCELLANEOUS*

Enclosure material: Premium machined and anodized aluminum
Dimensions: 435mm (17.125") W x 435mm (17.125") D x 95mm (3.75") H
Weight: 11 kg (24.2 lbs.)
AC voltage: 100V-240V/47-63Hz (IEC socket)
DC voltage: 10V-14V (Hirose HR10A-7R-4S)
Power consumption: < 30W
Front panel display: OLED, 160x128 pixels, 16-bit colors

 *General Description and Considerations*
The NADAC MC-8 is a very handsomely sculpted, quite solid audio design. It is designed around Merging Technologies' implementation of digital audio processing derived from their long experience in professional settings, which goes back into the 1990s. Merging has been particularly involved in the development of solutions for DSD processing on the A/D and D/A side of the equation. This include DXD, a 384kHz/32-bit PCM standard that allows for high resolution without the issues that DSD introduces to productions that require a great deal of slice-and-dice in the digital domain. (Analog manipulations are not a problem, since they can occur prior to the final feed to DSD.)
 
From http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/mergings-ethernet-nadac-impresses-at-munich-high-end-2015/


> Their NADAC’s main point of difference is a biggie: it doesn’t receive data via USB but uses Ethernet, which apparently offers far more accurate clocking capabilities when used in tandem with the Munich-developed RAVENNA network protocol. *This ain’t no DLNA/UPnP cop out*. Ethernet transmission also makes it useful for those needing to put some serious distance between DAC and host PC.​ Once connected to a network, the NADAC itself dictates data transmission rates instead of the computer. In other words data handling is asynchronous.​ All current digital audio format trends are met head on: PCM up to 384kHz, DXD, DSD64, DSD128, and DSD256. The business end of D/A conversion shows Merging Technologies’ roots: they’ve opted for an ESS’ 9008S chip​


 
  
*Now RAVENNA:*
 is a open standard implemenation capatible with AES67:
 http://www.ravenna-network.com
  
 What is RAVENNA?


> OPEN AUDIO OVER IP
> 
> RAVENNA is an open solution for transmitting audio over IP. Designed to meet the exacting standards of the Broadcast industry, RAVENNA delivers high-quality, multi-channel audio over a standard IT network.


 


> WHY AUDIO OVER IP?
> 
> There are primarily two reasons why users consider using Audio over IP today:
> 
> ...


 
   
 USER BENEFITS​ 

 


 



> Flexible Profiles (Multi-Format Support)  RAVENNA Profiles enable users to customise the audio stream for their application. Based on standard networking technology, RAVENNA can support a variety of audio formats within its payload.
> 
> RAVENNA supports a variety of different data formats used in professional environment. For audio applications, 16 and 24-bit integer as well as 32-bit full bit-transparent AES/EBU data formats in combination with all relevant sampling rates (32 … 192 kHz) are supported. Since RTP is used as transport protocol, virtually any desired data format (i.e. 32-bit floating point, DSD and DXD high-res formats and others) can be transported across a RAVENNA network. This is not limited to audio data, but includes video data as well as control data. Although only one data format is permitted per individual stream, different streams with different data formats can coexist on the same network concurrently.


 
 Quote:


> IP Technology (OSI Layer-3)  As an IP-based solution, RAVENNA is based on protocol levels on or above layer 3 of the OSI reference model. IP can be transported on virtually any LAN and is used as the base layer for communication across WAN connections (including the internet). Although Ethernet will be deployed in most cases as underlying data link layer, IP is in general infrastructure-agnostic and can be used on virtually any network technology and topology.


 
 Quote:


> Phase-Accurate Synchronisation  Professional audio applications demand tight synchronization between all devices and audio streams. While playback synchronization in most applications requires sample accuracy, it has been the goal for RAVENNA to optionally provide superior performance by providing phase-accurate synchronization of media clocks according to AES-11; this would render the separate distribution of a reference word clock throughout the facility or venue obsolete.
> 
> In RAVENNA, synchronization across all nodes is achieved through IEEE1588-2008 (also referred to as Precision Time Protocol or PTPv2), another standard protocol which can be operated on IP. PTPv2 provides means for synchronizing local clocks to a precision in the lower nanoseconds range with reference to a related master clock - provided that all participating switches natively support PTPv2. But even without native PTP support, the achievable precision - while varying depending on size and bandwidth utilization of the network - will be more than sufficient to reach sample accurate synchronization across all nodes. Sample-accurate synchronization can even be reached across WAN connections, when local master clocks are synchronized to GPS as a common time domain reference.


 
 RAVENNA supports WINDOWS ASIO, MAC and Linux:


> To do this, Merging developed Ravenna, a TCP/IP protocol and application set for audio over Ethernet, later fully supported in the Audio Engineering Society's AES67 standard (*HERE*), which Merging Technologies had helped to produce. *In sum, this allowed Merging's family of devices (Horus, HAPI, and NADAC, for example) to use ASIO (PC/Windows) or Core Audio (Mac) drivers to communicate and network with one another reliably, over much longer distances and in more complex topologies.* This would have to be something other than a consumer-oriented "one-to-one-with-a-short-cable" basis, obviously. *Since Ravenna is fully compatible with the AES67 standard, all Merging Technologies Ravenna devices will interoperate with those of other manufacturers using AES67.* This is a key point for professional settings, since large and complex implementations are _not_ cheap, and are _not_ easily replaced or upgraded.


 
  
  
  
*NOW TO THE OTHER AES67 SOLUTION- DANTE:*



> What About Dante? Dante is Layer 3 and as such doesn't have the same switch compatibility constraints as AVB. AES67 support is announced and a firmware update will allow Audinate Transport Protocol and AES67 Transport protocols to coexist on the same network. The reason why you might want to do this is because AES67 is a lowest common denominator between networks and using Dante's native transport protocol might provide performance improvements when moving data around a purely Dante network. When sending audio between mixed AES67 compatible networks an AES67 stream can be used, sacrificing a little latency for improved flexibility. Dante publishes the availability of AES67 streams on the network so they can be used by 3rd party network technologies with AES67 providing the transport and Dante looking after the system control.


 
  
  
Audinate Announces Support for AES67 Standard https://www.audinate.com/article/audinate-announces-support-aes67-standard
  


> Amsterdam, Netherlands 4 February, 2014 - Audinate announced today that it plans to incorporate AES67 transport in its Dante™ media networking solution. Dante has rapidly become the market leader and the dominant media networking solution for audio networking.


 
  https://www.audinate.com/solutions/dante-overview
  
 Quote:


> Economical and Versatile One cable does it all. Dante does away with heavy, expensive analog or multicore cabling, replacing it with low-cost, easily-available CAT5e, CAT6, or fiber optic cable for a simple, lightweight, and economical solution. Dante integrates media and control for your entire system over a single, standard IP network.
> Dante systems can easily scale from a simple pairing of a console to a computer, to large capacity networks running thousands of audio channels. Because Dante uses logical routes instead of physical point-to-point connections, the network can be expanded and reconfigured at any time with just a few mouse clicks.


 
   
 Quote:


> Unicast or Multicast Dante audio channels can be configured as unicast or multicast as appropriate, to make best use of available bandwidth. Unicast provides a direct point-to-point stream for unique channels; multicast sends an audio stream to multiple devices simultaneously.


 
 https://us.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet
RedNet  Studio quality sound meets digital audio networking… RedNet is Focusrite’s flagship range of modular Ethernet-networked audio interfaces that harnesses the power of Audinate’s tried and tested Dante digital audio networking system to bring studio quality sound to any modern audio application.




 Designed with multiple audio applications in mind – from Live Sound rigs to Multi-room Recording Studios, Houses of Worship, Audio Distribution Installations, Post Production environments and anything in-between – fundamentally RedNet is an extremely scalable, near zero latency audio distribution system that can be used to expand I/O channel count, interface digital components, and/or bridge between Pro Tools|HD or MADI and the Dante audio network.
 Incorporating Focusrite’s most advanced AD/DA conversion to date, rock-stable JetPLL clocking and premium multi-layered board circuitry, RedNet is no exception to the company’s philosophy that ‘Sound is Everything’. With every design detail meticulously engineered, RedNet is a step above its I/O competition, providing some of the most transparent and pristine audio quality available – with the added benefit of the systems’ revolutionary networking capabilities.
  
*DANTE can be run from your PC or MAC using a $29 Digital Virtual Soundcard and your PC/MAC's RJ45 Ethernet port.  That is obviously low cost.*
 It can be downloaded here:
 https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard?option=com_virtuemart&product_id=49&category_id=13&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_cart.tpl







*Advantages over UnNP:*
1) Use your current audio player - Foobar, JRiver, iTunes, whatever and they are compatible.  Dante and Ravenna provide ASIO Windows drivers.
  
2) Multi-Cast or Uni-Cast both available
  
3)Interface with Thunderbolt 2&3 and USB 3.1 - http://www.audiomediainternational.com/recording/feature-investigating-interface-protocols/04655


> One connection protocol that is ubiquitous on both Apple- and Windows-based machines is Ethernet. Currently mainly in use for distributed audio and large-scale networked systems, the protocol has been championed by Merging Technologies. “*There are a number of audio-over-IP protocols now established in the pro-audio market that use Ethernet as the connection – the main players being Ravenna, Dante and Livewire*,” details Paul Mortimer, managing director of Merging’s UK distributor eMerging. *“Compatible devices can be connected using a simple point-to-point connection or via an existing standard IT network infrastructure.* “The main advantages of Ethernet-based formats are the ability to run much longer distances between devices; *being able to take audio signals from one source and route to many destinations*; and sample accurate clocking from one master device on the network. *Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 offer the ability to connect to Ethernet, so would also be compatible with networked audio devices. With the introduction of AES67, all of these audio-over-IP formats will talk to each other, so enabling one harmonious compatible format.”*


 
  4) Easier to set-up and more reliable? UnNP has it's well documented issues...


----------



## rb2013

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/new-digital-analogue-converter-merging-technologies-home-audio-market-22967/index3.html
  


> *dallasjustice*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Luckbad

I have an RJ45 to XLR adapter on the way to see if I can get this working on my PC before diving deeper.

Thanks for the thread!

I'm actually more interested in how this develops than most other things in computer audio.


----------



## mhamel

From the pro side of the audio world, and very well-regarded:  http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-dac 
  
 Supports direct input via Ethernet/Dante.


----------



## ginetto61

Hi !
 thanks a lot for the extremely interesting information.
 I am afraid that will be a high end and very expensive technology ?
 just *the Focusrite pcie adapter is 999 USD 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*
  
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1020657-REG/focusrite_rednet_pcie_card.html
  
 Lucky the rich people.  I envy them deeply  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Regards,  gino


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> I have an RJ45 to XLR adapter on the way to see if I can get this working on my PC before diving deeper.
> 
> Thanks for the thread!
> 
> I'm actually more interested in how this develops than most other things in computer audio.


 
 Me too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


ginetto61 said:


> Hi !
> thanks a lot for the extremely interesting information.
> I am afraid that will be a high end and very expensive technology ?
> just *the Focusrite pcie adapter is 999 USD
> ...


 
 This is just the start - these units like the Merging HAPI and Focusrite REDLAN stuff - is designed for many functions we don't need for home audio.  Once a Chinese developer designs a simple DANTEor RAVENNEAor maybe XMOS/AES67 Ethernet to SPDIF and/or AES DDC - it should be no more expensive then the $180 F-1, or Pro3a.
  
 The nice thing is the std is open and a true std - so I expect someone like XMOS to develop a FPGA chip like solution - just like for USB.
  
 Remember the first Empirical Off Ramp?  It was like $800 for 96k
  
 I had one of these after going through about a half dozen Fireface devices (Your Apogee Rosetta is one) and settled on the RME Fireface 800.

  
 It was $1600 ten yrs ago.  They still sell it!  DidN'T I need all these channel and mic inputs - no - but it was the best way to play hi res (192k) audio at the time.  This was before Async USB audio.  USB 2.0 iso was limited to 96k and even that was buggy back then.
  
 So the bottomline is we will see many devices for our needs and much cheaper. Can't wait!
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> From the pro side of the audio world, and very well-regarded:  http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-dac
> 
> Supports direct input via Ethernet/Dante.


 

 Sweet DAC!  $2300 not bad.
  
 When you get a chance take a look at this discussion on CA I posted (#2) between Miska (developer of the UpNP HQPlayer) and a fellow named 'Dallas Justice'.
  
 It's good discussion of the clocking issues with AES67 ethernet vs Async USB.
  
 Cheers!
  
 PS Great review on the B2 Bomber ADC/DAC - Wow! 
 http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/79/b2-bomber-adc-dac/


> The sibling B2 DAC sounds great too — very full and thick. Next to my Dangerous DAC and my Lavry DA10, I would characterize its sound as “warm” or even “analog” — round and present in the mids, with a really nice, wide stereo image. The all Class-A, discrete op-amp design was based around a new set of passive filters, chosen for their extremely flat phase response — and no capacitors (for great bass). Supposedly, this allows the Burl to overcome some of the inherent limitations of older designs that could sometimes yield a flat or thin sound by rolling off the bass and/or making the top end edgy. The intent was to aim for the reproduction ability of great analog tape, and I think Burl nailed it. But neutral it ain’t, and that’s where I came into conflict with it. I mix through my conversion chain (as I would hope everyone does), and I don’t want my DAC adding additional coloration. If I were mixing through the B2, I feel like I would compensate in such a way that everything would come out with less bass, a bit carved in the mids, and too bright. Maybe the B2 sounds too good, or it’s possible that I’m just way too familiar with my current chain


 
 As I'm a tube DAC guy, very, very tempting...


----------



## ginetto61

rb2013 said:


> Me too
> 
> 
> 
> ... 
  
 Then you give me hope !  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  so i have to wait a little.
 because your comments on the sound of these interfaces make me want to jump on one ...
  


> The nice thing is the std is open and a true std - so I expect someone like XMOS to develop a FPGA chip like solution - just like for USB.
> Remember the first Empirical Off Ramp? It was like $800 for 96k
> I had one of these after going through about a half dozen Fireface devices (Your Apogee Rosetta is one) and settled on the RME Fireface 800.
> 
> ... 
  
 I have to wait.   Actually looking at the pcie card it looks very well built but nothing out of this world.
 I have to wait.  I hope that maybe next year ... i want a rj45 to AES really badly.
 Thanks a lot again
 gino


----------



## rb2013

Interesting discussion on CA:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/lan-input-dacs-21722/


----------



## rb2013

DANTE AES67 Ethernet compatible BURL B2 Bomber DAC (courtesy of @mhamel):
 $2300
  
 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/B2BomberDAC?adpos=1o1&creative=54989979481&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=CO_PgbDVu8wCFYqPfgodWr4Jtw
  
  
 http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-dac
  


> As a compliment to the B2 ADC, the B2 DAC punches you in the chest with low end while the 3D spaciality and stereo spread give you amazing detail throughout the spectrum. Add to that a sweet tone that is easy on your ears, and you have a unit that you will instantly fall in love with! Both the B2 ADC and B2 DAC feature identical, incredibly low jitter clocking, precision metering and stepped attenuators. Couple the B2 ADC with the B2 DAC and you have the B2 Bomber Master Signal Chain, a force to be reckoned with!​ *Features:*
> • 44.1k Hz to 192k Hz, 24 bit, 2 channel DAC
> • Proprietary custom design BOPA1, all discrete op-amps
> • Passive filters
> ...


 



  
  
  
 http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/79/b2-bomber-adc-dac/

  
  
 http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/79/b2-bomber-adc-dac/
  


> With the B2 DAC, you get nearly transparent, yet very musical, conversion that is ideal for monitoring; and with the B2 ADC, you get the lush color and mojo of Class-A, transformer-based analog circuitry with a sound that is very reminiscent of analog tape decks. While these two converters meet very different goals, they function as a killer combination that makes recording to digital a musically satisfying analog trip and monitoring back to analog a listening experience you can trust and enjoy. These are the most exciting converters to hit the market in years, taking us into a new era in which digital recording may just have finally caught up with its analog ancestors.


 


> Next the B2 DAC travelled uptown to the mastering room of Howie Weinberg at Masterdisc to spend time with Matthew Agoglia. Matt ran the Burl through its paces against their DCS DAC, which they clock off of an Antelope Audio 10M (Tape Op #68). Keep in mind that the DCS cost about $10,000 fifteen years ago and has been a standard in mastering studios for well over a decade. On top of that, the Antelope system runs close to $8000. “Overall, the Burl (whether clocked to the 10M or internally) has a more neutral, smooth and transparent character compared to our DCS. The DCS has a color in its midrange, a tightness in the bass, and a subtle crispness in the highs. We could say that the DCS is more curvy, sounding different in different areas of the frequency spectrum, while the Burl is very smooth and linear, sounding very similar throughout the frequency spectrum. In particular, the Burl’s low end was actually a bit more extended, with sub frequencies a bit clearer, while the DCS had a very pleasant low end focused around 80–120 Hz. The Burl also sounds a bit wider than the DCS. When clocking the DCS off the Antelope 10M, we get that larger-than-life sound that some describe as “hype” — not necessarily a bad thing in mastering because you don’t end up adding too much EQ or other processing to achieve your results. I wondered if I might be inclined to EQ/process more with the Burl handling my DAC duties because I’d want to hear more excitement. Note that when I clocked the Burl to the 10M, it definitely took on more of the excitement I heard with the DCS, bringing the two converters closer in sound. Please keep in mind that we are talking subtle differences here. The Burl at $2500 is a bargain!”
> 
> In my own critical listening at The Farm (my mixing room in Brooklyn), I compared the B2 DAC up against my HEDD, and I found them so similar that I can’t honestly say that the differences I heard are terribly significant. Both converters are crystal clear, and there is no difference in the amount of information I was hearing. In terms of listening pleasure, the Crane Song excels at delivering a strong, focused center image, so for mixes where the interest lies in the center, I liked the HEDD a little bit more. Conversely, the Burl presents a wider and somewhat smoother image, so for mixes where there are a lot of interesting things happening on the sides, the Burl was a little more enjoyable.


----------



## rb2013

Well it's here...$29 Audinate DANTE DVS (Digital Virtual Soundcard) and a DAC like the BURL, NADAC, HAPI or REDNET.
 https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard
  
 Say hello to the Unicorn!





  
 I added the Bolding:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/lan-input-dacs-21722/


> 09-13-2014, 10:50 AM#3​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from that CA thread:
  


> 09-13-2014, 08:48 PM#11​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
  


> 09-13-2014, 08:36 PM#10​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from that CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
  
 Quote:


> 09-13-2014, 09:09 PM#12​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from that CA thread (I added the bolding):
  


> *Miska*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


> *Miska*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from that CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
  
 Quote:


> 06-04-2015, 12:07 AM#215​​
> *tranz*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

I wonder whatever became of that Uptone Audio over IP project?  I certainly agree with everything @Superdad has said in these last CA posts:
 More interesting quotes from that CA thread (I added the bolding):


> 06-04-2015, 01:21 AM#219​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Mike, what audio player are you using?
  
 It appears Foobar works fine with DANTE DVS.
  
 More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
   
  
 Quote:


> 06-06-2015, 12:59 AM#13​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> Mike, what audio player are you using?
> 
> It appears Foobar works fine with DANTE DVS.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've been using JRiver, but any application that can use an ASIO driver should work fine with the virtual sound card.


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
 So a bit of clarification on the post below - as I understand it (from the Postive-Feedback review of the the RAVENNA based NADAC) a QoS network switch allows the prioritiaztion of devices on a LAN - in other words a 'smart' switch.  This is only needed on very high traffic 1GB LANs (10GB should be no problem), or if you are running 16+ channels of 192k mix at once -in a studio setting.  In a home with a 1GB LAN - 2 channel QoS is not needed for DANTE or RAVENNA.
  
 PS second note- The upcoming AVB IEEE std does require special switches as it's only layer 2.
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
 Quote:


> 06-06-2015, 01:42 PM#18​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

I see @Superdad has joined us - Alex whatever happened to your Audio over IP product?   Sounds very interesting.
  
 Still in the works? (I hope).


----------



## rb2013

So this is interesting - putting aside the studio scheme - of having to run many DACs, ADCs, etc simulateously on a LAN.  Let's just consider the home one stereo situation - but one were you are just looking to get rid of USB as your DDC connection.  It would seem to me that you would just set your DAC - like the BURL B2 - to internal clock and the ethernet would provide the music data stream in packets.  Now TCP/IP packets not USB packets - a superior protocol?  At least easy, built in galvanic isolation.  And no power + data creating issues like USB.   But say, in a two system home environment use the better clocked DAC as the master.

  
  
 It seems there is inherent to this AES67 protocol the ability to assign slave and master to each DAC on the LAN.
  
 Maybe add a nice OXCO as a Word clock in to say the BURL then let that be the LAN's master clock.
  
 Maybe as a system(s) upgrade add one of these - OXCO *Tascam​**​**CG-1000 - Master Clock Generators.​* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1076422&gclid=CIyTzPedvMwCFZNgfgodZ30D2g&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C92051678282%2C&is=REG&A=details
  
  
 More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
  
  
 Quote:


> 06-06-2015, 06:28 PM#21​​
> *Serge_S*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
   
  
  
 Quote:


> 09-15-2014, 02:07 PM#33​​
> *Miska*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Sorry for posting so many of these Ca posts here - but it's a facintatiing discussion between Superdad from Uptone, Miska creator of HQPlayer and vortecjr from Sonore (Rendu fame) - on UpNP and DNLA as the audio over IP solution.  Many interesting issue brought up - besides the lack of audio player compatibility with UpNP.
  
 More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
   
  
 Quote:


> 09-15-2014, 05:36 PM#41​​
> *Miska*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Oh - like the ICRON/Startech 1GB USB extender!  Way to go sandab!
  
 http://usbip.sourceforge.net
  
USB/IP PROJECT -​  
 More interesting quotes from this CA thread (I added the bolding):
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/ravenna-streamer-24708/#post433300
  
 Quote:


> 09-27-2014, 06:37 PM#53​​
> *sandab*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

> 10-24-2014, 11:46 AM#58​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Last one!
  


> 10-24-2014, 12:52 PM#60​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Sorry this is just too good!  How did I miss this thread last yr?  I wasn't looking for it. 
  
 Yes! This is Thunderbolt  - now to merge connector (for lower cost connector and cable liscencing and production costs) with USB 3.1 called USB-C.  This will be Thunderbolt 3 (including a doubling of throughput over TB 2).  Basically Thunderbolt is PCIe external.  See more on my other Thunderbolt thread:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806121/thunderbolt-3-for-audio-is-this-the-next-computer-audio-standard
  


> 10-26-2014, 03:03 PM#81​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Audinate's Dante - $29 licensing cost for the DVS - seems reasonable.
  
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/lan-input-dacs-21722/index4.html
  
 Quote:


> 10-26-2014, 03:25 PM#83​​
> *Superdad*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Yes Thunderbolt 3!  See Focusrite's very reasonably price Clarett Pre4 - Thunderbolt 2 to SPDIF
 https://us.focusrite.com/thunderbolt-audio-interfaces/clarett-4pre
  
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/lan-input-dacs-21722/index4.html
  
 Quote:


> 10-27-2014, 04:29 AM#91​​
> *Miska*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

This really is a remarkable couple of CA threads - and is a great primer to bring to where we are now!
  
 Right now the Focusrite Clarett Pre 4 has Thunderbolt 2 (PCIe - external) to SPDIF solution for $699
  
 and The DANTE AES67 Ethernet REDNET 3 - Ethernet to SPDIF for $799.
  
 What we need is for a XMOS type FPGA solution for a low cost TB2 or 3 to SPDIF/i2s, and/or AES67 RJ45 DANTE (or RAVENNA) to SPDIF/i2s device.
  
 Something like the U8 or XU208 for USB.
  
 Time is ripe!


----------



## mourip

Ok. This thread should be on flame. This is the future of audio. The New Age.
  
 Here is a good example of a fledgling product with remarkable potential.
  
  
 It is a Dante based ethernet input DAC/HP amp/Pre. I have no idea how it sounds but it represents what could be in a similar higher end audiophile oriented product. Imagine Schitt incorporating the ethernet input into a DAC/HP amp?
  
 Ethernet in from a central PC or NAS with Dante driver and use this anywhere.
  
  
  

  
 https://us.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-am2


----------



## ginetto61

mourip said:


> Ok. This thread should be on flame. This is the future of audio. The New Age...


 
  
 Hi !  i was thinking exactly the same.  Strangely enough there is a big silence about this technology,  
 Maybe too good that it could made obsolete usb and even thunderbolt ?  
 Personally *i would like a Ethernet to AES/EBU in/out interface immensely.  *
 If you know of any review please post.  
 Kind regards,  gino


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Ok. This thread should be on flame. This is the future of audio. The New Age.
> 
> Here is a good example of a fledgling product with remarkable potential.
> 
> ...


 
 This is unfortunately limited to HP analog out only.  What will come and is needed is a 2 channel SPDIF coax REDNET AES67 Ethernet box.
  


ginetto61 said:


> Hi !  i was thinking exactly the same.  Strangely enough there is a big silence about this technology,
> Maybe too good that it could made obsolete usb and even thunderbolt ?
> Personally *i would like a Ethernet to AES/EBU in/out interface immensely.  *
> If you know of any review please post.
> Kind regards,  gino


 
 AOIP is fairly new and ProAudio only right now.  But that will change with the advent of the inexpensive ($29) Dante DVS for Windows and now the AES67 compatibility.


----------



## rb2013

I have a REDNET 3 coming next week to face off against the Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB and my Uber F-1 USB based chain.
  
 So we will see very soon.


----------



## sfoclt

That has a lot of optical i/o's Is that common in pro audio?  And is that why there's the clock connection?


----------



## ginetto61

rb2013 said:


> This is unfortunately limited to HP analog out only.  What will come and is needed is a 2 channel SPDIF coax REDNET AES67 Ethernet box.
> AOIP is fairly new and ProAudio only right now.
> But that will change with the advent of the inexpensive ($29) *Dante DVS for Windows* and now the AES67 compatibility.


 
  
 Hi ! thanks a lot indeed for the very kind and valuable advice.
 I think i have found the link to the SW you mention.
  
*https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard*
  


> Dante Virtual Soundcard uses the Ethernet port you already have—no snakes, no converters, no special cables and connectors*, no external devices—none of that.


 
 this sounds great !!!!!!!!!!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 However still some kind of ethernet to something else converter is needed, i guess.   A piece of nice HW i mean.  
 Personally i would vote for a Ethernet to AES/EBU interface, possibly with in and out.
 That would be fantastic.  
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## prot

mourip said:


> Ok. This thread should be on flame. This is the future of audio. The New Age.



You are giving waaay too much credit to audiophiles .. and people in general 

Been singing that 'network future of audio" song for 5+ years already. But most people just buy the same old bull that everyone else buys and shamelessly advertises as 'the new wow'.


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> This is unfortunately limited to HP analog out only.  What will come and is needed is a 2 channel SPDIF coax REDNET AES67 Ethernet box.
> 
> AOIP is fairly new and ProAudio only right now.  But that will change with the advent of the inexpensive ($29) Dante DVS for Windows and now the AES67 compatibility.


 
  
  
 Well everyone is still waiting on Dante to fulfill their 2014 promise to support AES67, but AFAIK it still has not happened.  No AES67/Ravenna hardware at all from Dante.
 And the Focusrite RedNet boxes are also all still only Dante.  So while the $29 Dante DVS may seem like a deal (though it works through lots of IP stack layers so SQ is not assured), it is still a closed system.  Heck, the Ravenna Network site (http://www.ravenna-network.com/partners/) does not even list Dante or Focusrite as partners.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Well everyone is still waiting on Dante to fulfill their 2014 promise to support AES67, but AFAIK it still has not happened.  No AES67/Ravenna hardware at all from Dante.
> And the Focusrite RedNet boxes are also all still only Dante.  So while the $29 Dante DVS may seem like a deal (though it works through lots of IP stack layers so SQ is not assured), it is still a closed system.  Heck, the Ravenna Network site (http://www.ravenna-network.com/partners/) does not even list Dante or Focusrite as partners.


 

 Well the way I understand it is that Dante and Ravenna are separate protocols - with similar TCP/IP lineage.  The agreement of AES67, which is very recent,  is to allow a commonality across these two protocols.  In essence an agreement to abide by a common set of layer 3 attributes, that will allow each others systems to be recognized over a common LAN without the need for special QoS GB swtiches, as is the case for layer 2 AVB (still awaiting the IEEE official std as far as I know).
  
 The formal agreement by Audinate to support AES67, the creator of Dante (Focusrite is just and adopter), is only a little over a two years old.  This AES67 agreement  standard (only a little over three yrs old) guarantees interoperability across platforms.  The Media Networking Alliance was formed in October 2014 to promote adoption of AES67.  So we are talking sota, cutting edge AOIP developments.
 https://www.audinate.com/article/audinate-announces-support-aes67-standard
  
 The big news was by AES of the twp successful AES67 AOIP "Plugfest" Events.  Showing the adpotion and implementation of AES67 has already been a success. http://www.aes.org/press/?ID=341
  
 So the fact that Dante is not a partner or Focusrite is completely logical as they are separate development protocols merging into a common set of interoperability standard.
 Those AES67 standards are just a minimum set of critera interoperability standards - companies are free to exceed them within their own protocols. 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES67


> *AES67* is a standard for audio-over-IP interoperability. The standard was developed by the Audio Engineering Society and published in September 2013. It is a layer 3 protocol suite based on existing standards and is designed to allow interoperability between various IP-based audio networking systems such as RAVENNA, Livewire, Q-LAN and Dante. It also identifies commonalities with Audio Video Bridging (AVB) and documents AVB interoperability scenarios.[2][3]
> 
> AES67 promises interoperability between previously competing audio-over-IP systems[4] and long-term network interoperation between systems.[5] Since its publication, AES67 has been implemented independently by several manufacturers and adopted by many others.


 
  
 Of course for the audiophile AES67 interoperability is less important then a studio - what is more important is the benefits of a robust, growing and improving AOIP computer audio architecture.  With it's inherent simplicity and galvanic isolation.  We see this already in the ProAudio market with Audinate offering it's DVS (Digital Virtual Soundcard) s/w for $29 for a permanent license.  This allows the audiophile the ability to now choose any player they wish whether it be Foobar, JRiver, XXPLayer, etc..  Of course players like HQPlayer tied to a propreitary implementation would not, unless 'opened' by it creator.  So the electrical disadvantages of USB and be leap frogged, as well as the narrow list of players and difficulty of solid implementation of DNLA/UpNP (as you yourself have so neatly spoken about).
  
 The big news with AES67 is the spurring on of new computer audio products for both the pro audio, prosumer and audiophile markets.  I'm sure we will see many AoIP inexpensive devices coming soon to the market.
  
 For me it's much about the SQ and coming next week., will be able to hear first hand how good the SQ is.  But the initial reports from a few folks with the REDNET boxes is very, very encouraging.
  
 Exciting times in computer audio!


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Well the way I understand it is that Dante and Ravenna are separate protocols - with similar TCP/IP lineage.  The agreement of AES67, which is very recent,  is to allow a commonality across these two protocols.  In essence an agreement to abide by a common set of layer 3 attributes, that will allow each others systems to be recognized over a common LAN without the need for special QoS GB swtiches, as is the case for layer 2 AVB (still awaiting the IEEE official std as far as I know).
> 
> The formal agreement by Audinate to support AES67, the creator of Dante (Focusrite is just and adopter), is only a little over a two years old.  This AES67 agreement  standard (only a little over three yrs old) guarantees interoperability across platforms.  The Media Networking Alliance was formed in October 2014 to promote adoption of AES67.  So we are talking sota, cutting edge AOIP developments.
> 
> .....




Well I've been following AOIP, the companies, and their various protocols and hardware for close to 8 years, and the coming wave is has always been just around the corner. . So forgive me if I am still a bit skeptical about this year. AES67, hailed as the "open standard" uniter, has yet produce hardware or software tools and modules that independent, non-pro-sound DAC developers can readily license and utilize. That's why you still don't see many Ethernet DACs or converters with non-DLNA AOIP.

We aren't there yet and 2016 isn't going to be the year!


----------



## ginetto61

Hi Guys !
 thanks a lot for the very interesting information and valuable advice.
 I have a very uneducated question:
  
*can we say that ethernet is intrinsically a much better way (i.e. more reliable) to tranfers digital files than usb ?*
  
 I think that ethernet is the key point.
 Probably if they have used it from the beginning to connect pc and audio peripherals we all have now much better sound ?
 Ravenna or not ?
 When i see guys here with even 6-7 devices plus cables to realize a decent usb connection between the pc and the dac my feeling is very bad about usb connection.  Very bad.
 Clearly there is some issues with usb.
 This is ridiculous.
 Hope they will fix it soon.
 From my point of view a pcie adapter and a very good ethernet to aes/ebu (or spdif)  interface could solve everything.
 I am praying for that actually.
 Thanks a lot,  gino


----------



## prot

superdad said:


> Well I've been following AOIP, the companies, and their various protocols and hardware for close to 8 years, and the coming wave is has always been just around the corner. . So forgive me if I am still a bit skeptical about this year. AES67, hailed as the "open standard" uniter, has yet produce hardware or software tools and modules that independent, non-pro-sound DAC developers can readily license and utilize. That's why you still don't see many Ethernet DACs or converters with non-DLNA AOIP.
> 
> We aren't there yet and 2016 isn't going to be the year!




So lovely to see you and rb2013 'fight.' The energy you invest in FUDing any (possible) competitors for bogus reasons is lovely Superdad .. not even sure what something like "non-dlna aoip" is supposed to mean ... that's like trashing apples for being 'non-orange apples' 

But the loveliest is that none of you 'experts' seem to know what you are talking about ... you both keep using AoIP when in fact you are taking about AoE. Here's a primer:
AoIP is an european broadcast standard used by the likes of BBC .. think 'advanced form of VoIP/telephony'.
 AoE is a much broader umbrella that includes any form of audio over ethernet .. not necessarily over-IP! It includes AoIP. It also includes Aes67/dante/ravenna. 
However!
Aes67&co are primarily designed for studios .. their main purpose is to transmit highres audio with zero package-loss and (almost) zero latency .. mainly in a LAN.
AoIP is primarily for WANs like the internet .. the main purpose is to transmit quality audio in realtime (e.g. from live events like the olympics) while dealing with the unavoidable latency of long distance networks. Losing/skipping a few audio bits is also pretty much unavoidable. 

Incidentally both AoIP and Aes67 are 'oIP' .. and one can use AoIP to listen to music at home but that would be like using a fork to eat soup .
These network-audio things are already very complex, confusing and quite new .. it'll be very helpful if you two 'experts' wont mix and Fud them further.

P.S.
 a very useful  comparison table for most AoE protocols. Some may be surprised to see that aes67 is currently limited to 24/96 for some misterious reasons.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Well I've been following AOIP, the companies, and their various protocols and hardware for close to 8 years, and the coming wave is has always been just around the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 But the infamous unicorn - has arrived!
  
 NADAC (thanks Prot for bringing this to my attention on the other thread)!
 So far the reviews of this sota DAC are outstanding.
  
 I think with the advent of your excellent Regen and then other USB gizmos, I count about a dozen so far, has really focused the spoltlight of the audiophile awareness on all the gremlins with USB UAC.
  
 And these USB gizmos do work - at least in my experience.  But also in the backdrop the other big development - MS support for Thunderbird 3 and Intel as well (and the adoption of the USB-c connector).  So another very promising digital audio path, also with great promise.  As of now not a single WIN compatible TB2 or TB3 out there - that will also change. I imagine Focusrite is already working on one.
 https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/1064429-thunderbolt-support-windows-10-a.html
  
 What's cool about AES67 and TB3 - they both can operate on a LAN.
  
 A audio sea change in the works


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> So lovely to see you and @rb2013 'fight.' The energy you invest in FUDing any (possible) competitors for bogus reasons is lovely @Superdad .. not even sure what something like "non-dlna aoip" is supposed to mean ... that's like trashing apples for being 'non-orange apples'
> 
> But the loveliest is that none of you 'experts' seem to know what you are talking about ... you both keep using AoIP when in fact you are taking about AoE. Here's a primer:
> AoIP is an european broadcast standard used by the likes of BBC .. think 'advanced form of VoIP/telephony'.
> ...


 

 I use AOIP not AoIP - the former is just audio over IP , the latter the std you mention (and is not what I posted).  I can understand your confusion. 
  
 And you are right about the current AES67 std of 96k.  Read my post again - I mention a min layer 3 interoperability std - not a sota audio std.  And why Dante and Ravenna are free to develop greater capabilities and have!  The REDNET/Dante can do 192k over IP and the Ravenna NADAC 384k and 256DSD over IP.
  
 Now Focusrite is the leader in a reasonable cost AES67 compliant AOIP solution available right this minute (in fact have one coming next week) so this is not pie in the sky vaporware. - Ravenna is coming up strong as a free open platform.  And with a very long and growing list of partners - http://www.ravenna-network.com/partners/
  
 Who cares which is used in a audiophile system - as long as they sound good - and the driver is available in Windows and it operates over a GB LAN.
  
 Now the beauty of these leading edge devices - is their easy use with most high end audio players - unlike the DNLA/UpNP fiasco.
  
 But hey the commonality of all these devices in communicating with the DAC - SPDIF! 
 Even the Merging Tech enshews USB, i2s, but does include SPDIF - interesting.


----------



## rb2013

ginetto61 said:


> Hi Guys !
> thanks a lot for the very interesting information and valuable advice.
> I have a very uneducated question:
> 
> ...


 

 Yes you are right  - LAN ethernet AOIP is inherently superior due to it's native galvanic isolation, and electrical structure (no 5VDC power running along with the data stream).  Remember USB UAC was a work around and was never even accepted by Microsoft - without support even in WIN10.  From what I have read they just did not like the violation of the original USB protocol. Why MS has chosen to ignore UAC is a mystery to me.  But they certainly embrace ethernet IP.
  
 Now there have been proprietary ethernet CAT5 solutions for Computer audio for over a decade - but not necessarily LAN compatible or IP based.  So this is really a major change in the computer audio landscape.  I have a PCIe EMU1616M that is very good and uses CAT5 - so we have come full circle.  The difference now is the holy grail of an emerging common communications std for AOIP.  This now provides the guideposts for equipment manufacturers to design around - to build a truly accepted audio standard like SPDIF and USB - so establishing AOIP as the next evolutionary step in high end computer audio.
  
 And for us audiophiles - without the need to have a shared master clock timing many devices on a LAN - even better.  As the clock can be in the interface and usually easily supplemented with a better ext word clock.


----------



## ginetto61

rb2013 said:


> Yes you are right  - LAN ethernet AOIP is inherently superior due to it's native galvanic isolation, and electrical structure (no 5VDC power running along with the data stream).
> Remember USB UAC was a work around and was never even accepted by Microsoft - without support even in WIN10.  From what I have read they just did not like the violation of the original USB protocol. Why MS has chosen to ignore UAC is a mystery to me.  But they certainly embrace ethernet IP.
> Now there have been proprietary ethernet CAT5 solutions for Computer audio for over a decade - but not necessarily LAN compatible or IP based.  So this is really a major change in the computer audio landscape.
> I have a *PCIe EMU1616M *that is very good and uses CAT5 - so we have come full circle.  The difference now is the holy grail of an emerging common communications std for AOIP.
> ...


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot again for the very valuable advice.
 So in the end we just need some good bridging units like pcie adapters and ethernet to spdif converter ?
 This way we could feed and keep our old and loving dacs with these interfaces with excellent results in terms of sound.
 I wonder if are they really so difficult to design and build.  Is this so difficult from a technical point of view ? 
 Thanks a alot again,  gino


----------



## rb2013

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and thanks a lot again for the very valuable advice.
> So in the end we just need some good bridging units like pcie adapters and ethernet to spdif converter ? are they really so difficult to design and build ?
> This way we could feed our old and loving dacs with these interfaces for excellent results.
> Is this so difficult from a technical point of view ? i do not think so.
> Thanks a alot again,  gino


 

 Don't even need the PCIe card.  The PC already has a ethernet connection right there.  Remember we are no longer worried about galvanic isolation, dirty PC ground contamination, +5VDC power running along side the data, impedance mis-match reflections, lost USB packets, packet noise, AGC PS contamination, and the list goes on...
  
 And the best news!  It's here right now!
  
 Simple chain: PC>REDNET3>DAC
  
 No need for Intona's, Regen's, Recovery's, Ipurifier2's, iUSB 3.0's, Wyrd's, expensive USB cables, Jitterbugs, Paul Pang PCIe USB cards, JCAT Cards and Cables, Sotm Cards, ICRON GB LAN USB Isolation, PS Audio LANRovers, etc...
  
 Not sure if a LPS for the PC would even matter anymore.
  
 The one add on to the RD3 might be a better ext clock - I will have an answer to that question next week.
  
 Got to love that!


----------



## ginetto61

rb2013 said:


> Don't even need the PCIe card.  The PC already has a ethernet connection right there.  Remember we are no longer worried about galvanic isolation, dirty PC ground contamination, +5VDC power running along side the data, impedance mis-match reflections, lost USB packets, packet noise, AGC PS contamination, and the list goes on...
> And the best news!  It's here right now!
> Simple chain: PC>*REDNET3*>DAC


 
  
 Hi ! and thanks again ! 
 This is impressive ... i see spdif and optical in/out.   It is a little too much for me.  I would wait for a 2 channel and simpler unit ... maybe with AES/EBU also ?
  


> No need for Intona's, Regen's, Recovery's, Ipurifier2's, iUSB 3.0's, Wyrd's, expensive USB cables, Jitterbugs, Paul Pang PCIe USB cards, JCAT Cards and Cables, Sotm Cards, and cables, etc...*Not sure if a LPS for the PC would even matter anymore.   *The one add on to the RD3 might be a better ext clock -


 
  
 i am not an expert but i do not think so.  The one in the RD3 for sure given that it sets the clock.   And i guess the one in the RD3 will be quite high quality 
  


> *I will have an answer to that question next week.*
> Got to love that!
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I will read your review with the biggest interest.  I just hope that something more basic will appear.
 If the technology is intrinsically superior this should show also with lower quality units. 
 Please keep us updated.   You are a great reference for all of us.
 Thanks a lot sincerely. 
 Kind regards,  gino


----------



## rb2013

ginetto61 said:


> Hi ! and thanks again !
> This is impressive ... i see spdif and optical in/out.   It is a little too much for me.  I would wait for a 2 channel and simpler unit ... maybe with AES/EBU also ?
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It has AES on a breakout cable.  But you are right it has many features we don't need.


----------



## ginetto61

rb2013 said:


> I had AES on a breakout cable.  But you are right it has many features we don't need.


 
  
 I asked about the AES because my last buy has been a Gustard x20 that has this input
 and i would like to stick with both (i.e. AES/EBU and Gustard) after the positive opinions i have read. 
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Now Focusrite is the leader in a reasonable cost AES67 compliant AOIP solution available right this minute (in fact have one coming next week) so this is not pie in the sky vaporware.


 
  
  
 Please reread my post.  Focusrite uses Dante exclusively, and Audinate (Dante) has still not delivered on its promise to embrace AES67.
 And this is not just a matter of semantics--we are talking about software and interoperability.  You can not use the Audinate Dante Virtual Sound card s/w with an AES67 system, nor will Merging's EAS67/Ravenna virtual drivers work with and Focusrite/Dante products.
  
 So at present, aside from being on Ethernet, these few products are not ushering in any sea change in the industry.  The are proprietary, NOT yet open.  And their clocking schemes and Ethernet switch requirements are a nightmare.  Might as well go with some other proprietary yet simpler and more elegant Ethernet audio scheme such as Roon's RAAT or Signalyst's NAA. 
  


superdad said:


> Well everyone is still waiting on Dante to fulfill their 2014 promise to support AES67, but AFAIK it still has not happened.  No AES67/Ravenna hardware at all from Dante.
> And the Focusrite RedNet boxes are also all still only Dante.  So while the $29 Dante DVS may seem like a deal (though it works through lots of IP stack layers so SQ is not assured), it is still a closed system.  Heck, the Ravenna Network site (http://www.ravenna-network.com/partners/) does not even list Dante or Focusrite as partners.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Please reread my post.  Focusrite uses Dante exclusively, and Audinate (Dante) has still not delivered on its promise to embrace AES67.
> And this is not just a matter of semantics--we are talking about software and interoperability.  You can not use the Audinate Dante Virtual Sound card s/w with an AES67 system, nor will Merging's EAS67/Ravenna virtual drivers work with and Focusrite/Dante products.
> 
> So at present, aside from being on Ethernet, these few products are not ushering in any sea change in the industry.  The are proprietary, NOT yet open.  And their clocking schemes and Ethernet switch requirements are a nightmare.  Might as well go with some other proprietary yet simpler and more elegant Ethernet audio scheme such as Roon's RAAT or Signalyst's NAA.


 

 Re-read my post.  Audinate announced not long ago AES67 adoption - patience it will come.  Did USB 1.0 give us Hi Res Audio?
  
 Anyway DANTE works great on a LAN for PC to DAC purposes - even over GB switches (see the DANTE Control software) - with latencies as low as 250us.  Their 'safe' setting is 5ms  pretty good.
  
 Who cares if Ravenna h/w doesn't work on Dante yet - why would you?  You really don't get it do you?
 Dante and Ravenna are developing past the current common AES67 std - that's a good thing.  Then AES67 can move along with them - maybe AES77.  Sorry but this will become a juggernaut in time.  For both us audiophiles and the Pro audio folks.
  
 I don't see you critize every XMOS USB DDc for not working with ANY Thesycon Win driver. 
  
 You have completely missed the point your Regen and collaboration on the DNLA/UpNP may be some what mute going forward as this new std charges forward.
  


> Might as well go with some other proprietary yet simpler and more elegant Ethernet audio scheme such as Roon's RAAT or Signalyst's NAA.


 
 Well now you're just contradicting yourself - see your numerous posts critizing DNLA/UpNP...for, guess what, not allowing the user to pick the player.
  
 And that is the very heart of the DANTE/Ravenna strength  - either of them allow a simple and cheap (non-h/w) solution to plug and play computer audio - using your favorite open player.
 You knew it before - but seemed to somehow have forgotten your previous stance - proprietary schemes like NAA and HQPlayer are dead men walking - at best a small niche.
  
 And Roon RATT is just Airplay with a pretty new face - old stuff.  Anwyay mulitchannel is dead in the audiophile community - even with the monster ad sending over the years.  I don't know one audiophile using mulichannel - other then for HT.  More USB??
  
 Anyway - more DNLA/UpNP complications???
Strange RAAT? behavior https://community.roonlabs.com/t/strange-raat-behavior/7402


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Audinate announced not long ago AES67 adoption - patience it will come.
> …..
> 
> You have completely missed the point your Regen and collaboration on the DNLA/UpNP may be some what mute going forward as this new std charges forward.
> ...


 
  
 I like you Rob, and I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat or raise any blood pressure.  But you are loosing me here.  You said:
  
*"Now Focusrite is the leader in a reasonable cost AES67 compliant AOIP solution available right this minute (in fact have one coming next week) so this is not pie in the sky vaporware."  *
  
*Yet now you say Audinate announced AES67 adoption "not long ago" (it was 2013-'14 BTW) and to be patient.  Which is it?*
  
 And sorry, but I have no idea the meaning of the sentence "_You have completely missed the point your Regen and collaboration on the DNLA/UpNP may be some what mute going forward as this new std charges forward."_
  
 And please tell me how multichannel entered the conversation.
 ---------
  
*I really think you are misinterpreting my comments and position.*  (Though I won't claim that I never contradict myself.)  
 First off, the REGEN has nothing to do with any of this, unless you making the specious argument that I am trying to defend USB so I can sell more REGENs.  Trust me, if money was my motivation I would not be spending time on forums debating the future of audio interfaces.
  
 And I don't have any idea of what you mean by "collaboration on the DLNA/UPnP".  I am not a fan of DLNA/UPnP in the least.
*But I am also clear-eyed about what is and is not happening with Ethernet audio solutions, and despite a smattering of mostly closed solutions--some of which claim to be open (looking at Merging NADAC)--we just are not there yet.*
  
 When ALC NetworX or COVELOZ start selling modules with development kits AND offer free user licensing of virtual sound card s/w for Linux/Windows/OS X, *then* we will begin to turn the corner.
  
 Funny that you are disparaging ROON, when they are singlehandedly doing more to bring consumer audio manufacturers into Ethernet--in just a year's time--than ANY of the AES67 and AVB players have in the half decade.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at the ROON partners list: https://roonlabs.com/partners.html 
  
Cheers,
--Alex C.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> I like you Rob, and I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat or raise any blood pressure.  But you are loosing me here.  You said:
> 
> *"Now Focusrite is the leader in a reasonable cost AES67 compliant AOIP solution available right this minute (in fact have one coming next week) so this is not pie in the sky vaporware."  *
> 
> ...


 
 Hi Alex,
  
 You know I like you too.  And do enjoy our conversations and debates (not arguments in a long shot), I do call things as I see them.  And I value and respect your opinion - man in 2014 it sounded like you guys were about to light the world on fire with the AOIP interface you were working on - (and I hope still are!).  No worries on raising my blood pressure - the fact I'm a fitness nut - it's way below normal.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I'm just one of those uber high energy guys - have you noticed? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But a few things you have said - I have taken at face value.  Like the incompatiblity between DANTE and Ravenna - now for the third time I will say  - they are different protocols - but they now share a common interoperability - ASE67.  Interoperability is the key word.  But they don't have to for us 2 channel audio guys - unlike the studio installs.  So I say again for us as computer audiophiles - who cares?  But I will humor you... and for the sake of the multi-device studio guys.
  
 Here is the Raveena release on 'Welcoming' DANTE to AES67:
 http://www.ravenna-network.com/2015/10/14/ravenna-welcomes-dante-to-the-aes67-standard/
  
    Oct
 2015




> RAVENNA WELCOMES DANTE TO THE AES67 STANDARD News
> With the announcement that *Audinate has now delivered their AES67-enabled firmware to their OEM partners in order to offer AES67 compatibility with their Dante-based products, the RAVENNA community welcomes them to the world of interoperability*.


 
   Dude this was a few months ago!  How do you know they this is not effective now?  Do you own a Raveena HAPI or NADAC and tried it with DANTE gear?  DANTE DVS?  But again - NADAC coes with it's own ASE67 Raveena drivers - so why use it with DANTE DVS?  But again to your point of contention here is the Raveena folks direct quote:


> Andreas Hildebrand from ALC NetworX, developers of RAVENNA, states, “*This is great news for end users, who can now interconnect audio devices using RAVENNA, Q-Lan, Livewire and finally Dante, based on the AES67 interoperability standard which we helped create 2 years ago*.”
> 
> “We always intended that many different protocols should provide AES67 compatibility in order to offer the system designer and/or end-user as wide a choice as possible,” continued Hildebrand. “*Audinate offers their paid-for solution and we offer ours freely, but users may now benefit from using both protocols - and indeed all other AES67-compatible protocols - in the same installation*.”
> 
> ...


 
  

  
 OK now to your involvement with Sonore and the Micro-Rendu - I thought this was a DNLA/UpNP device?  Am I wrong?  And one that needs USB to work with a WIN PC - no?  I thought Uptone was part of incorporating the Regen into the Micro-Rendu.  Sorry if I'm mistaken  - I will try and find your direct posts to this effect.
  
 Next on to ROON RATT - not interested in an album art driven player - it is just too cumbersome for the size of my music collection.  I do not trust 'meta data' driven players - it looks real pretty - but beyond approx 50 albums - it is cumbersome for me.  Just my Classic Rock Foobar playlist had 529 albums.  I love the ability to have these presented in an alphabetical listing and any album easily found in seconds.
  
 This for me is way more organized (if not as pretty  - but then iTunes is pretty too):


  then this:

  

 Then have to pay $500 for it (or $120/yr).  This is almost what I paid for the REDNET3! How many folks do you really think will pay $500 for a s/w player?
  
  
 I'm sure some folks will love Roon - not for me.  But to use RATT you must pay for Roon, as I understand it.  Like the HQPlayer business model - forcing you to buy NAA.  Then being stuck there.
  
 And that is the point  - not to be tied down to any one player - a complete open std.
  
 So you say: "*..despite a smattering of mostly closed solutions--some of which claim to be open (looking at Merging NADAC)--we just are not there yet." *
  
*Yet DANTE and Raveena are open - open to all ASIO compatible players - this what matters!  The exact point you made repeatedly in 2014.*
*Now you claim the the best is a closed propietary $500 player solution - with only one choice - pay $500 or $119 for the rest of your life - ROON.*
  
 Unbelievable!
  
 That is what DANTE and Ravenna is - USB without all the warts and hiccups...I can use Foobar now or another player - maybe some killer free player like Foobar down the road - FOR FREE!  On as many machines as I choose...free.  Or if someone chooses to pay for JRiver Media 21 for their WIN PC - it's $49 for a lifetime license.  Anyway the choice is the users.  That's what I call 'open'.
  
  
 Cheers!
 Mate


----------



## Superdad

Somehow I ended up replying--possibly in a more clear way than before--about the challenges in this Ethernet matter over at Rob's other thread.  Those of you interested can pick up on our recent friendly back and forth beginning with this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/2025#post_12617288


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Somehow I ended up replying--possibly in a more clear way than before--about the challenges in this Ethernet matter over at Rob's other thread.  Those of you interested can pick up on our recent friendly back and forth beginning with this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/2025#post_12617288


 

 Yes - seems that is the most popular forum.  Alex's thanks for your knowledge, experience and input - highly valued!
  
 Cheers
 Mate


----------



## mourip

I got back this reply from Focusrite....
  
  
 "Thanks for taking the time to contact Focusrite regarding the use of Dante, AES67 and Focusrite products in the audiophile market. While it is not a core market for Focusrite at present, it has been interesting to see adoption within proximate markets of products that we ultimately designed for the recording studio, broadcast and live sound markets.
  
 While I can’t comment directly on our future product roadmap, your suggestion of a single AES3 / S/PDIF box is one of interest which I will certainly research.
  
 Finally, in my capacity as Marketing Workgroup Chairman for the Media Networking Alliance (a not for profit organisation that promotes AES67 adoption), it is great to see adoption in the audiophile market of audio over IP. I’m confident that it is the future of all audio transport, and will have a part to play in domestic settings too. I firmly believe that there will be more products from various manufacturers over the coming years that will be of interest to you.
  
 Best wishes,
  
 Will
  
 Will Hoult  //  Product Manager: Professional and Commercial Audio"


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I got back this reply from Focusrite....
> 
> 
> "Thanks for taking the time to contact Focusrite regarding the use of Dante, AES67 and Focusrite products in the audiophile market. While it is not a core market for Focusrite at present, it has been interesting to see adoption within proximate markets of products that we ultimately designed for the recording studio, broadcast and live sound markets.
> ...


 

 Cool!  I hope sooner rather then later!
  
 I love that we audiophiles at the grass roots can push the market - hopefully to all our benefits.
  
 What all this is about (blogging).
 Cheers
  
 PS you might suggest a minor tweek to their AM2 - add a spdif out and increase the data rate to 192k.  Done.


----------



## rb2013

Ok just hooked up the REDNET 3 - and all I can say is...Holy Cow!! This is just unbelievable!   The sound is just at a whole other level.  Not incremental - a seachange in SQ.
   
 Warm, sweet, ease, but the detail - mama mia.  Details, detail and transparency like I have never heard before. 
  
 I'm floored - thinking this box has been out there for a couple of years.
  
 And this is cold out of the box, stock CAT5 cable, NO Mutec yet.
  
 All I can say is King USB is DEAD - long live KING AOIP!


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> Ok just hooked up the REDNET 3 - and all I can say is...Holy Cow!! This is just unbelievable!   The sound is just at a whole other level.  Not incremental - a seachange in SQ.
> 
> Warm, sweet, ease, but the detail - mama mia.  Details, detail and transparency like I have never heard before.
> 
> ...


 
  
 My only real response to this is... Yep.  
  
 I won't go back to USB after having the D16 here the past month, even though the last thing I wanted to do was spend $1500 on a connection to the DAC.


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> My only real response to this is... Yep.
> 
> I won't go back to USB after having the D16 here the past month, even though the last thing I wanted to do was spend $1500 on a connection to the DAC.


 

 I'm with you there - the $800 RD3 is sounding mighty good.  There is something different in the sound, an ease or musicality, like some kind of hidden distortion has been removed.  Very analog like - nondigital.


----------



## occamsrazor

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.


----------



## mourip

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!


----------



## occamsrazor

mourip said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
  
 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.


----------



## somestranger26

I think using a PC with ethernet input and i2s output would defeat one of the primary purposes of using audio over IP in the first place, which is to achieve galvanic isolation between the noisy computer source and the DAC.


----------



## occamsrazor

somestranger26 said:


> I think using a PC with ethernet input and i2s output would defeat one of the primary purposes of using audio over IP in the first place, which is to achieve galvanic isolation between the noisy computer source and the DAC.


 
  
 Yes that is probably true... was just trying to think of alternative Dante options.


----------



## mtoc

Any updates, OP?


----------



## motberg

occamsrazor said:


> Yes that is probably true... was just trying to think of alternative Dante options.


 
 This would be a real stretch... but maybe an UP board (can run Win10)
 http://www.up-board.org/kickstarter/up-in-partnership-with-pi-2-design/
  
 And something like IanCanada's isolation HAT (may not be compatible with UP)
 https://twitter.com/iancanadaTT
  
 can be cobbled together...


----------



## mtoc

btw, does that bkue jeans cagmt cable sound good on rednet?


----------



## mtoc

pss, OP, you've mentioned UTP sounds better than STP on the lanrover stuff (I know it ain't lanrover but i can't remember its complex-name), how about utp vs stp on rednet 3?


----------



## mhamel

mtoc said:


> pss, OP, you've mentioned UTP sounds better than STP on the lanrover stuff (I know it ain't lanrover but i can't remember its complex-name), how about utp vs stp on rednet 3?


 
  
 Use UTP. STP is not necessary. If you do use it, the shield should only be connected at one end. but it really isn't necessary. You're passing so little traffic compared to what the cable is designed to handle already. 
  
 Ethernet by nature is isolated since the data lines are transformer coupled. There is no need for additional isolation there or other boutique gizmos. While this isn't an inexpensive option, part of the beauty of it is in the simplicity. Look at the chain of gear that Bob was using and the hoops to jump through to get from point A to point B, none of which are required for this.
  
 The BJC ethernet cable is just a very well-made, tested Ethernet cable. They test each one and make sure it is in spec and constructed correctly.
  
   -Mike


----------



## jabbr

Mike

Would like to hear your view on this quote taken from the page of Acousence about their GISO LAN isolator:
"...devices which serve as a "bridge" between the analog and digital world (AD or DA converters) have always been [using] {word added by jabbr} special components which are recommended (AES) or even obligatory (EBU) in the standardisation guidelines of the professional studio industry; so-called transformers - small hardware elements, which transfer a signal in a purely inductive manner without a physical connection to the conductor - prevent or at least decrease these disruptive influences."
Full text at: http://www.artistic-fidelity.de/index.php/en/giso-isolator

Though the Rednet itself isn't attached to the analogue device itself, it is the beginning of the chain that is.
Wouldn't the quote imply there are benefits to be had by adding a GISO in front of a Rednet?

Cheers


----------



## mhamel

jabbr said:


> Mike
> 
> Would like to hear your view on this quote taken from the page of Acousence about their GISO LAN isolator:
> "...devices which serve as a "bridge" between the analog and digital world (AD or DA converters) have always been [using] {word added by jabbr} special components which are recommended (AES) or even obligatory (EBU) in the standardisation guidelines of the professional studio industry; so-called transformers - small hardware elements, which transfer a signal in a purely inductive manner without a physical connection to the conductor - prevent or at least decrease these disruptive influences."
> ...


 
  
 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.


----------



## Muziqboy

mhamel said:


> 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.


 
  
 Very good point here Mike!
 And out of curiosity's sake, I tried a bulk 3ft. Cat6 cable from FRY's and I was getting some clicks and drop-outs in the Music.
 Hooked the BJC CAT6a back and no problems whatsoever. So I will order a short 3ft CAT6a cable from BJC since I only need that much length.
 Does it matter what length I use between the PC and the RedNet 3? Is there a minimum length I should adhere to?
  
 Thanks!


----------



## mhamel

muziqboy said:


> Very good point here Mike!
> And out of curiosity's sake, I tried a bulk 3ft. Cat6 cable from FRY's and I was getting some clicks and drop-outs in the Music.
> Hooked the BJC CAT6a back and no problems whatsoever. So I will order a short 3ft CAT6a cable from BJC since I only need that much length.
> Does it matter what length I use between the PC and the RedNet 3? Is there a minimum length I should adhere to?
> ...


 
  
 No minimum length, 3 feet should be just fine.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

 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

mourip said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

 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

occamsrazor said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


 
 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

mhamel said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
  
 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

ciphercomplete said:


> 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

cursto said:


> 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

jabbr said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

 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.
> ...


 
  
 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

rb2013 said:


> 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
> 
> ...




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

jabbr said:


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


 

 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

rb2013 said:


> 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

jabbr said:


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


 
  
 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

jabbr said:


> 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.
> ...


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


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> 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.
> ...


 

 Sorry I thought you created the MQN palyer...apologies
  
 I believe you are right the Dante card has it's own processor - so it looks like the IP processing is occurring away from the PC - a good thing.  Why should DANTE not be isolated with a UTP cable?  Like all Ethernet connections are, with unshielded cables.  Are you speaking of using a STP shielded cable then the isolator?
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## rb2013

I tried this Medical grade galvanic isolator with the Startech and it actually degraded the SQ
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Baaske-medical-Ethernet-isolator-/152085000813?hash=item2368f8f26d:gmwAAOSw3mpXMOhW


----------



## rb2013

Looks like SOtM has one too.
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/SOtM-iSO-CAT6-High-End-Audio-LAN-Signal-Filter-Isolator-/252404400491?hash=item3ac479816b:g:eYgAAOSwk1JWe1T5


> Above all, the sounds from those devices such as PC or network file players are more sensitively affected by the accessories like cables directly connected to system devices. Those esteemed audiophiles using the PC based on SOtM’s tX-USBexp or SATA & FAN filter should have experienced outstanding sound performance with quite unique and different SOtM way beyond and above the conventional types of sound improvement using cables or tuning accessories.​


 
  
 I predict a iFi one before year's end


----------



## Superdad

mhamel said:


> ... 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


 
  
  
 Here hear!  Me too! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 --Alex C.


----------



## mtoc

Adding some linear PSU to the Rednet, will it sound better?


----------



## rb2013

mtoc said:


> Adding some linear PSU to the Rednet, will it sound better?


 
 That would require a major mod project.  But could be done - like on the Mutec 3+ and many there have said the result was very good.  But I won't touch mine.
  
 Hoping for some kind of a DC powered BK2 box down the road.
  
 Here is the Mutec mod:


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Here hear!  Me too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Funny after years of effort and finally achieving a level of SQ from USB digital - that equaled and even surpassed my old $30k analog rig...it gets leap frogged by this 'new' AOIP path...stunning levels of SQ.




 King USB is dead, long live King AOIP!


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Funny after years of effort and finally achieving a level of SQ from USB digital - that equaled and even surpassed my old $30k analog rig...it gets leap frogged by this 'new' AOIP path...stunning levels of SQ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I caved in today and ordered a D16. Should be here Thursday!


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I caved in today and ordered a D16. Should be here Thursday!


 

 Join the fun!
  
 Were you able to negotiate a discount?


----------



## mourip

Yes. About $100. They did not have any demos but every bit helps. I worked with a sales tech at Sweetwater.
  
 Free shipping, two year warranty, and lifetime tech support via Sweetwater. Nice guys and knowlegable...


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Yes. About $100. They did not have any demos but every bit helps. I worked with a sales tech at Sweetwater.
> 
> Free shipping, two year warranty, and lifetime tech support via Sweetwater. Nice guys and knowlegable...


 

 Yes every little bit helps.  Looking forward to your listening results


----------



## ciphercomplete

I got the D16 today sounds great.  The one hiccough I have had is the sample rate.  I have to select the sample rate to match the file sample rate via the Rednet Control app.  are you guys using the rednet control program or just the Dante Virtual Soundcard?  is there anyway for the Rednet to auto select the sample rate?


----------



## rb2013

Yes both. It look like that must be changed in Controller. Not an issue for me as Foobar/SoX resamples everything to 192k


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Yes both. It look like that must be changed in Controller. Not an issue for me as Foobar/SoX resamples everything to 192k


 

 So the Rednet can't _automatically_ accept different incoming sample rates, you need to manually set DVS and the box to a certain rate? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## mtoc

i tell you a secret, if you wanna automatically accept different incoming sample rates, well, that means the rednet, yeap, the rednet has to has a MCLK. don't complaint, man.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> So the Rednet can't _automatically_ accept different incoming sample rates, you need to manually set DVS and the box to a certain rate? Or am I misunderstanding?


 
 So far it looks like yes - no issue for me as I upsample 44k, 96k, 178k  to 192k using the excellent free SoX upsampler.  So every thing runs at 192k.  For me it's always sounded best this way.


----------



## rb2013

Now the REDNET is not the perfect implementation of AES67 AOIP - but it is here and now - not a Unicorn or Vaporware.
  
 It was designed for a different purpose - so the cost is high and the functionality is for the studio environment.  So it's not optimized for our purpose.
  
 But what is does is superb sound - a leap frog over the herculean uber USB chain I had before (and now in my office system).
  
 But it is just the first step for us Audiophiles - it's a gateway into the possibilities of AES67 AOIP.  I'm sure a unit with only 2 channels running a LP'S and maybe other tweeks will surpass it in SQ.  All these things will come with Raveena or Dante in the future.
  
 But I for one an so happy to have it.  It's been running super stable (not one unlock, freeze or crash) in my main system for over a week now.  Even in a 96 degree Seattle heatwave.
  
 Album after Album a revelation.  Even the 30-40 yr old stuff - just sounds stellar.
 Last night listening to Jerri Tull - Benefit, Stand Up, Minstrel in the Gallery.
 The results amazing.  Of particular note the sound staging - deep and wide with absolute precision imaging.  The musicality and ease just great.  A major leap over USB.
  
 There is more to come on the AOIP train.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> So far it looks like yes - no issue for me as I upsample 44k, 96k, 178k  to 192k using the excellent free SoX upsampler.  So every thing runs at 192k.  For me it's always sounded best this way.


 
  
 For me it wouldn't be a dealbreaker, though it would have been nicer if it could. Even those who like to upsample sometimes prefer power-of-2 upsampling, which wouldn't be possible, as opposed to fixed-rate upsampling.
 Wonder if this is something that's possible to add via a firmware update if there was interest.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> For me it wouldn't be a dealbreaker, though it would have been nicer if it could. Even those who like to upsample sometimes prefer power-of-2 upsampling, which wouldn't be possible, as opposed to fixed-rate upsampling.
> Wonder if this is something that's possible to add via a firmware update if there was interest.


 

 Funny SoX does that!  Power of 2 and power of 4.
  
 I bet they could update that - as an option.  For direct connections.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Funny SoX does that!  Power of 2 and power of 4.
> 
> I bet they could update that - as an option.  For direct connections.



You can set upsampling on each of the channels in the Rednet.

If you set it to 4 times, it will automatically upsample 4x, 2x or none at all. This way it will upsample to the maximum supported sample rate and within each family of rates.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> You can set upsampling on each of the channels in the Rednet.
> 
> If you set it to 4 times, it will automatically upsample 4x, 2x or none at all. This way it will upsample to the maximum supported sample rate and within each family of rates.
> 
> Cheers


 

 Thanks!
  
 Where in the Controller do you do that?


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Where in the Controller do you do that?




I just read it is a feature of the D16 and not of the Rednet3.



> RedNet D16 AES has a Sample Rate Convertor (SRC) on each input pair allowing instant operation with any AES3 source.


----------



## ciphercomplete

jabbr said:


> You can set upsampling on each of the channels in the Rednet.
> 
> If you set it to 4 times, it will automatically upsample 4x, 2x or none at all. This way it will upsample to the maximum supported sample rate and within each family of rates.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 Are you sure? Toggling the SRC option does nothing for this particular issue.  Which manual did you read that from?  There are no selectable options for 4x or 2x with SRC, its either on or off for each pair of channels.  Maybe this works if the D16 is being fed from another Rednet device.


----------



## jabbr

ciphercomplete said:


> Are you sure? Toggling the SRC option does nothing for this particular issue.  Which manual did you read that from?  There are no selectable options for 4x or 2x with SRC, its either on or off for each pair of channels.  Maybe this works if the D16 is being fed from another Rednet device.




Hmmm, was writing this from the top of my mind.
Have been viewibg a lot of Audinate videos of Focusrite and Audinate manuals recently. Maybe I have mixed up some info about how to set the SRC.
It could indeed be a toggle as you say, upsampling to the sample rate set for the device.
Would have to check when I get home.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I just read it is a feature of the D16 and not of the Rednet3.


 

 Well the RD3 has it to  - for AES input.  But not for output.
  
 So here is the screen shot of the REDNET Controller:
  
 As you can see there is no Master option for the PC (DVS) - marked 'Slave Only'  under preferred

  
 Now I bet with one of these Dante cards you would be able to set the PC as Master - $600 :
 http://www.fullcompass.com/prod/258880-Klark-Teknik-KT-DANTE64?utm_source=googleps&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=googleps&st-t=googleshopping-high_end_audio&vt-k=&vt-mt=&vt-pti=258880&gclid=Cj0KEQjwhN-6BRCJsePgxru9iIwBEiQAI8rq8-uFxPXRtTpQuzcObgDP1lqJ0704D5QAbF315GG1c30aAu1d8P8HAQ
  
 REDNET/Dante PCIe cards - they are more expensive:
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-pcie-card


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Well the RD3 has it to  - for AES input.  But not for output.
> 
> So here is the screen shot of the REDNET Controller:
> 
> ...




This is sbout the clock master for the Dante network, not the sample rate.
Different thing.

SRC in context of this Pro use is only relevant for incoming signals, as they all have to be equal when being processed. Output is just for monitoring or recording the result and that is of course equal to the project setting


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> This is sbout the clock master for the Dante network, not the sample rate.
> Different thing.
> 
> SRC in context of this Pro use is only relevant for incoming signals, as they all have to be equal when being processed. Output is just for monitoring or recording the result and that is of course equal to the project setting


 

 No but the REDNET Controller has a 'SR Follow' feature - but only for the DAW Master.
  
 With a REDNET/Dante PCIe/R card the PC could then be set as the Master and the DAW.
  
See page 17 chart on the left of the REDNET System User Guide.
 
https://us.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-3/downloads


----------



## Acrobat77

Hi guys,
  
 I've seen that in the specs of many of the Rednet devices (like the D16 AES) but not all (like the Rednet 3) there's a line with the supported sample rates like:
  
 Supported sample rates: 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 / 192 kHz (-4% / -0.1% / +0.1% / +4.167%) at 24 bit
  
 I'm curious as to what do the percentages between the brackets mean but couldn't find the answer anywhere. Does anyone know?


----------



## prot

rb2013 said:


> Funny after years of effort and finally achieving a level of SQ from USB digital - that equaled and even surpassed my old $30k analog rig...it gets leap frogged by this 'new' AOIP path...stunning levels of SQ.
> 
> King USB is dead, long live King AOIP!




Sounds like someone has finally seen the light. Considering how much flak & bull I got when I pronounced Usb dead and stinking half a year ago, guess I should be happy


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Subbing in. Got my Rednet 3 yesterday and am floored at the SQ difference between it and USB implementation. Cellos and violins have so much more details while the bow is sliding, attack and decay is on point and there's a natural warmth overall (without dulling the details) along with open-ess between instruments that did not exist before. These are through active Fostex bookshelves and a mid-fi dac, not my main critical listening setup. Can't wait to take the beast to my home setup and see how it sings.

 Audio over ethernet is the way in comparison to USB implementations even with serious clocks/chips, no doubt.


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Sounds like someone has finally seen the light. Considering how much flak & bull I got when I pronounced Usb dead and stinking half a year ago, guess I should be happy


 

 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


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Subbing in. Got my Rednet 3 yesterday and am floored at the SQ difference between it and USB implementation. Cellos and violins have so much more details while the bow is sliding, attack and decay is on point and there's a natural warmth overall (without dulling the details) along with open-ess between instruments that did not exist before. These are through active Fostex bookshelves and a mid-fi dac, not my main critical listening setup. Can't wait to take the beast to my home setup and see how it sings.
> 
> Audio over ethernet is the way in comparison to USB implementations even with serious clocks/chips, no doubt.


 

 +1 I'm completely with you.  Just a Sea Change in SQ.


----------



## rb2013

acrobat77 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I've seen that in the specs of many of the Rednet devices (like the D16 AES) but not all (like the Rednet 3) there's a line with the supported sample rates like:
> 
> ...


 

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


----------



## Luckbad

Anyone wanna sell me a Rednet 3?


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> Anyone wanna sell me a Rednet 3?


 

 Not from my cold dead grip...this one is going to the grave with me...they have music in Heaven right?


----------



## Muziqboy

luckbad said:


> Anyone wanna sell me a Rednet 3?




Better grab one now before they become backordered!

USB AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!


----------



## rb2013

On the difference between the Mutec 3+ and 3+ USB for use as a SPDIF reclocker on the REDNET:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index6.html



> 02-08-2016, 12:34 PM #146
> SwissBear
> SwissBear is offline
> Sophomore Member
> ...




http://www.mutec-net.com/artikel.php?id=1447347848


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Better grab one now before they become backordered!
> 
> USB AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!


 

 Did we start something or what?


----------



## rb2013

*julian.david*




 Freshman Member   Join Date
 Mar 2015
 Location
 Cologne, Germany
 Posts
 70
  



> Hi accwai,
> 
> Happy to help!
> 
> ...


 



> Last edited by julian.david; 02-10-2016 at 05:52 AM. Reason: Synthax error





> MUTEC GmbH
> Marketing Associate
> Email j.david@mutec-net.com
> Web www.mutec-net.com


----------



## mourip

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 started with the network cable running from my PC to a small unmanaged Cisco switch and connected the D16 to the switch also. With help from Focusrite I got music using JRMC with the bitrate set to 96K. It does indeed sound good but I am having issue with getting higher res files to play. My DAC can take up to 24/192 so I would certainly expect to be able to play anything up to that. I changed the cabling so that now I have the D16 connected directly to my PC and a cable running from the second D16 port to my switch so that I can remote the headless PC and get to the Internet and my NAS as necessary.
  
 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!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I too am having issues with getting 24/192 to feed through. My DAC takes 24/192 and when I try to pipe it through, nada. 24/96khz works great though. I will try going with 32-bit mode on the asio DVS mode and see if that works.


----------



## mtoc

mourip, would you minding trying use the Mutec USB as a spdif reclocker? We'd like to hear the result.


----------



## Muziqboy

rb2013 said:


> Did we start something or what?




Oh you know it brother!

Converts are starting to pile up!

Maybe we should get a cut from Focusrite's increasing sales. lol


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice!  Yes Sweetwater is excellent - most of these Pro Audio dealers have highly trained staff (at least for Studio issues) - and boy they need to - imagine a studio with 5 or 6 various REDNETs, a master clock, a few DAW running (just look at the configs in the REDNET manual).  Fortunately for us many can just do a direct connection.
  
 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.
  
 Sounds like you're hearing what we are - clear refined sound.

 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I too am having issues with getting 24/192 to feed through. My DAC takes 24/192 and when I try to pipe it through, nada. 24/96khz works great though. I will try going with 32-bit mode on the asio DVS mode and see if that works.


 

 Set the the SR to 192k in the REDNET Controller - for the PC under 'device config'.  It must match the same under the REDNET 3/16 'device config'
  
 To get to the DANTE Controller window - right click anywhere on the REDNET face in Controller.


----------



## ccschua

mourip said:


> 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 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

rb2013 said:


> 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

prot said:


> 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

rb2013 said:


> 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

rb2013 said:


> 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

ccschua said:


> 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

prot said:


> Not the flowers kind but many thx nevertheless
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 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

occamsrazor said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


 

 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

acrobat77 said:


> 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

mourip said:


> 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 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

rb2013 said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 
  
 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

occamsrazor said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 

 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

rb2013 said:


> 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

occamsrazor said:


> 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.


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> 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.


 

 +1
  
 The train will never stop...just a better ride down the line.  Been at this for over 10 yrs starting with a RME FF800 and now look at where we are...so as I have said in the past, just because something comes out better - doesn't magically make what you have sound worse.
  
 Chase it - stop for awhile enjoy the music - stay there or continue on.  What I love is how each of the digital source improvements breathes new life into old recordings.  Kinda floored at how good some of this 30-40 yr old stuff sounds now.  So get to revisit a very long list of favorites - and discover something new in them.  And didn't have to spend the price of a new car to get it either.
  
 Great time to be an audiophile!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I just wonder if these recordings with this aoip is how the engineers hear it behind the boards..only to hear outside of the studio with up to half the detail and expressions lost in transmission. The details that make and separate good music to brilliant and breath taking.


----------



## Muziqboy

Has got to be! Hearing the music played out of these RedNet boxes to me anyway, sounds very true to the source.
 Makes you really think that this is what the mastering engineers are hearing being captured by those microphones in the recording studio.
 Pure and Unadulterated!


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> 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.


 
  
 I got it working at 192K. For me the key was to drop the latency setting in the Dante Virtual Sound Card to 4ms. Now in JRMC I set all of the various bit rates to 192K and we have gold.
  
 Speaking of gold....
  
 OMG! This is a very big step up from my USB based setup with a REGEN powered by LPS feeding my Mutec USB. I will not belabor all of the usual subjective audiophile terms but this is better in basically every way.
  
 BTW. In my troubleshooting I spoke with Focusrite tech support and they confirmed that their PCIe card can act as a Master.
  
 Next I will try re-clocking with my Mutec USB after the D16 however part of my game plan was to sell the Mutec if this worked out. Having said that I now want to add a REDNet device to my headphone system.
  
 Thanks to all of those who went boldly where no one had gone before!


----------



## mourip

muziqboy said:


> Has got to be! Hearing the music played out of these RedNet boxes to me anyway, sounds very true to the source.
> Makes you really think that this is what the mastering engineers are hearing being captured by those microphones in the recording studio.
> Pure and Unadulterated!


 
 I started listening to CDs in about 1988. I thought they were wretched, bright and fake sounding. As it turns out the medium was not the problem, just immature playback devices and a lack of understanding of how to uncover the gold that was there all along...
  
 I can't wait for an audiophile DAC company to pick up on this. Imagine a one box solution with AES67 input
  
 Schiit. Are you listening?


----------



## Muziqboy

mourip said:


> I got it working at 192K. For me the key was to drop the latency setting in the Dante Virtual Sound Card to 4ms. Now in JRMC I set all of the various bit rates to 192K and we have gold.
> 
> Speaking of gold....
> 
> ...


 
  
 Congratulations!!!
  
 The RedNet club is growing by the minute!
  
 USB AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!


----------



## somestranger26

Speaking of this NADAC, I found a review of it and the author claims that a $500 ethernet cable made a huge difference in the sound. Didn't you say there was no difference with the Rednet 3? I wonder if there's some difference in the Dante implementation vs Ravenna, or if the reviewer is just full of it. 
 http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/


----------



## mhamel

somestranger26 said:


> Speaking of this NADAC, I found a review of it and the author claims that a $500 ethernet cable made a huge difference in the sound. Didn't you say there was no difference with the Rednet 3? I wonder if there's some difference in the Dante implementation vs Ravenna, or if the reviewer is just full of it.
> http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/


 
  
 I'll just leave this here:  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/340-audiophile-ethernet-cable-gets-a-marginal-pass-on-the-test-bench/
  
 By all means, spend your money where and how you will, but without opening a cable debate, I would suggest that there may be better/more beneficial places to spend it than a $500 ethernet cable vs what you can get from BJC for less than 1/10th the price.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

somestranger26 said:


> Speaking of this NADAC, I found a review of it and the author claims that a $500 ethernet cable made a huge difference in the sound. Didn't you say there was no difference with the Rednet 3? I wonder if there's some difference in the Dante implementation vs Ravenna, or if the reviewer is just full of it.
> http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/


 

 Snake oil man... ethernet cable. I got em in blue, yellow, white, and gray. What you want? How many?


----------



## Muziqboy

somestranger26 said:


> Speaking of this NADAC, I found a review of it and the author claims that a $500 ethernet cable made a huge difference in the sound. Didn't you say there was no difference with the Rednet 3? I wonder if there's some difference in the Dante implementation vs Ravenna, or if *the reviewer is just full of it.*
> http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/


 
  
 That's what I think!


----------



## prot

B





occamsrazor said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



Both the necessary sw and hw will come. When, it's anyone's guess. Could be tomorrow, could be 2023... my bet would be for this year or next. 
And if Dante keeps those high lic costs they'll fell off the boat at some point. Designing & implementing such an audio network protocol is no rocket science .. and there are already tens of them (see wiki links above). The question now is which one will prevail and get enough momentum. The pole-position belongs to ravenna now but things can easily change overnite. 
Good times I would say. 

rb2013
The raspi-inside-dac project is still on and prolly the best eth2iis option for now (at the very least it is the cheapest by a wiiide margin and most fun). Abartels ran into some trouble with the iis boards and I'm like always too busy for my own good. It'll happen at some point .. at ~€75 for rpi & iis board, it'll be a pitty not to try.


----------



## Danutz

Hi,
  
 seen already?
  
 https://www.studiospares.com//Studio-Gear/Brands/Studiospares/Focusrite-Rednet-A8R-8-Channel-Analogue-ADDA_392790.htm


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I just wonder if these recordings with this aoip is how the engineers hear it behind the boards..only to hear outside of the studio with up to half the detail and expressions lost in transmission. The details that make and separate good music to brilliant and breath taking.


 
 I bet you're right and all those Nyquist and Shannon papers on information theory and what encoding was needed to capture the sound.  From an old grizzled vinyl guy - I'm completely sold.  This last year has really been enlightening,
  


muziqboy said:


> Has got to be! Hearing the music played out of these RedNet boxes to me anyway, sounds very true to the source.
> Makes you really think that this is what the mastering engineers are hearing being captured by those microphones in the recording studio.
> Pure and Unadulterated!


 
 Is this the final step?  I don't think so - more and even better to come.
  


mourip said:


> I got it working at 192K. For me the key was to drop the latency setting in the Dante Virtual Sound Card to 4ms. Now in JRMC I set all of the various bit rates to 192K and we have gold.
> 
> Speaking of gold....
> 
> ...


 
 So you like it?  Kidding - great report!  4ms is the key.  Yes the SQ is very good - really a major step up!


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Speaking of this NADAC, I found a review of it and the author claims that a $500 ethernet cable made a huge difference in the sound. Didn't you say there was no difference with the Rednet 3? I wonder if there's some difference in the Dante implementation vs Ravenna, or if the reviewer is just full of it.
> http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/


 

 Yes I read that - and I believe the cable was like $1500.
  
 No difference between the $29 BJC CAT6 and the Red REDNET.
  
 Not saying another cable wouldn't sound better.

 Read this!
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/sotm2/1.html
  
 Srajan running a Merging Tech Ravenna Hapi!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Well..looks like I can't get my 'meet computer' to supply 192khz to the R3. I've tried all the settings including different latency and running 32bit; will probably wait until Monday to get in touch with Focusrite to see what other things I may be able to try (the Rednet guys leave at 5PM mon-fri). I turned off anti-viruses including windows defender from the registry, turned off unused devices in device manager and even put priority to dante software/processes as well as Foobar/asio. I can only make the music run 192khz briefly until it has breaks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 No biggie really as over 98% of my library are in redbook or 24/96 (good thing I didn't splurge on those HDtracks 192s lol).

 Here are some settings I have going with the DVS and Dante Controller: (click to enlarge)

 Notice ^^ that the latency is good when piping 24/96khz.
  

 Soon as you switch everything over to 24/192khz (including foobar) latency goes red ^^
 Also notice the red latency status under network status on the dante controller page.
  

 I've got the R3 set to 150usec which is the lowest latency allowed. Tried everything up to 2msec to no joy.


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> I'll just leave this here:  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/340-audiophile-ethernet-cable-gets-a-marginal-pass-on-the-test-bench/
> 
> By all means, spend your money where and how you will, but without opening a cable debate, I would suggest that there may be better/more beneficial places to spend it than a $500 ethernet cable vs what you can get from BJC for less than 1/10th the price.


 

 In the 6Moons review Srajan said there was a small improvement - same for the Ethernet noise filter - but even he implied not worth the money.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Snake oil man... ethernet cable. I got em in blue, yellow, white, and gray. What you want? How many?


 

 But do they have big honking metal rj45 connectors?  Huh?  Mine are bigger and shinyer then yours!
  
 http://www.musicdirect.com/p-58154-audioquest-rje-diamond-ethernet-cable.aspx?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=91894008788&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyum6BRDQ-9jU4PSVxf8BEiQAu1AH


----------



## gefski

Hey guys, I went on Audinate site to buy DVS at sale price for OS X 10.11. Before I check out it says "...requires that at least one hardware-based Dante-enabled device OR a copy of Dante Via software be on the network for clocking". I don't have a Rednet yet, and don't know what they mean by Dante Via. Does this mean I can't buy it in advance?

Thanks.


----------



## Muziqboy

If you buy a RedNet 3 or D16, it comes with a redeemable token you can use to acquire a license for DVS. I think you can download a trial version of the DVS though which costs nothing.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Well..looks like I can't get my 'meet computer' to supply 192khz to the R3. I've tried all the settings including different latency and running 32bit; will probably wait until Monday to get in touch with Focusrite to see what other things I may be able to try (the Rednet guys leave at 5PM mon-fri). I turned off anti-viruses including windows defender from the registry, turned off unused devices in device manager and even put priority to dante software/processes as well as Foobar/asio. I can only make the music run 192khz briefly until it has breaks.  No biggie really as over 98% of my library are in redbook or 24/96 (good thing I didn't splurge on those HDtracks 192s lol).
> 
> 
> Here are some settings I have going with the DVS and Dante Controller: (click to enlarge)
> ...


In DVS increase the buffer to 1024, and drop the ASIO latency to 1 ms, it's under 'Options'. It could because it's a Dell, the worst PC's made. Bought a new iCore 7 Dell laptop, it's the biggest pig I've ever owned.

You should be getting 20Mbps and you're only getting 10. What processor? Are you using a LAN switch? The Red REDNET cable? Maybe a $20 NIC dual port might be worth it.
Are you using WIN10? Foobar SoX to upsample to 192k?


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> Well..looks like I can't get my 'meet computer' to supply 192khz to the R3. I've tried all the settings including different latency and running 32bit; will probably wait until Monday to get in touch with Focusrite to see what other things I may be able to try (the Rednet guys leave at 5PM mon-fri). I turned off anti-viruses including windows defender from the registry, turned off unused devices in device manager and even put priority to dante software/processes as well as Foobar/asio. I can only make the music run 192khz briefly until it has breaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Do you have your PC connected directly to the RN3 or through a switch? When I called Focusrite to work out my similar issue they said that I might need a managed switch where I could tweak "quality of service" settings. Instead since my D16 has two ethernet ports I made my connection direct to the PC with one port, lowered my latency setting in the DVS config and got 192 working. I used the other port to connect to my LAN switch since I run my PC headless and use RDP and JRMC Remote. I also set the bit depth in DVS to 32 but that was not what got me to 192k. 
  
 Keep trying. It is worth it. You are almost there...
  
 PS. The Sweetwater REDNet specialist told me that some folks have issue getting to 192K using the DVS but that the REDNet PCIe card has no issues. Of course it costs ~$1000!


----------



## jabbr

OK, I put in the order for the Rednet D16 AES. Managed to get another 13% off the price.
 It is not in stock though so will have to wait and see how fast it can be delivered.
  
 Let the game begin!
  
 Cheers


----------



## Calipso

I suggest to try a Oyaide IS-707 Ethernet Cable . for the price is very good . 

I use it between nas- switch - computer


----------



## rb2013

calipso said:


> I suggest to try a Oyaide IS-707 Ethernet Cable . for the price is very good .
> 
> I use it between nas- switch - computer


 
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Official-Oyaide-10G-BASE-T-support-STP-Ethernet-cable-IS-707RJ-2-4-From-Japan-/112018948114?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368
  
 STP cable will void the galvanic isolation without modification.
  
  
 JCAT offered to let me try one of these for a free loaner - also a shielded cable:
JCAT Reference LAN Cable http://jplay.eu/jcat/


----------



## Muziqboy

jabbr said:


> OK, I put in the order for the Rednet D16 AES. Managed to get another 13% off the price.
> It is not in stock though so will have to wait and see how fast it can be delivered.
> 
> Let the game begin!
> ...


 
  
 Congratulations!
  
 Yes, folks are starting to see the light!
 The Ethernet light!


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Official-Oyaide-10G-BASE-T-support-STP-Ethernet-cable-IS-707RJ-2-4-From-Japan-/112018948114?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368
> 
> STP cable will void the galvanic isolation without modification.




An easy way to 'break' the STP shielding


----------



## prot

rb2013 said:


> But do they have big honking metal rj45 connectors?  Huh?  Mine are bigger and shinyer then yours!
> 
> http://www.musicdirect.com/p-58154-audioquest-rje-diamond-ethernet-cable.aspx?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=91894008788&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyum6BRDQ-9jU4PSVxf8BEiQAu1AH




Looks like they are using this http://www.telegaertner.com/en/info/highlights/mfp8/
~$15 a piece on ebay. Solder free. 

And here's another beefy one http://m.ebay.com/itm/Siemens-simatic-NET-RJ45-industrial-ethernet-connector-metal-6GK1901-1BB10-2AA0-/251782230974


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> An easy way to 'break' the STP shielding


How much?


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Looks like they are using this http://www.telegaertner.com/en/info/highlights/mfp8/
> ~$15 a piece on ebay. Solder free.
> 
> And here's another beefy one http://m.ebay.com/itm/Siemens-simatic-NET-RJ45-industrial-ethernet-connector-metal-6GK1901-1BB10-2AA0-/251782230974


I was just joking! This isn't a NASA project...kinda over kill...no?


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> How much?




50 cents?
This is just a UTP cat connector to connect two cat cables. If you use the UTP connector on STP cables (or STP and short 6" UTP), the shields won't be connected, only the data lines will be.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> 50 cents?
> This is just a UTP cat connector to connect two cat cables. If you use the UTP connector on STP cables (or STP and short 6" UTP), the shields won't be connected, only the data lines will be.
> 
> Cheers


Thanks but since you have UTP in the chain. Does make any SQ inprovement?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I have a bunch of unshielded cables in yellow for that good isolation. I can mail em to whoever wants em.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> In DVS increase the buffer to 1024, and drop the ASIO latency to 1 ms, it's under 'Options'. It could because it's a Dell, the worst PC's made. Bought a new iCore 7 Dell laptop, it's the biggest pig I've ever owned.
> 
> You should be getting 20Mbps and you're only getting 10. What processor? Are you using a LAN switch? The Red REDNET cable? Maybe a $20 NIC dual port might be worth it.
> Are you using WIN10? Foobar SoX to upsample to 192k?


 
  


mourip said:


> Do you have your PC connected directly to the RN3 or through a switch? When I called Focusrite to work out my similar issue they said that I might need a managed switch where I could tweak "quality of service" settings. Instead since my D16 has two ethernet ports I made my connection direct to the PC with one port, lowered my latency setting in the DVS config and got 192 working. I used the other port to connect to my LAN switch since I run my PC headless and use RDP and JRMC Remote. I also set the bit depth in DVS to 32 but that was not what got me to 192k.
> 
> Keep trying. It is worth it. You are almost there...
> 
> PS. The Sweetwater REDNet specialist told me that some folks have issue getting to 192K using the DVS but that the REDNet PCIe card has no issues. Of course it costs ~$1000!


 


 Thanks for the suggestions, I will try these and report. The Dell i7 laptop was donated to me with a bad hard drive which I replaced, the W7 (now W10) install is fresh and has 0 bloatware but it could be that it's a 6yo laptop with a 1.7ghz i7-740qm. The 20mbps is probably the issue I'll need to fix, it is a gigabit lan too.. maybe I have bad drivers or some odd setting somewhere.

 No switches, just a direct connection from laptop to the R3 via red cable supplied. I have a 10/100 switch laying around but I don't think a 100/1000 is available for me to test...PCIe card won't work as I'm on a laptop --


----------



## ccschua

Consider the startech.
  
  
 https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-Gigabit-Ethernet-Network-USB21000S2/dp/B007U5MGDC/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1465687322&sr=1-2&keywords=STARTECH+USB+2.0+GIGABIT
  
 gigabit on usb 2.0 means you cant get full duplex. i only realiase an intel server board NIC with dual requires PCIe 4x slot !


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

ccschua said:


> Consider the startech.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-Gigabit-Ethernet-Network-USB21000S2/dp/B007U5MGDC/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1465687322&sr=1-2&keywords=STARTECH+USB+2.0+GIGABIT
> ...


 

 But USB...?


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Thanks for the suggestions, I will try these and report. The Dell i7 laptop was donated to me with a bad hard drive which I replaced, the W7 (now W10) install is fresh and has 0 bloatware but it could be that it's a 6yo laptop with a 1.7ghz i7-740qm. The 20mbps is probably the issue I'll need to fix, it is a gigabit lan too.. maybe I have bad drivers or some odd setting somewhere.
> 
> 
> No switches, just a direct connection from laptop to the R3 via red cable supplied. I have a 10/100 switch laying around but I don't think a 100/1000 is available for me to test...PCIe card won't work as I'm on a laptop --


I see well hopefully Focusrite can square away what's wrong.
You did try the larger buffer setting?

BTW How are the KEF's sounding?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> I see well hopefully Focusrite can square away what's wrong.
> You did try the larger buffer setting?
> 
> BTW How are the KEF's sounding?


 
 I'm sure they'll have some kind of answer on Monday.

 Man, the KEFs are waiting in my back room. I'm expecting an amp to come in sometime next week or early the week after -- can't wait!


----------



## Muziqboy

soundsgoodtome said:


> Thanks for the suggestions, I will try these and report. The Dell i7 laptop was donated to me with a bad hard drive which I replaced, the W7 (now W10) install is fresh and has 0 bloatware but it could be that it's a 6yo laptop with a *1.7ghz i7-740qm*. The 20mbps is probably the issue I'll need to fix, it is a gigabit lan too.. maybe I have bad drivers or some odd setting somewhere.
> 
> No switches, just a direct connection from laptop to the R3 via red cable supplied. I have a 10/100 switch laying around but I don't think a 100/1000 is available for me to test...PCIe card won't work as I'm on a laptop --


 
  
 I'm just guessing here, maybe the processor don't have enough horsepower to stream 192khz. Might need something like 2ghz or more.
 Kinda like when trying to play 1080p videos, if the processor is less than 2ghz, it gets choppy playback.
  
 Anyway, just my 2c.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

You may be right. What I should've done was use the trial first on this Dell.. so not to waste the dante license. I may use the trial for two other computers that has a lot more processing power than my meet beater laptop. It's probably time it retires.

I did get it to tx 20mbps by changing some network settings but still no dice. I should probably get another dac and make sure it's not the dac having issues but doubt it since there are red latency labels on the dante control panel (choppy cutting off music at 192khz/24 or 32)





muziqboy said:


> I'm just guessing here, maybe the processor don't have enough horsepower to stream 192khz. Might need something like 2ghz or more.
> Kinda like when trying to play 1080p videos, if the processor is less than 2ghz, it gets choppy playback.
> 
> Anyway, just my 2c.


----------



## Muziqboy

soundsgoodtome said:


> You may be right. What I should've done was use the trial first on this Dell.. so not to waste the dante license. I may use the trial for two other computers that has a lot more processing power than my meet beater laptop. It's probably time it retires.
> 
> I did get it to tx 20mbps by changing some network settings but still no dice. I should probably get another dac and make sure it's not the dac having issues but doubt it since there are red latency labels on the dante control panel (choppy cutting off music at 192khz/24 or 32)


 
  
 You might be able to transfer the DVS license to the more powerful computers.
 I suggest just go and give it a try.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Thanks but since you have UTP in the chain. Does make any SQ inprovement?


 
  
 You said: "STP cable will void the galvanic isolation without modification."
  
 So my easy modification is: Put in a UTP cat connector, than you won't have the galvanic issue anymore, without having to remove shields from connectors and you can still use STP-cables if you need/want them.
 Using STP-cables all round also requires a decent grounding somewhere and how many people do that?
  
 cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> You said: "STP cable will void the galvanic isolation without modification."
> 
> So my easy modification is: Put in a UTP cat connector, than you won't have the galvanic issue anymore, without having to remove shields from connectors and you can still use STP-cables if you need/want them.
> Using STP-cables all round also requires a decent grounding somewhere and how many people do that?
> ...


Well that is a great suggestion. Wonder if any SQ improvements with these fancy cables.


----------



## prot

Probab





rb2013 said:


> I was just joking! This isn't a NASA project...kinda over kill...no?



Probably overkill yes. But audiophile and overkill are quite the synonyms 

Anyway, just wanted to point out that noone needs to pay the audiophile-tax for ethernet cables. Two of those beefy $15 connectors and a few meters of Belden Cat7 cable and you have your overkill/audiophile network cable for ~$50. And since the connectors are solder-free, you'll be ready to go in 15mins


----------



## sbgk

prot said:


> Probab
> Probably overkill yes. But audiophile and overkill are quite the synonyms
> 
> 
> ...


 
 audiophiles shouldn't use connectors, everything should be soldered.


----------



## prot

Looks like ethernet2iis boards do exist already. But only for the AVB protocol which is a bit of a pain: it's an underIP spec and a special router is needed. 
Just in case anyone feels truly adventurous. 
Eth2iis Boards
http://www.dsp4you.com/products/avb-oem-series/avb-dg
https://www.xmos.com/support/boards?product=14769
Avb switches
http://www.dsp4you.com/products/avb-oem-series/avb-sw
http://motu.com/products/avb/avb-switch


----------



## prot

sbgk said:


> audiophiles shouldn't use connectors, everything should be soldered.




Noone stops you from soldering .. but soldering Ethernet cables is not the easiest job. 
And if you wanna play the tough-audiophile card, do it right: everything should be thermocompression bonded


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> I may use the trial for two other computers that has a lot more processing power than my meet beater laptop. It's probably time it retires.


 
  
 FYI. You can move a registered DVS license by choosing one of the menu choices to unregister it...


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Excellent, I will do this





mourip said:


> FYI. You can move a registered DVS license by choosing one of the menu choices to unregister it...


----------



## mourip

I started a thread over on The Computer Audiophile just for REDNet. It had been buried in other threads and not receiving the recognition it definitely deserves.
  
 I am hoping to gather some input and enthusiasm there and that others will be able to share this wonderful discovery.
  
 Feel free to jump in and prime the pump!
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/#post551897


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I started a thread over on The Computer Audiophile just for REDNet. It had been buried in other threads and not receiving the recognition it definitely deserves.
> 
> I am hoping to gather some input and enthusiasm there and that others will be able to share this wonderful discovery.
> 
> ...


Thanks for doing that, Mike has tried to light the fire there to no avail.

I pretty surprised a website dedicated to computer audio excellence, is a pretty narrow place.

There was some great discussions there a few years ago ( I posted here some of the 'best of'), but that just died out!?

With all the attention paid to extreme PC construction(C.A.P.S), they're fixation now on the microrendu,?Roon, and DNLA/UpNP, they're missing out on this amazing discovery.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

Listening to some Rod Stewart right now, 'Gasoline Alley' being totally blown away at the 'new' AOIP presentation.

Just one word Presence!

Have a Mutec 3+ USB coming soon...to use as a spdif reclocker.

Cheers!


----------



## Muziqboy

Well I do believe Head-Fi is where it's at.
  
 This is the place were the cool and pioneering souls hang out!
  
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Well I do believe Head-Fi is where it's at.
> 
> This is the place were the cool and pioneering souls hang out!
> 
> ...


 

 +1


----------



## drez

Bleh I was gong to lay out my developing thoughts on AES63.  I doubt this will be a *replacement* for USB.  
  
 First we should consider why we are using USB now:

It works without drivers on MAC and Linux.
It is universal.  It will work with tablets, smartphones, desktops, Windows, Mac, Linux, streaming devices.
It works adequately for current music formats.
No extra hardware is required.
There are no issues with multiple protocols.
There are numerous hardware options.
The technology is well understood.
There is little cost associated with implementing an USB input.
  
 AES63:

Needs drivers?
Works on Mac or Windows.  
No Linux
Requires (Gigabit) Ethernet
Threefold improvement in data throughput
Does it really have lower latency than USB?  How about when going through Ethernet switch?
Limited receiver hardware options.
New technology,  Not well understood by DAC designers (outside of pro audio)
Designed for specific needs of pro audio production, not consumer Hi Fi
Likely costly to develop, and uncertain future.
  
 The two technologies could not be more different.  If a technology is to replace USB, I would expect it would at least meet the same criteria at minimum on a functional level.  As a minimum - plug & play, universal compatibility, a single universal royalty free protocol, and low cost.  I would expect USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt would be more likely however it remains to be seen if there is an actual advantage to using that connection.  If noise is a concern, using a connection with 4 x 10Gb/s channels and one lower speed legacy pair for USB2 (probably 480 Gb/s).  The cables would be a mess - so many differential pairs - imagine the cost of a high end USB C cable!
  
  
 That really is the problem.  Neither AES63 nor USB3.1/Thunderbolt 3 appear ideal replacements for USB 2.0.  They both offer some advantages on paper, but disadvantages in practice.
  
 My bet for USB replacement - either some driverless universal network input (this would appeal to the easy use and possibly threefold improvement in throughput capacity) or else just simple, minimalist FPGA based SD card reader.


----------



## JayNYC

Greetings all.  Has anyone seen this RJ45-->AES converter from Attero Tech?
http://www.atterotech.com/products/dante-aes-o/
  
 It has an msrp of $600 in the US
http://www.fullcompass.com/prod/287530-Attero-Tech-unDAES-O
  
 1.  Would this work in place of a Focusrite Rednet device, ie: would this make a good AES transport to feed a DAC?
  
 2.  Would the quality of the AES output be better/worse than a Focusrite Rednet device?
  
 3.  Would this device be a "sample rate slave" - meaning that if the ASIO Player via Dante VirtualSoundcard is sending 96 this unit will pass 96, and if the next track the ASIO Player via DVS sends 44.1, this unit would pass 44.1...  (no sample rate conversion)


----------



## rb2013

drez said:


> Bleh I was gong to lay out my developing thoughts on AES63.  I doubt this will be a *replacement* for USB.
> 
> First we should consider why we are using USB now:
> 
> ...


 

 Well USB will e around at the low end of audio and for mouses and keyboards - as it was designed.
  
 But for high end audio - it's game over for USB.  Don't know how much of this thread you have read or followed.  But I have pushed USB just about as far as it can go - this was my final USB data chain (which beat the famed Mutec MC-3+ USB by a good measure):
  
PC>PPA V2 USB card (TeraDak X1 - Nichicon HW caps)>Forza Twin Copper Split USB cable>iPurifier2>Startech LEX>BJC CAT6 UTP 550Mhz>Startech REX (with one Jitterbug - Breeze 24VDC LPS+DC iPurifer)>LH Labs 2G split USB cable (data only leg)>W4S Recovery(TeraDak LPS DC-30W+Cerious Graphene PC+ DC iPurifier)>Curious 200mm USB Link>F-1>AS Statement Silver SPDIF>APL DAC
  
Each portion was carefully and painstakingly used for maximum SQ - with uncountable changes/variations and trial and error.
  
This simple chain: PC>REDNET 3>DAC  so handily blew it away - it laughable.  I mean a total sea change - just in another league.  USB is a gonner - once folks taste what can be had for computer audio at reasonable cost.  As for Linux - niche market for high end audio (mostly DIYers).  This is not the vaporware thing you mention - but here and now reality.  Order today listen by Friday - solution.
  
I have had a little experience with USB DDCs  - and this is my current rankings:
  
Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
 
Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
 
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ (SPDIF reclocker)                                                         235
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                               220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB               170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                        155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                   145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                               135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                   135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                      130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                    125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                          110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                   109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                      108
Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                              100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                                 95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                    92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                             85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                          81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                    76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                   72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                      65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                      65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                              60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                         50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                         40
 
Note the two major leaps - one by adding the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB Extender into the chain.  Then the bigger leap away from USB completely to the REDNET3 Dante AES67 AOIP.  The Mutec 3+ did not help as an ext Word Clock to the RD3 - but after the RD3 as a SPDIF reclocker - excellent.
 
Now is this the end game for computer audio?  Of course not, just a major revolutionary step forward.  I'm sure with enhancements and improvements and cost reduction in the future...


----------



## rb2013

jaynyc said:


> Greetings all.  Has anyone seen this RJ45-->AES converter from Attero Tech?
> http://www.atterotech.com/products/dante-aes-o/
> 
> It has an msrp of $600 in the US
> ...


 

 Yes it's based on the Andiante Ultimo Dante chip set - and limited to 96k.  The REDNET 3 is based on the Dante Brooklyn I card and can do 192k - but more importantly have excellent clocks and uses the JetPLL jitter reduction scheme.  The REDNET 16d uses the Dante Brooklyn II card and does 178k as well as 192k and has the excellent clocks and JetPLL as well.
  
 The RN3 and 16d both can do AES.  And it seems for a negotiated price of $900 for the RN3  - worth the $300 difference.


----------



## JayNYC

rb2013 said:


> Yes it's based on the Andiante Ultimo Dante chip set - and limited to 96k.  The REDNET 3 is based on the Dante Brooklyn I card and can do 192k - but more importantly have excellent clocks and uses the JetPLL jitter reduction scheme.  The REDNET 16d uses the Dante Brooklyn II card and does 178k as well as 192k and has the excellent clocks and JetPLL as well.
> 
> The RN3 and 16d both can do AES.  And it seems for a negotiated price of $900 for the RN3  - worth the $300 difference.


 
  
@rb2013
 thanks for your reply.  a few follow on questions:
 For purpose of this sub-discussion about the Attero-Tech, let's assume that
 --176/192 is not critical
 --88.2/96 is sufficient
 --upsampling (sample rate conversion) is not desired
  
 1.  Can the Attero-Tech be a pure slave to whatever sample rate the ASIO player via DVS broadcasts? 
 What about both Focusrite devices in comparison?
  
 In other words, can I have Foobar just play bitperfect to ASIO DVS, one track 44.1 then the next one 96 then the next one 48 and the Attero-Tech will "just work" -- or would I need to change Dante control panel sample rates for each song?
  
 2.  Am very familiar with JetPll from TC-- are you suggesting the AES output will be lower jitter from the Focusrite devices vs. the Attero-Tech ?
  
 3.  I did not know about the Andiante Ultimo chipset---   interesting
  
 4.  can you clarify your last comment about RN3 vs. D16AES vs. D16R, which do you believe is superior as an AES transport feeding a DAC?
  
 thanks
  
 --jay


----------



## rb2013

jaynyc said:


> @rb2013
> thanks for your reply.  a few follow on questions:
> For purpose of this sub-discussion about the Attero-Tech, let's assume that
> --176/192 is not critical
> ...


 

 Sure:
 1) The RN3 can act as slave - but only with a RN PCIe Dante card in the PC.  other wise it is master (as you would expect with it's excellent clocks - with DVS what would you clock to?)
 Not sure on the AT
  
 2)Yes - not just that but read about the Dante Ultimo chip vs discrete Brooklyn - apples and oranges.  Then FR takes it one step further with JetPLL jitter reduction.  I tried the excellent Mutec MC-3+ Smart Clock USB  (with it's excellent 1G clock) as a word clk in on the RN3 and it made the sound WORSE!  The Mutec did work great as a spdif reclocker though.
  
 3)Study more about it.   Not sure of the SQ  - but if they get 2 channel up to 192k could be the low cost killer solution.  I highly doubt better then Brooklyn though.
  
 4)They should all be equal - unless you need 178k.  Only the latter two can do that.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## drez

rb2013 said:


> Well USB will e around at the low end of audio and for mouses and keyboards - as it was designed.
> 
> But for high end audio - it's game over for USB.  Don't know how much of this thread you have read or followed.  But I have pushed USB just about as far as it can go - this was my final USB data chain (which beat the famed Mutec MC-3+ USB by a good measure):
> 
> ...


 
  
 "Well USB will e around at the low end of audio and for mouses and keyboards - as it was designed."
 >And I suppose Ethernet was designed for audio?  Great logic there.
  
 "PC>PPA V2 USB card (TeraDak X1 - Nichicon HW caps)>Forza Twin Copper Split USB cable>iPurifier2>Startech LEX>BJC CAT6 UTP 550Mhz>Startech REX (with one Jitterbug - Breeze 24VDC LPS+DC iPurifer)>LH Labs 2G split USB cable (data only leg)>W4S Recovery(TeraDak LPS DC-30W+Cerious Graphene PC+ DC iPurifier)>Curious 200mm USB Link>F-1>AS Statement Silver SPDIF>APL DAC"
 >???  Any one of those devices will kill the USB sound quality from a well set up computer source.  I am not surprised in the slightest that the Rednet 3 sounds better than the above.  More convoluted is not better.  I can recommend some parts that fix the problems without adding new issues: Wireworld Platinum Starlight USB (short as possible), JPlay JCAT USB card, HDPLEX 300 Watt ATX PSU, SSD storage, Daphile OS.  Each add-on fix-it box adds latency, potential grounding issues, and does not guarantee better operation of the USB receiver nor a "cleaner" USB signal.  
  
 In my experience, the best way to do USB is to have a high quality USB receiver inside the DAC.  The signal has lowest jitter immediately after reclocking, so it makes sense to minimise distance and convolution between this and the DAC.  My DAC is not high end, but the humble USB card inside it has shamed even the highest performance external USB->SPDIF (In my experience, this is the Berkeley BADA USB).  Feed one of those with the best USB cable (mentioned above) and a well optimised computer source and that IME is the best way to do USB.
  
 SPDIF or AES are not optimal input for most DAC as the jitter is much higher than USB.  SPDIF receiver PLL is around 50 ps, Amanero USB is 10 ps.  If you are concerned about USB noise - there are USB input cards that galvanically isolate after the USB receiver and before FPGA reclocking, and that clean low jitter low noise I2S can go straight into the DAC.  Without reclocking, galvanic isolation adds jitter, so a lot of DAC and D/D don't use it.  Maybe if DAC has good reclocking or clock recovery (possible word clock input) of SPDIF input the jitter might matter less.  LVDSI2S over HDMI is a fairly good way to use external converter without bottleneck of SPDIF.
  
 Don't get me wrong I have no doubt REDNET 3 is very good, just given what it is being compared to, I don't really have much of a reference point.  IF we are comparing the REDNET to a more sensible chain with comparable price USB/SPDIF, then I would have more confidence. 
  
 Right now I have moderate confidence that REDNET 3 would be very good alternative for external SPDIF interface.  Only thing I don't want external SPDIF interface because it is inherently compromised due to SPDIF.  If they have internal card that outputs I2S, and computer solution that works driverless with Linux, that would be great.  
 I just don't like the prospect of going backwards to go forwards both for sound and ease of use (eg have to use Windows, SPDIF etc)


----------



## mourip

I got back this reply from Audinate, makers of the Dante technology and the DVS software, when I was trying to config my D16 to 192K. Actually it was in reply to my letting them know I had already figured it out but wanted to prompt them about the blooming audiophile market.
  
 Sounds promising...
  
"Funny you mention SPDIF to Dante.
I have been asked for a simple conversion box for the last couple of months by a lot of end users. The least expensive solution right now is the Focusrite RedNet3 box, but that’s over 3000 dollars.
So I mentioned it at the InfoComm trade show last week to: Focusrite, RDL, and AtteroTech.
So maybe we will see something come out that can do that in the next few months.
As for AES67, we are compatible in the newer cards with our latest firmware update, but the Dante standard is not based on it.
Dante Virtual Soundcard automatically adjusts its sample rate to match the software on the computer, but if we allowed auto adjustment across the network that would cause a major problem in pro audio settings.
Can you imagine what would happen if a twenty thousand seat arena suddenly switched sample rates just because someone turned on DVS?
That would be bad."


----------



## hopkins

There is a Ultimo development board advertised on the Audinate web - I have inquired about it but have not received an answer yet. It has I2S outputs, so that could be an interesting solution as well, for those of us that have I2S inputs. I am currently using the F-1 XMOS card's I2S output, and would be curious to see how the two solutions compare.


----------



## rb2013

drez said:


> "Well USB will e around at the low end of audio and for mouses and keyboards - as it was designed."
> >And I suppose Ethernet was designed for audio?  Great logic there.
> 
> "PC>PPA V2 USB card (TeraDak X1 - Nichicon HW caps)>Forza Twin Copper Split USB cable>iPurifier2>Startech LEX>BJC CAT6 UTP 550Mhz>Startech REX (with one Jitterbug - Breeze 24VDC LPS+DC iPurifer)>LH Labs 2G split USB cable (data only leg)>W4S Recovery(TeraDak LPS DC-30W+Cerious Graphene PC+ DC iPurifier)>Curious 200mm USB Link>F-1>AS Statement Silver SPDIF>APL DAC"
> ...


 
 Yeah but USB is very limited in data capacity - that is why USB 2.0 Audio have to be created - but no error correction.  MS to this day does not support it.  Actually AES67/Ethernet is the ideal transport medium.  USB sucks because of the PC ground issues and data and power running side by side, just to name a few.  But hey if you think USB is perfect and you have it nailed down - all the power to you.  Enjoy!
  
 >???  Any one of those devices will kill the USB sound quality from a well set up computer source.  I am not surprised in the slightest that the Rednet 3 sounds better than the above.  More convoluted is not better.  I can recommend some parts that fix the problems without adding new issues: Wireworld Platinum Starlight USB (short as possible), JPlay JCAT USB card, HDPLEX 300 Watt ATX PSU, SSD storage, Daphile OS.  Each add-on fix-it box adds latency, potential grounding issues, and does not guarantee better operation of the USB receiver nor a "cleaner" USB signal. <
  
 Well I can see we are on separate pages I had a Plat Starlight  USB (one of about a dozen I tried) mediocre for sure.  Lightspeed crushes it - and not even the 10G just the 2G.
 HDPlex - not the last word in PC PS.  SSD - big deal.  JCAT card - highly doubt this is that much better then a PPA V2 fed by a LPS.  But Marcin is going to send one to me to try - so will give that a go.  Anyway still no galvanic isolation - like the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB...so highly doubtful of your comments.
  
 >In my experience, the best way to do USB is to have a high quality USB receiver inside the DAC.  The signal has lowest jitter immediately after reclocking, so it makes sense to minimize distance and convolution between this and the DAC.  My DAC is not high end, but the humble USB card inside it has shamed even the highest performance external USB->SPDIF (In my experience, this is the Berkeley BADA USB).  Feed one of those with the best USB cable (mentioned above) and a well optimised computer source and that IME is the best way to do U<
  
 OK now you have lost ALL credibility with me - just jumped the shark.  Inside the DAC causes PHY AGC induced modulation  - feeding high noise levels into the DAC clocks.  You need to do a little more research my friend...that and the countless folks who have reported that a good external DDC feeding by SPDIF/AES just crushes their internal i2s card (Amerno in particular).  The rest of you comment is just rehashing old ground that has be put to bed long ago...next up why we absolutely have to have 784kPC and 512 DSD to get any decent SQ...and on and on it goes...
  

  
 OK here comes the 'USB is the greatest crowd'  - wonder what took them so long?
  
 Oh and BTW I have 100% confidence as I have REDNET playing right now as I type this - the SQ crushes the Mutec MC-3+ USB - ever hear that one chappie?


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I got back this reply from Audinate, makers of the Dante technology and the DVS software, when I was trying to config my D16 to 192K. Actually it was in reply to my letting them know I had already figured it out but wanted to prompt them about the blooming audiophile market.
> 
> Sounds promising...
> 
> ...


 

 Nice!  So it can be done with DANTE - not what BURL told me.  He said they specifically asked Audinate to update DANTE to give it that capability.  One question for them  - why the 'SR Follow' button?  It's not like the DANTE card is separate from the RN3 or 16 - they intergral.  Maybe having that ready for a later firmware update?


----------



## Danutz

Hello,
  
 Which one to buy Rednet 3 or D16 (almost same price) or even A8R-8...?
  
 Any major difference? Will be used PC-Rednet-NadM51Dac
  
 Thank you very much,
  
 Dan


----------



## mhamel

danutz said:


> Hello,
> 
> Which one to buy Rednet 3 or D16 (almost same price) or even A8R-8...?
> 
> ...


 
 No need to spend extra on the "r" models - those are built for redundancy and failover which really aren't needed in consumer settings.  
  
 Also, the A8 is analog A/D and D/A, so if you're looking for digital out, it's not the one you want.


----------



## Danutz

Hi mhamel,
  
 so no difference between Rednet 3 an d16.... I'm really not understanding their configurations, but heard that d16 would use the newer (better???) Brooklyn II Dante.... is that older version than Dante Ultimo?
  
 It's used by this product: http://www.fouraudio.com/en/products/dbs1.html
  
 but I can't find a price of this item.... Is it comparable to the Rednets?
  
 Thanx,
  
 Dan


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Hi mhamel,
> 
> so no difference between Rednet 3 an d16.... I'm really not understanding their configurations, but heard that d16 would use the newer (better???) Brooklyn II Dante.... is that older version than Dante Ultimo?
> 
> ...


 

 No the REDNET 3 uses the first Brooklyn card - it did not do 178k SR.
  
 The noise specs are exactly the same:
  
 RN3:


> Input sample rate range
> 32 to 216 kHz
> Gain error
> -0.3 dB
> ...


 
 RN16AES:


> Input sample rate range
> 32 to 216 kHz
> Gain error
> '-0.3 dB
> ...


 
  
  
 Here is the difference:
 RN3:


> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 192 kHz


 
  
 RN16AES:


> Supported sample rates
> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 / 192 kHz (-4% / -0.1% / +0.1% / +4.167%)


----------



## Danutz

ok, thanks.... what about the fouraudio productline? Dante Ultimo


----------



## mhamel

danutz said:


> ok, thanks.... what about the fouraudio productline? Dante Ultimo


 
  
 Ultimo is their lower cost chipset, it maxes out at 96KHz.


----------



## drez

rb2013 said:


> Yeah but USB is very limited in data capacity - that is why USB 2.0 Audio have to be created - but no error correction.  MS to this day does not support it.  Actually AES67/Ethernet is the ideal transport medium.  USB sucks because of the PC ground issues and data and power running side by side, just to name a few.  But hey if you think USB is perfect and you have it nailed down - all the power to you.  Enjoy!
> 
> >???  Any one of those devices will kill the USB sound quality from a well set up computer source.  I am not surprised in the slightest that the Rednet 3 sounds better than the above.  More convoluted is not better.  I can recommend some parts that fix the problems without adding new issues: Wireworld Platinum Starlight USB (short as possible), JPlay JCAT USB card, HDPLEX 300 Watt ATX PSU, SSD storage, Daphile OS.  Each add-on fix-it box adds latency, potential grounding issues, and does not guarantee better operation of the USB receiver nor a "cleaner" USB signal. <
> 
> ...


 
  
 Power and data running side by side is only a big deal if the power line has noise.  USB card with low noise 5V this wont be an issue.  
  
 I have tried Lightspeed 10G.  Very sterile and lacking in nuance level detail.  Beaten by even the series 6 Platinum.  The full linear HDPlex PSU is the best fully ATX compatible solution I have tried.  JCAT *is *better than PPA V2.
  
 Galvanic isolation is necessary for Ethernet because it needs to connect between rooms which might have different ground reference and therefore might create ground loop.  You can galvanically isolate USB if you like - it doesn't really help a whole lot and in my experience is a step backwards.  Even isolating the ground pin is a step backwards.  The galvanic isolation does provide some noise rejection and DC isolation but it also adds jitter.  The net gain is just not there.  Most of the good USB solution use galvanic isolation after the USB receiver, that way the PHY noise is isolated from the output.  Again the net gain is not a given.
  
 What makes you think Ethernet is free from PHY noise?  In my experience NIC's put out a lot of noise.  I need to enable my NIC because I am running a headless machine.  If were not running a headless machine, I would disable the NIC as it produces much noise.
  
 Secondly, have you measured the PHY noise and compared it to Ethernet, or are we just comparing one D/D implementation to another.  There are so many more factors that might be affecting the sound of the Rednet vs your USB based D/D.  Not least the quality of the reclocking, SPDIF output quality, power supplies etc.  To simply decide that the difference is 100% down to using AOIP is an assumption.  It could be valid assumption, but we would need to isolate so many other factors to make that determination.
  
 I cannot account for people preferring AES/SPDIF over USB.  As mentioned the interface is a bottleneck.  If they were using LVDSI2S I would have slightly less reservations.  Impressions come from so many different setups - perhaps they have poor computer sources.  Also different systems tend to show or hide things in different ways.  Even in my own system as it develops, positions are overturned.  As resolution improved the true nature of things come out more.  What was previously observed to by detailed turns out just to be thin or harsh.  Could be that my system is still at an interstitial stage where USB appears to sound better.  However my own preference for USB came only AFTER upgrading to the HDPlex PSU and case.  We have to rationalise the world with the information we have available.  All I know is that on a technical level SPDIF is a sure bottleneck, USB evils are contingent and for the most part unverified.  LVDSI2S is much less bottleneck.
  
 I used to use an external D/D until I improved my computer, but of course [computer upgrading] was costly and not possible for everyone.


----------



## drez

I could add another anecdote on how noisy and un-isolated Ethernet is in practice.  See photo below:
  

  
 As you can see the ethernet switch is powered from linear PSU and isolated from vibrations.  I thought this would be dumb.  Ethernet is not even in the signal path.  Even so adding linear power and vibration isolation to the switch improved the sound from my system


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Nice!  So it can be done with DANTE - not what BURL told me.  He said they specifically asked Audinate to update DANTE to give it that capability.  One question for them  - why the 'SR Follow' button?  It's not like the DANTE card is separate from the RN3 or 16 - they intergral.  Maybe having that ready for a later firmware update?




I had contact with Focusrite support about RD3 / RD16 automatically following sample rates on the PC.
To be short: it *cannot* be done.

This is the answer from Focusrite support:


> The RedNet 3 and RedNet D16 AES will not automatically follow the sample rate/bit rate change when you make changes to your DAW or Dante Virtual Soundcard.
> 
> Whenever you may a change to your DAW you will need to make the change to Dante Virtual Soundcard as well as whatever RedNet or Dante Device that is in the Dante Network. Having to manually make the changes to all devices in the Dante Network allow for a more flexible and robust audio eco system. This will also allow for you to have a customized environment in which you can have different devices at different sample rates. You can make custom presets in Dante Controller in which you can create that will change the sample rate of both your RedNet interfaces and Dante Virtual Soundcard.


----------



## rw35

drez said:


> I could add another anecdote on how noisy and un-isolated Ethernet is in practice.  See photo below:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see the ethernet switch is powered from linear PSU and isolated from vibrations.  I thought this would be dumb.  Ethernet is not even in the signal path.  Even so adding linear power and vibration isolation to the switch improved the sound from my system


 
  
 Both USB and Ethernet are noisy but Ethernet seems to handle the data transfer better. USB seems more vulnerable to noise and thus it works best when the sender is of very high quality (Aurender, etc). LAN seems to negate much of the electrical issues that computers generate in terms of SQ degradation.
  
 My gut feeling is that the same levels of SQ are achievable with both, but LAN transfer bypasses most of the electrical problems, whilst even the best USB chains need helper devices. That said my LAN has fibre media converters to remove noise.
  
 Buy any PC with a normal USB port and an AOIP device - AOIP will probably trounce USB, that's what everyone who has tried RedNet has said to date.
  
 I'm lucky that my USB play is fabulous (bet it's very close or as good), but I'm not typical of what people are typing.
  
 AOIP is early but it's got serious legs in my book, it makes sense. My only issue is I don't generally like pro audio (owner of recoding studio) people as they are not usually as attentive to detail as high-end guys.
  
 A 2 channel high-end AOIP device is sure to be on its way soon,* then *I'll have to decide whether to drop Aurender (if they don't adopt it).
  

  
 ---
  
*Source:*
 *Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS) > Curious short USB link > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed) > *Auralic VEGA (balanced)

*Control:*
 *Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

*Playback:*
 2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz high pass filtered from subs)

*Misc:*
 *Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator
 LPS: 2 x Swagman Lab Audiophile SE (W4S & FMC) & 1 x SMSL P1 (Intona power injection)
 Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM
 Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)
 Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen


----------



## mtoc

jabbr said:


> I had contact with Focusrite support about RD3 / RD16 automatically following sample rates on the PC.
> To be short: it *cannot* be done.


 
  
 I've said before, you have to add a MCLK to it if you wanna auto-sample rate switching, and if you use some software to unsample all your stuff to 192kHz, that'z no good. A few more clicks everything's fine.


----------



## jabbr

mtoc said:


> I've said before, you have to add a MCLK to it if you wanna auto-sample rate switching, and if you use some software to unsample all your stuff to 192kHz, that'z no good. A few more clicks everything's fine.




Not true i'm afraid, adding an external master clock will not create automatic sample rate switching.

Just got some additional information from Focusrite about developments that will be released in a few months that will allow it:



> I just wanted to follow up on your conversation with Louie yesterday.
> 
> At present, DVS cannot be used to change the sample rate of RedNet devices on the network, however this is something we're looking to alter with the next release of RedNet Control, which we are aiming to have available towards the end of August (version 1.10).
> 
> ...




So with a little patience it will become available.

Cheers


----------



## JayNYC

jabbr thank you for sharing your correspondence with Focusrite. I actually spoke to them in the UK yesterday and they confirmed what you just wrote. I also put in a vote for a high quality 2 channel only product.


----------



## mtoc

I did not say "external master clock".....people have to understand why some (most) of (usually asynchronous) USB interfaces is auto switching, some interfaces (some 1394) is synchronized, but asynchronous or not is a matter of choice. I don't know this rednet is asynchronous or not.


----------



## rb2013

drez said:


> Power and data running side by side is only a big deal if the power line has noise.  USB card with low noise 5V this wont be an issue.
> 
> I have tried Lightspeed 10G.  Very sterile and lacking in nuance level detail.  Beaten by even the series 6 Platinum.  The full linear HDPlex PSU is the best fully ATX compatible solution I have tried.  JCAT *is *better than PPA V2.
> 
> ...


 
_>Power and data running side by side is only a big deal if the power line has noise.  USB card with low noise 5V this wont be an issue.<_
  
_I think many would disagree with you on this one.  What is the noise on the +5 VDC out of the JCAT?  doubt it's 1uv or less - like I achieved in my uber USB chain._
  
>I have tried Lightspeed 10G.  Very sterile and lacking in nuance level detail.  Beaten by even the series 6 Platinum.  The full linear HDPlex PSU is the best fully ATX compatible solution I have tried.  JCAT *is* better than PPA V2.<
  
  
That I have no doubt as it's 4X more expensive.  But looking at it - not too impressed.  Nothing special in the clocks.  On design alone would prefer a PPA V3 with ultra low noise OCXO clocking:

  

>Galvanic isolation is necessary for Ethernet because it needs to connect between rooms which might have different ground reference and therefore might create ground loop. * You can galvanically isolate USB if you like - it doesn't really help a whole lot and in my experience is a step backwards. * Even isolating the ground pin is a step backwards.  The galvanic isolation does provide some noise rejection and DC isolation but it also adds jitter.  The net gain is just not there.  Most of the good USB solution use galvanic isolation after the USB receiver, that way the PHY noise is isolated from the output.  Again the net gain is not a given.<
  
Well I think a lot of folks who have the Intona - would disagree with you.  My experience with the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB extender - would say that is absolutely incorrect.  The GI this provided made a very significant difference.
  
 
>What makes you think Ethernet is free from PHY noise?  In my experience NIC's put out a lot of noise.  I need to enable my NIC because I am running a headless machine.  If were not running a headless machine, I would disable the NIC as it produces much noise.
Secondly, have you measured the PHY noise and compared it to Ethernet, or are we just comparing one D/D implementation to another.  There are so many more factors that might be affecting the sound of the Rednet vs your USB based D/D.  Not least the quality of the reclocking, SPDIF output quality, power supplies etc.  To simply decide that the difference is 100% down to using AOIP is an assumption.  It could be valid assumption, but we would need to isolate so many other factors to make that determination.<
 
Well the clocks on the F-1 (part of my uber USB chain) are the ultra low noise Crystek CCHD-575's - they look to be far superior to the ones in the JCAT card.  (do you have Phase noise numbers for that single clock?  It looks like it's only for USB.  The F-1 has three - one NDK SD ultra low phase noise for USB and then on the clean side of the isolation scheme the two separate Crystek CCHD audio clocks.  Just a much more advanced setup then the only the JCAT.  Mind you in my chain the PPA V2 card had TXCO clock for USB and was fed externally by a LPS.  And still the GB LAN isolation made a big difference, as did the W4S Recovery (also with CCHD clocks and fed by a LPS/DCiPur) - the Recovery accepts 9VDC then with ultra low noise 1uv regulators outputs 5VDC to the F-1.  Maybe you are not familiar with these devices.  This chain now has three stages of ultra low noise regulation to feed the F-1 power and on a separate data chain (using a only the data leg of the 2G) three stages of reclocking and GI.  These chains infinitely more advanced, with a far better power and data cleaning then just a PC with a JCAT card.  Really not in the same ballpark.
 
With a true TCPIP packetized protocol - all the 'mindset' issues of USB must be thrown out the window.  The PHY 'noise' is there - it just doesn't matter.  With USB 2.0 Audio Async - with the lack of lost packet error correction it very much does.  Signal intergity is critical with USB.  AOIP has full lost packet error correction.  In addition,  you have heavy levels of 8K 'packet noise' with USB (with it's analog waveform), signal integrity issues - as SI varies the AGC in the USB receive modulates to feed noise back into the PS system (much like the old DC servo laser trackers in CD players did).  Why ethernet cables don't matter as well - as long as they are of decent quality (what a relief!), like a BJC CAT6.  If someone has a ethernet filter like the Sotm ISO CAT6 filter - and wants me to try it - I would - but I really doubt any benefit.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/252404400491?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
 
John Swenson has published much on this - worth a read: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits#zUvXZUJfW9I010L7.97
 


> So now the crux of the matter, how can what goes into the USB receiver affect any of this? In several ways: packet jitter, edge jitter, PLLs. I’ll go over each of these.​ Packet jitter is the difference in the arrival time of packets to the receiver chip. USB packets are transmitted over the bus at either 1000 per second (full speed mode) or 8000 per second (high speed mode). *Every time one of those packets hits the receiver a lot of activity happens inside the receiver chip. This creates lots of noise inside the chip and on the ground plane. This causes a lot of jitter on the outputs from the chip. The spectrum of this noise and jitter has a VERY strong component at either 1KHz or 8KHz, both of which are directly in the audio range. Any changes in the arrival time of the packets will change the spectrum of this packet noise. In the next installment I’ll cover what causes this packet jitter.*​


 
  
 Quote:


> Next is PLLs. Every USB receiver chip has at least one if not more PLLs. These PLLs are affected by both the previous types of jitter and since almost all the circuitry inside the chip is clocked by these PLLs, the jitter on output signals and ground plane noise is going to be significantly affected by the noise spectrum coming out of the PLLs. This is filtered by the PLL loop filter, but there are still major components related to the input jitter.​ So how do we keep all this noise from the USB receiver from getting to our sensitive DAC circuits? It’s called ground plane isolation. You have separate ground planes for the USB receiver and the rest of the DAC circuitry. This DOES prevent ground plane noise from crossing over. BUT if you cut the ground plane there is no way for the return current from the signals crossing the boundary (the I2S signals and clock etc) to get between the “ground domains”. The solution is digital isolators. There are many different technologies to choose from, one most people are familiar with is opto-couplers. Some of these actually add huge amounts of jitter to the signals going through them so are bad choices for our purposes.​ A signal from the receiver now has a return current coming from the isolator so it’s happy. On the other side of the boundary there is a return current to the DAC circuitry so it is happy. *BUT any jitter on the signal coming out of the isolator is STILL creating ground plane noise with a spectrum related to the jitter it had on the other side of the isolator. In addition it is containing jitter related to the isolation scheme as well, and some of THAT jitter is ALSO related to noise on the ground plane on the receiver side.*​ *So again the ground plane isolation and signal isolators can decrease the jitter and noise going from the USB receiver to the DAC circuits, BUT they cannot eliminate it. Some always gets through.*​


 
  Face it USB is just a very dirty technology for high end audio - and the listening proves the point.

 With the AES67 Ethernet Dante and Ravenna protocols you have true IP packet level error correction, inherent galvanic isolation, no PC power corruption on the data lines, etc...
 it's just a sea change in high end audio transmission.
  
>I cannot account for people preferring AES/SPDIF over USB.  As mentioned the interface is a bottleneck.<
  
 Well it's funny how so many top DAC designers like Chord have no i2s on their statement sota machines - but lots of SPDIF and AES!
  
 Meet DAVE:  384k on BNC SPDIF!
 http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/products-info.asp?id=98
 $12,000


  


> DAVE​ Chord Electronics has launched its most advanced DAC to date. Given the acronym DAVE,
> Chord''s latest-generation digital-to-analogue convertor features the very best conversion technology available, using proprietary techniques never seen before.
> 
> DAVE is a highly advanced reference-grade DAC, digital preamp and headphone amplifier. Hand-made in Kent, DAVE is based around a proprietary FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) offering more than ten times the program capacity of its predecessor.
> ...


 
 SPDIF - if it's good enough for DAVE (and Yggie and TotalDAC, etc...) it's good enough for me!


----------



## rb2013

And it is interesting on Darko's #1 DAC the Aqua HiFi La Scala Mk2 - he used SPDIF to do his review:
  
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/03/aqua-hifi-la-scala-mkii-dac-review/


> USB reception across the swathe of budget D/A converters can best be described as a mixed bag. USB often sounds diluted when compared directly to the same DAC’s neighbouring S/PDIF feed. I start to expect more from decoders that cause financial spill above $2k so I’m pleased (and relieved!) to report that at the even loftier asking price of five thousand Euros, the La Scala’s XMOS USB input is rock solid. When directly connect to a MacMini via USB the La Scala MKII sounded no weaker than calling on the Resonessence Labs Concero HD to intercede as USB-S/PDIF middle man.​


 
_Premier League _​ 
Aqua Hifi La Scala MKII
 _Division 1_​ 
Chord Hugo TT
PS Audio DirectStream
Resonessence Labs INVICTA Mirus
 _Division 2_​ 
Aqua La Voce S2
Audio-gd Reference 7.1  – [discontinued]
AURALiC Vega
Chord Hugo
Chord Mojo
Metrum Acoustics “Hex”
PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MKII
Schiit Gungnir Multibit
WLM Gamma
 _Division 3_​ 
AudioQuest DragonFly Red
Anedio D1 [discontinued]
Audio-gd  Reference 10.2
db Audio Labs Tranquility SE
Eastern Electric MiniMax [discontinued]
Lenehan Audio (Base Level) PDX
Lite DAC-83
Metrum Acoustics “Octave”
Mytek Stereo192-DSD
Peachtree iNova [discontinued]
PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MKI  [discontinued]
Red Wine Audio Isabellina LFP-V Edition
Schiit Bifrost Multibit
Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2
 _Division 4_​ 
AudioQuest DragonFly Black
John Kenny JKDAC32
MHDT Labs Balanced Havana
Resonessence Labs Concero
Resonessence Labs Concero HD
Resonessence Labs Concero HP
Schiit Bifrost Uber w/ Gen 2 USB
  
_Division 5_​ 
Astell&Kern AK120 as USB DAC
AudioQuest Dragonfly v1.2
Audio-gd NFB-2 [discontinued]
Audio-gd NFB-2.1 [discontinued]
Bel Canto DAC-3 [discontinued]
Bladelius USB DAC
CEntrance DACMiniPX
John Kenny JKDAC Sabre  [discontinued]
Lavry DA-10
LH Labs Geek Out 1W
Micromega MyDAC
Peachtree iDecco [discontinued]
Peachtree DAC*iT
Rega DAC
Resonessence Labs Herus
Schiit Bifrost v1
Stello DA100
 

​ _Division 6_​ 
Audio-gd NFB-3 [discontinued]
Beresford Caiman Gatorized
Beresford Bushmaster
Bel Canto DAC-1.5
CEntrance DACPort
Essence HDACC HDMI
Emotiva XDA-1 [discontinued]
Heed Dactilus w/ Q-PSU
HRT microStreamer
MHDT Labs Havana
Schiit Modi
TeraDak Chameleon
  
_And the rest…_​ 
Arcam rDAC
Audio-gd NFB-12 [discontinued]
Beresford 7510
Beresford 7520
Beresford Caiman
Calyx Coffee
Cambridge Audio DacMagic
Citypulse DA7.2x
Emotiva XDA-2
Firestone Audio Spitfire MK1 [discontinued]
HRT Music Streamer II+
KingRex UD384 + UPower
Devilsound USB DAC
Lite DAC-AH
Lite DAC-68
Maverick Tube Magic D1
MHDT Labs Paradisea [discontinued]
NAD Wireless USB DAC 1
Pro-ject DAC Box USB
Pro-ject DAC Box FL
Valab NOS DAC
Violectric V800
Xindak DAC5
  
  
  
 And so did Srajan at 6Moons:
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/aqua/1.html
  


> *Buzz-word compliance* is its de rigueur mortis and mega pixel count. It preys on misinformed consumers who shop by the numbers. Hence by mid 2014, AMR's iFi division had gone positively purple with glee to announce 768kHz PCM and DSD _octa compliance_. By then DSD256 whose very first commercial files had just begun to appear was already passé. DSD512 was the new 'in' to remind us that all life is cyclical. It spirals out of control. Then it collapses and begins anew. On cyclical, in the crusades Christianity had its holy wars. Today it's the turn of Islam. In hifi the former were the THD and IMD wars. The latter's present equivalents target digital sample rates. Faced by such accelerating madness, Aqua pray for all-out peace. Their _assalaamu a'laikum_ or _pax vobiscum_ is refusal to participate. Opt out. Say no to DSD and anything above 24/192. How refreshing. If John Darko's assessment had it right, this decision was far from counter-productive. Quite possibly it was the crucial enabler. Obviously neither Metrum's Hex nor Aqua's La Voce had upsampled, quadrupled or DSD'd. Yet on those I was sold already from close familiarity. Time out then from the digital hamster mill which would turn us into _octagenarians_ well before our time. Mind, I'm not singling out iFi. They were simply first to hit those particular numbers. More will undoubtedly follow. That's the whole mechanism of fashion. It's a lemming brigade.


 


 Review done by SPDIF coax input!


----------



## rb2013

mtoc said:


> I did not say "external master clock".....people have to understand why some (most) of (usually asynchronous) USB interfaces is auto switching, some interfaces (some 1394) is synchronized, but asynchronous or not is a matter of choice. I don't know this rednet is asynchronous or not.


 

 I believe Dante designed it to not be SR Following the DVS source.  This is for studio and auditorium (rock concert) purposes - a safety measure to prevent a device on the LAN to create havoc.
  
 No reason they couldn't add an internal dip switch to allow this capability - or better a Firmware upgrade version to activate.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> I believe Dante designed it to not be SR Following the DVS source.  This is for studio and auditorium (rock concert) purposes - a safety measure to prevent a device on the LAN to create havoc.
> 
> No reason they couldn't add an internal dip switch to allow this capability - or better a Firmware upgrade version to activate.




See post #225.

Just have to wait until end of August.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> See post #225.
> 
> Just have to wait until end of August.


 

 Nice!  Chauk one up for Foobar!
  


> Please note that, for this to work in the way you desire, the playback program you are using would need to be able to change the sample rate of the playback driver (in this case, DVS). Typically, this is only possible from playback software that utilises ASIO drivers (pretty much all DAW software + *some media players such as Foobar*).
> With the next release of RedNet Control, once the playback software changes the sample rate DVS is working at this can be configured to also change the sample rate of other RedNet devices on your network.


----------



## Danutz

REDNET D16 ordered @thomann 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 
  
  
 Edit: Good to have chosen D16.... should have no windows 10 compatibilty problems (not as Redent 3 for ex.): 
  
 "OS compatibilty not relevant for this product range/type"


----------



## Muziqboy

danutz said:


> REDNET D16 ordered @thomann


 
  
 And the RedNet owners club keeps on growing and growing!


----------



## Acrobat77

jabbr said:


> Not true i'm afraid, adding an external master clock will not create automatic sample rate switching.
> 
> Just got some additional information from Focusrite about developments that will be released in a few months that will allow it:
> So with a little patience it will become available.
> ...




That is great news, thank you for discussing it with Focusrite as it must have helped them change their minds. It was a show stopper for me but if they make this change I'm likely to try a Rednet as well once it's implemented.


----------



## jabbr

Just got news my Rednet D16 is on backorder with expected availability in the week of July 4th to July 8th.

Have to be patient a little longer 

Cheers


----------



## drez

Using wordclock from DAC to control Rednet 3 or other D/D could be brilliant solution.  If they can sort out the automatic sample rate switching, and with better software/driver options.  I guess ideally also LVDS I2S...  Or just have the rednet receiver inside the DAC and have external DC power input and again grab clock from the DAC or external master clock..
  
 Some of the USB transports allow for word clock input, eg. HiFace Evo 2 - also with LVDSI2S output.  Assuming a DAC with clock input I wonder how that would perform.


----------



## ccschua

Can someone pls report rgd the use of audiopc is rendered superfluous when rednet is connected ?


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Just got news my Rednet D16 is on backorder with expected availability in the week of July 4th to July 8th.
> 
> Have to be patient a little longer
> 
> Cheers


 

 Backordered - hum...I guess we started something!


----------



## rb2013

drez said:


> Using wordclock from DAC to control Rednet 3 or other D/D could be brilliant solution.  If they can sort out the automatic sample rate switching, and with better software/driver options.  I guess ideally also LVDS I2S...  Or just have the rednet receiver inside the DAC and have external DC power input and again grab clock from the DAC or external master clock..
> 
> Some of the USB transports allow for word clock input, eg. HiFace Evo 2 - also with LVDSI2S output.  Assuming a DAC with clock input I wonder how that would perform.


 

 I tried the excellent Mutec MC-3+ USB with it's 1G clocking as a word clock input.  It actually made the SQ worse - it lost some of it's energy and vive.  I think the clocks in the REDNET 3 are excellent - FR also implements JetPLL to reduce jitter.  BTW used a 12in BJC BNC 75ohm digital cable for the WC hookup.
  
 Now as a SPDIF reclocker the Mutec was excellent - and I have one arriving today!  Not night and day - but another 10-15% better.  But to improve on this already outstanding SQ is a major accomplishment.


----------



## Kelowna

Interesting thread. I have been following Ravenna's development curve for a couple year's now. All I can say is some bridges that utilize this technology will be available shortly that are going to make everyone forget USB ever existed. I really look forward to this day


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Interesting thread. I have been following Ravenna's development curve for a couple year's now. All I can say is some bridges that utilize this technology will be available shortly that are going to make everyone forget USB ever existed. I really look forward to this day


 

 I think you are right! It of course will come down to the SQ - and so far this Dante REDNET gear is really superb.


----------



## prot

kelowna said:


> Sound quality is far better as it skips a lot of the processing involved with USB. Just think a purpose built for audio board like the Sonore Microrendu, only with I2S and DSD output with support up to DSD 512 instead of USB. ST fiber Ethernet input only for the ultimate in isolation from noise. It will have clock options all the way up to the exotic NDK DuCuLOn:
> 
> http://www.ndk.com/en/ad/2013/001/pdf/c_NH47M47LA_e.pdf
> 
> I2S/DSD can be sent via HDMI, RJ-45 or board with header pins that can be a drop in replacement for any USB board on the planet. So the only DAC's that can't be retrofitted with it are ones that have the USB chips soldered right onto the main board. And it's compatible with Windows, OSX and Linux.




Yes, please!

P.S.
Not sure that you really need that 'fiber ethernet only' input but it wont hurt (unless it costs two arms and a leg)


----------



## Kelowna

I can't discuss and specific products. But if you want to compare Dante to Ravenna what's better all comes down to the hardware if you only listen to 24/192 PCM max. The Dante Brooklyn 2 board is great but limited to 24/192 PCM. With Ravenna the sky is the limit. DSD 1024 isn't even a problem. 

I had a conference call with the head engineer at Dante. They too can make Dante DSD compatible if they wanted to. But they just don't have the demand for it. But the wonderful thing is the interoperability that AES67 brings. Although for the high end home audio environment, it's not so important.


----------



## occamsrazor

prot said:


> P.S.
> Not sure that you really need that 'fiber ethernet only' input but it wont hurt (unless it costs two arms and a leg)




The way to go in my opinion is SFP slots - that way you can use whatever module you like whether it be copper Ethernet, Fiber of any variety, etc etc


----------



## Muziqboy

kelowna said:


> Interesting thread. I have been following Ravenna's development curve for a couple year's now. *All I can say is some bridges that utilize this technology will be available shortly that are going to make everyone forget USB ever existed.* I really look forward to this day


 
  
 I think everyone who is into USB computer audio are in for the biggest shock of their lives once these products hit the market.
  
 I for one had the biggest revelation when I hooked-up the Dante AOIP Rednet 3 into my system and it made me yank out all of those USB gizmos and toss them aside. As @rb2013 said, a seachange in SQ. Best SQ that I have ever heard to date.
  
 Yes! as I keep on saying!
 USB AIN't GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> Interesting thread. I have been following Ravenna's development curve for a couple year's now. All I can say is some bridges that utilize this technology will be available shortly that are going to make everyone forget USB ever existed. I really look forward to this day




That's very interesting indeed. Am assuming you're not in a position to discuss details, but can you give us a rough idea what "shortly" means and any other information? Ravenna does seem to have an edge over Dante in terms of the protocol itself, albeit much less market share. But the other issue is the availability of virtual sound cards - I think that's one of the appeals of Dante to audiophiles (as opposed to pro use).


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> I can't discuss and specific products. But if you want to compare Dante to Ravenna what's better all comes down to the hardware if you only listen to 24/192 PCM max. The Dante Brooklyn 2 board is great but limited to 24/192 PCM. With Ravenna the sky is the limit. DSD 1024 isn't even a problem.




The other issue is even if you have a network protocol that can do high rates like Ravenna, how do you get that from the bridge/interface to DAC? The only interfaces that do higher than 192 are USB and i2s. Avoiding USB is the whole point, and i2s is still pretty rare externally. The only way is to ditch the bridge and build the network interface into the DAC with an internal i2s connection like the Merging NADAC, but no one else seems to be doing that.


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> The way to go in my opinion is SFP slots - that way you can use whatever module you like whether it be copper Ethernet, Fiber of any variety, etc etc




But the choice is the problem. By having the choice, you also get the choice to do things worse


----------



## Kelowna

As a member of the trade, I can't discuss specific products without being a sponsor.


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> The other issue is even if you have a network protocol that can do high rates like Ravenna, how do you get that from the bridge/interface to DAC? The only interfaces that do higher than 192 are USB and i2s. Avoiding USB is the whole point, and i2s is still pretty rare externally. The only way is to ditch the bridge and build the network interface into the DAC with an internal i2s connection like the Merging NADAC, but no one else seems to be doing that.




Or replace the USB board with a drop in replacement board with the same outputs on it as the board it replaced, only much higher quality. But in order to do this your DAC must have a removable USB board. If all you have is SPDIF and USB that has the chips soldered on the main board you're SOL for upgrades.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I can't discuss and specific products. But if you want to compare Dante to Ravenna what's better all comes down to the hardware if you only listen to 24/192 PCM max. The Dante Brooklyn 2 board is great but limited to 24/192 PCM. With Ravenna the sky is the limit. DSD 1024 isn't even a problem.
> 
> I had a conference call with the head engineer at Dante. They too can make Dante DSD compatible if they wanted to. But they just don't have the demand for it. But the wonderful thing is the interoperability that AES67 brings. Although for the high end home audio environment, it's not so important.


 

 +1 Exciting times for computer audio!  Do you see a Dante like DVS ASIO coming for Ravenna soon?
  
 Looks like Focusrite is 'fixing' or at least going to offer a SR follow function soon.   On the coming REDNET Controller update in Aug.
  
 What about LiveWire - they're part of the AES67 consortium - anything interesting coming from them?


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> I think everyone who is into USB computer audio are in for the biggest shock of their lives once these products hit the market.
> 
> I for one had the biggest revelation when I hooked-up the Dante AOIP Rednet 3 into my system and it made me yank out all of those USB gizmos and toss them aside. As @rb2013 said, a seachange in SQ. Best SQ that I have ever heard to date.
> 
> ...


 

 Three Cheers for AOIP and this Gentleman!


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> That's very interesting indeed. Am assuming you're not in a position to discuss details, but can you give us a rough idea what "shortly" means and any other information? Ravenna does seem to have an edge over Dante in terms of the protocol itself, albeit much less market share. But the other issue is the availability of virtual sound cards - I think that's one of the appeals of Dante to audiophiles (as opposed to pro use).


 
 +1
  


occamsrazor said:


> The other issue is even if you have a network protocol that can do high rates like Ravenna, how do you get that from the bridge/interface to DAC? The only interfaces that do higher than 192 are USB and i2s. Avoiding USB is the whole point, and i2s is still pretty rare externally. The only way is to ditch the bridge and build the network interface into the DAC with an internal i2s connection like the Merging NADAC, but no one else seems to be doing that.


 
 ++1


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> I tried the excellent Mutec MC-3+ USB with it's 1G clocking as a word clock input.  It actually made the SQ worse - it lost some of it's energy and vive.  I think the clocks in the REDNET 3 are excellent - FR also implements JetPLL to reduce jitter.  BTW used a 12in BJC BNC 75ohm digital cable for the WC hookup.
> 
> Now as a SPDIF reclocker the Mutec was excellent - and I have one arriving today!  Not night and day - but another 10-15% better.  But to improve on this already outstanding SQ is a major accomplishment.


 
  
 I put my Mutec +3 USB back in my system this evening as a re-clocker after the D16 and it made a very nice difference to SQ ....which had already become remarkable for me.
  
 I used AES in and out. Sample rate is 192K.
  
 I was hoping to sell my Mutec to help pay for the new D16 but I guess that won't work!
  
 PS. I am making all of these changes in my speaker rig. I hope to do the same for my HP rig but might wait for some new AOIP hardware developments.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I put my Mutec +3 USB back in my system this evening as a re-clocker after the D16 and it made a very nice difference to SQ ....which had already become remarkable for me.
> 
> I used AES in and out. Sample rate is 192K.
> 
> ...


+1. I'm sitting here in my main listening room, tapping on my tablet. The Mutec 3+ USB reclocking 192k in/out. Just more of this great AOIP sound!

The added bass depth catches your attention, vocals with more of the inner lit quailty, an even tigher focus and clarity. No change in the rich natural tonal signature, a tad greater energy and dynamics.

These two, the Rednet 3 and the Mutec 3+ USB are a great combination.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Sounds like audio nirvana. My amp is coming in on Monday so I'll be rockin the house nicely sans mutec. The Rednet by itself is amazing on its own.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Sounds like audio nirvana. My amp is coming in on Monday so I'll be rockin the house nicely sans mutec. The Rednet by itself is amazing on its own.



Were you able to get 192k running?

Just switched to 32 bit in DVS and DC, even better! Greater SS depth and so creamy smooth it's ridiculus.

I have BJC 1.5m digital coming, using a crappy Bestbuy one right now between the RN3 and Mutec. May start spdif cable rolling, or just get a 2nd Audio Sensibility Statement.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Were you able to get 192k running?
> 
> Just switched to 32 bit in DVS and DC, even better! Greater SS depth and so creamy smooth it's ridiculus.
> 
> I have BJC 1.5m digital coming, using a crappy Bestbuy one right now between the RN3 and Mutec. May start spdif cable rolling, or just get a 2nd Audio Sensibility Statement.




I'm planning to use the AES between Rednet and Mutec. Did you already try that or do you have other reasons to use the SPDIF?

Will of course try myself once the RedNet is here.
I have available the DH Labs Silver Sonic for AES, and AudioSensibility Statement for (one or two) SPDIF's.

Cheers


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> Were you able to get 192k running?
> 
> Just switched to 32 bit in DVS and DC, even better! Greater SS depth and so creamy smooth it's ridiculus.
> 
> I have BJC 1.5m digital coming, using a crappy Bestbuy one right now between the RN3 and Mutec. May start spdif cable rolling, or just get a 2nd Audio Sensibility Statement.


 

 Yes, on another computer with a much newer i7 however that was just to test the Rednet. My music computer will need to wait for upgrade time, until then perfectly satisfied with 24/96 output. One thing I still need to test is how to get the darn optical outputs working on multiple channels. I followed the instructions (page 22 and 23) but no sound. I'll get a hold of Focusrite tomorrow and see what they have to say.

 I would try the 32bit mode but my DACs don't take 32-bit unfortunately. As for Spdif cable I'm just using a 4.5ft RG6 cables I made from scraps I have laying around from installs that run 300ft with digital signals no issues, sounds great! I may splurge and get the BJC


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> +1 Exciting times for computer audio!  Do you see a Dante like DVS ASIO coming for Ravenna soon?
> 
> Looks like Focusrite is 'fixing' or at least going to offer a SR follow function soon.   On the coming REDNET Controller update in Aug.
> 
> What about LiveWire - they're part of the AES67 consortium - anything interesting coming from them?




Yes all of the audio over IP protocols need a virtual soundcard installed on the PC. The Ravenna one actually runs on a real time OS that runs on its own dedicated CPU cores. Windows just acts as a GUI for control. 

As far as I know live wire is more for lower resolution broadcast applications.


----------



## Kelowna

Here's the system Merging's virtual soundcard for Ravenna runs on

http://www.intervalzero.com/revolutionizing-real-time-development-with-rtx/

Audioscience uses Interval Zero for their Hono virtual soundcard for AVB as well. Just buy a $50 Intel NIC and you're good to go to connect to any AVB end point. The new XMOS Xcore 200 chips with the Ethernet PHY are all compatible. 

http://www.audioscience.com/internet/products/avb/hono_avb_vsc.htm


Some low cost AVB boards here:

http://www.dsp4you.com


----------



## JayNYC

kelowna said:


> Here's the system Merging's virtual soundcard for Ravenna runs on
> 
> http://www.intervalzero.com/revolutionizing-real-time-development-with-rtx/
> 
> ...




Kelowna very interesting! can you clarify for us, AVB vs Dante:

1. Does AVB require its own dedicated Ethernet network vs Dante can share an existing Ethernet network?

2. Other than Motu and Avid, are there other pro audio brands supporting AVB?

Thank you


----------



## Kelowna

jaynyc said:


> @Kelowna very interesting! can you clarify for us, AVB vs Dante:
> 
> 1. Does AVB require its own dedicated Ethernet network vs Dante can share an existing Ethernet network?
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 AVB is a different standard altogether. It's similar to Dante, but it's open source rather than closed. On OSX support is built right in out of the box without even the need for a virtual soundcard. All the new Xmos Xcore 200 XE chips are compatible.
  
 http://www.xmos.com/products/silicon/xcore-200/xe-series
  
 It's actually what Meridian uses for their Audio over IP networking. However it does have some drawbacks. You need a special switch (inexpensive) where you don't with Ravenna or Dante (Although they recommend switches they tested). The best switch is probably this one:
  
 http://motu.com/products/avb/avb-switch
  
 There's a few pro companies supporting it, but I think AES67 compatible systems are going to eventually beat it. I had high hopes for it, but they are just way too slow at getting all of the details worked out and I think lots of early supporters dropped it. It seems like it's going more of the direction of automotive use now. MiniDSP actually has a DAC with AVB input now.


----------



## occamsrazor

Has anyone spoken with Mutec about making a Dante bridge? It seems to me that with their experience they would be well placed to make a great unit...


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> AVB is a different standard altogether. It's similar to Dante, but it's open source rather than closed. On OSX support is built right in out of the box without even the need for a virtual soundcard. All the new Xmos Xcore 200 XE chips are compatible.
> 
> http://www.xmos.com/products/silicon/xcore-200/xe-series
> 
> It's actually what Meridian uses for their Audio over IP networking. However it does have some drawbacks. You need a special switch (inexpensive) where you don't with Ravenna or Dante (Although they recommend switches they tested).


 
  
 That XE-series from Xcore is interesting hardware, but AVB doesn't appeal to me much, largely due to the need for a special switch. It's not that it's very expensive or anything, but it just doesn't seem the way to go when everything else has moved to work over standard ethernet. This is my mind is going to limit general adoption a lot, and is presumably one of the reasons Dante/Ravenna has advanced more, as well as the issue of ease of implementation.


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> That XE-series from Xcore is interesting hardware, but AVB doesn't appeal to me much, largely due to the need for a special switch. It's not that it's very expensive or anything, but it just doesn't seem the way to go when everything else has moved to work over standard ethernet. This is my mind is going to limit general adoption a lot, and is presumably one of the reasons Dante/Ravenna has advanced more, as well as the issue of ease of implementation.


 

 Yeah it's cool, but for me, being a massive DSD fan, Ravenna is the only viable solution. Ravenna can handle 20 channels of simultaneous DSD 512 on a single gigabit network. All within 1 nanosecond of skew between endpoints. Pretty impressive!


----------



## seeteeyou

https://www.xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=22662#p22662


> OS X currently supports AVB sample rates that are integer multiples of 48 kHz only.


 
  
 In other words, Redbook must be upsampled. And then it's somewhat tricky for Windows with Intel I210-T1 unless we could "steal" ASIO like this without having to purchase specific hardware
  




  
 Merging HAPI costs $2,495 and then add $100 or so for Dell PowerConnect 2808. Another $1,547 for DA8P
  
 http://vintageking.com/merging-technologies.html
  
 Finally we also need DB-25 to XLR/RCA adapters / cables, pretty good deal since we've got DAC covered.
  
  
 RPi or Up Board running Music Player Daemon might be the best bang for the buck at the moment
  
 http://www.up-board.org
 http://mubox.voyage.hk/rpi
 http://www.pi2design.com/coming-soon.html


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> I would try the 32bit mode but my DACs don't take 32-bit unfortunately.


 
  
 My Yggy only takes 24 bit but I was able to set DVS for 32 bit anyway.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I'm planning to use the AES between Rednet and Mutec. Did you already try that or do you have other reasons to use the SPDIF?
> 
> Will of course try myself once the RedNet is here.
> I have available the DH Labs Silver Sonic for AES, and AudioSensibility Statement for (one or two) SPDIF's.
> ...


 

 Well Yes my APL DAC uses SPDIF (On a very nice WBT NexGen connector).  And so is the Audio Sens Statement cable.
  
 I'm going to try the AS Statement from my office system between the Rednet and the Mutec.  To see if that makes any difference.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Yes, on another computer with a much newer i7 however that was just to test the Rednet. My music computer will need to wait for upgrade time, until then perfectly satisfied with 24/96 output. One thing I still need to test is how to get the darn optical outputs working on multiple channels. I followed the instructions (page 22 and 23) but no sound. I'll get a hold of Focusrite tomorrow and see what they have to say.
> 
> I would try the 32bit mode but my DACs don't take 32-bit unfortunately. As for Spdif cable I'm just using a 4.5ft RG6 cables I made from scraps I have laying around from installs that run 300ft with digital signals no issues, sounds great! I may splurge and get the BJC


 

 I see so PC power is a factor - and maybe why now is the time finally for AOIP.  With Haswell 3+Ghz iCore7's WIN10 boxes dirt cheap.
  
 I'm using the 32 bit between the RN3 and the Mutec - and it does make a difference.
  
 The BJC was $27 for a 1.5m!
 Can't beat that.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yes all of the audio over IP protocols need a virtual soundcard installed on the PC. The Ravenna one actually runs on a real time OS that runs on its own dedicated CPU cores. Windows just acts as a GUI for control.
> 
> As far as I know live wire is more for lower resolution broadcast applications.


 
 I see - well a big advantage for Dante I guess - now if they could come out with a high end consumer version with 384k/32 and DSD but just for 2 channel - they could dominate this growing market.  Lower the licensing fee for the consumer product and offer support to DAC developers in building in a BKII slot as a user addon or just sold as a package.  This would be very compelling.  Future better Brooklyn cards could then be swapped in.
  
 DVS is extremely stable - now running for a few weeks 24/7 without a single error, lock or freeze on my WIN10/iCore7 Haswell.  I understand Intel made some significant improvements to their ethernet processing with Haswell.
  


kelowna said:


> Here's the system Merging's virtual soundcard for Ravenna runs on
> 
> http://www.intervalzero.com/revolutionizing-real-time-development-with-rtx/
> 
> ...


 
 Yes I believe XMOS has a low cost AVB board as well.  But no virtual AVB driver  - just USB.  It would be great to see a simple XMOS Ethernet DDC even with AVB - as most of us audiophiles are using a direct connection - no LAN or switches.
  
 https://www.xmos.com/support/boards?product=18334


> XCORE-200 MULTICHANNEL AUDIO PLATFORM FEATURES Audio connectivity features
> Up to 32 channel processing
> 8-channel analog input and output
> *S/PDIF optical/coaxial optical input and output*
> ...


 
 Unfortunately the clocking does not look to good.
  
  
 PS Any of these DSP4you boards have spdif or AES outputs?


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yeah it's cool, but for me, being a massive DSD fan, Ravenna is the only viable solution. Ravenna can handle 20 channels of simultaneous DSD 512 on a single gigabit network. All within 1 nanosecond of skew between endpoints. Pretty impressive!


 
 That's why the NADAC has those capabilites.  Maybe MT could do a bridge product - they seem to be dipping their toes into the consumer area.  I doubt FR would be interested - but we can cross fingers.  I spoke to the BURL folks - who make a very nice DAC - the B2 Bomber with BK2 card capable on the board slot.  They even sell a plug and play BK2 card for $250 retail (for their DAC only).  So these Brooklyn II cards can't be very expensive in quantity.  Just need a simple two channel bridging board with a BKII slot.  But they have absolutley no interest in consumer audio.  Of course that doesn't get you native DSD - although I believe DoP works.  But how many DACs out there take native DSD over spdif or AES?
  


seeteeyou said:


> https://www.xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=22662#p22662
> 
> In other words, Redbook must be upsampled. And then it's somewhat tricky for Windows with Intel I210-T1 unless we could "steal" ASIO like this without having to purchase specific hardware
> 
> ...


 
 How about a nice RPi (with good clocking) to run the processing for the above mentioned Dante BK2 DDC interface board?
  
 The high Audinate licensing fees would prevent that - I'm sure.  I think it's like $10K.


----------



## rb2013

@Kelowna  What do you think of Thunderbolt 3?  Now with MS and Intel support (and I'm sure Apple) - this really could be the low cost end game.  No drivers - on WIN or OS just plug and play.  Huge throughput and direct DMA access.  And can be AES67 capable.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806121/thunderbolt-3-for-audio-is-this-the-next-computer-audio-standard
  

  
  
  

  
 USB:
  
  

  
  
  
  
 TB:


----------



## Danutz

Hi,
  
 Are there no compatibility issues wit WINDOWS 10 for Rednet 3 or D16?
  
 My two Pc/laptop run both Win10, when I will receive my D16... no reason to be afraid? 
  
 Thank you!


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Hi,
> 
> Are there no compatibility issues wit WINDOWS 10 for Rednet 3 or D16?
> 
> ...


 

 Not for me - super stable - not a single hiccup.
  
 What Intel chipset?


----------



## Danutz

Intel skylake I7 prozessor 6700K on Asus z170-K boards 32G-Ram....


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Intel skylake I7 prozessor 6700K on Asus z170-K boards 32G-Ram....


 

 Skylake superceded Haswell - you should be in fine shape!


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> I see - well a big advantage for Dante I guess - now if they could come out with a high end consumer version with 384k/32 and DSD but just for 2 channel - they could dominate this growing market.  Lower the licensing fee for the consumer product and offer support to DAC developers in building in a BKII slot as a user addon or just sold as a package.  This would be very compelling.  Future better Brooklyn cards could then be swapped in.
> 
> DVS is extremely stable - now running for a few weeks 24/7 without a single error, lock or freeze on my WIN10/iCore7 Haswell.  I understand Intel made some significant improvements to their ethernet processing with Haswell.
> 
> ...




The clocking of AVB is good enough for Meridian's $80000 flagship speakers 

When you have I2S, you have the option of using an I2S to SPDIF board, if you need SPDIF. There's lots of options out there depending on the quality you're looking for.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> That's why the NADAC has those capabilites.  Maybe MT could do a bridge product - they seem to be dipping their toes into the consumer area.  I doubt FR would be interested - but we can cross fingers.  I spoke to the BURL folks - who make a very nice DAC - the B2 Bomber with BK2 card capable on the board slot.  They even sell a plug and play BK2 card for $250 retail (for their DAC only).  So these Brooklyn II cards can't be very expensive in quantity.  Just need a simple two channel bridging board with a BKII slot.  But they have absolutley no interest in consumer audio.  Of course that doesn't get you native DSD - although I believe DoP works.  But how many DACs out there take native DSD over spdif or AES?
> 
> How about a nice RPi (with good clocking) to run the processing for the above mentioned Dante BK2 DDC interface board?
> 
> The high Audinate licensing fees would prevent that - I'm sure.  I think it's like $10K.




Yeah after 2 years of researching this I'm settled on Ravenna. The Merging products are excellent if you're interested in a Sabre based DAC. The HAPI is much better value than the NADAC as they use the same DAC boards anyways. The only benefit with the 2 channel version of the NADAC sound wise is they sum all 8 channels into 2 internally for better dynamic range. But an external summing adapter can be made for the HAPI as well to achieve the same thing.

To retrofit Ravenna into an existing DAC, and take advantage of DSD, the DAC either needs to have an external I2S/DSD over HDMI or Rj-45 port. Or you need to tap into the internal header the USB interface plugs into. With DoP it's possible to get up to single rate DSD through AES ports, but only if the DAC is geared up for it.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> @Kelowna  What do you think of Thunderbolt 3?  Now with MS and Intel support (and I'm sure Apple) - this really could be the low cost end game.  No drivers - on WIN or OS just plug and play.  Huge throughput and direct DMA access.  And can be AES67 capable.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/806121/thunderbolt-3-for-audio-is-this-the-next-computer-audio-standard
> 
> ...




I think Thunderbolt 3 is great. I have it on my latest server. But for audio purposes it's overkill really. Over 10gbit LAN we can do 200 simultaneous channels of DSD 512 with Ravenna. I think this is a big enough pipeline for now


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I think Thunderbolt 3 is great. I have it on my latest server. But for audio purposes it's overkill really. Over 10gbit LAN we can do 200 simultaneous channels of DSD 512 with Ravenna. I think this is a big enough pipeline for now


 

 True enough on the throughput - but just thinking about other technology design benefits - like DMA access.  In terms of SQ.
  
 Certainly with ASUS and others making WIN10 Skylake boards with TB3 native and MS support in WIN10.1 - this would make for a very simple setup.
 http://www.gigabyte.com/mb/thunderbolt3/model
  
 TB3 is also going to use (and unify with USB 3.1) the new USB-c connector.  No more Apple royalties.  That should drop the costs down as well.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> True enough on the throughput - but just thinking about other technology design benefits - like DMA access.  In terms of SQ.
> 
> Certainly with ASUS and others making WIN10 Skylake boards with TB3 native and MS support in WIN10.1 - this would make for a very simple setup.
> http://www.gigabyte.com/mb/thunderbolt3/model
> ...




Yes it's a cool connector. I have it right here in front of me on this beautiful little server. Now I just need some devices that can take advantage of TB3 so I can test it out


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yes it's a cool connector. I have it right here in front of me on this beautiful little server.


 

 All of these new protocols are going to bury old USB  - like Firewire and the old Serial PC interface!
 Remember these?


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> I think Thunderbolt 3 is great. I have it on my latest server. But for audio purposes it's overkill really. Over 10gbit LAN we can do 200 simultaneous channels of DSD 512 with Ravenna. I think this is a big enough pipeline for now


 
  
 Overkill is never bad  And cost-wise for Mac users it's already there. There's a bunch of Thunderbolt interfaces already, though few seem audiophile orientated. From a technical point of view though... does TB3 add much over TB2 for audio purposes? Do you have any views about it vs Ethernet?


----------



## sbgk

what surprises me is you're not describing a massive improvement in detail with the Rednet, smoothness, better dynamics, better bass, yes, but where are the comments about hearing the background noises, scratches on guitars, violinists breathing etc that are associated with improved detail ?


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> Overkill is never bad  And cost-wise for Mac users it's already there. There's a bunch of Thunderbolt interfaces already, though few seem audiophile orientated. From a technical point of view though... does TB3 add much over TB2 for audio purposes? Do you have any views about it vs Ethernet?




I don't think Ravenna or Dante can be beat for audio. The reason for this is because the audio isn't even processed on the connected PC. There's an ultra low noise CPU on the Dante/Ravenna boards that's actually processing the audio as direct as possible. It spits I2S/DSD direct out of the FPGA on the board. The audio is simply being sent from the server computer over Ethernet as data similar to audio files streaming in off a NAS. With Ravenna a realtime OS is actually processing and sending the audio out of the server computer in the most efficient way possible.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Those are there. Comparing to the f1/wyrd, with the rednet you can hear bow technique and little emphasis on how a instrument is played. Now you're not just hearing a violin play, you're hearing how Hilary Hahn plays.

Details of a bow sliding across strings, how an instrument is plucked, was it finesse or forceful, maybe halfway through a passage there's a small difference that makes the performance from good to brilliant that wasn't heard before; it's all there. These are details that separates musicians and it's beautiful to hear these small intricate differences. Specially for someone who used to play those instruments 


sbgk said:


> what surprises me is you're not describing a massive improvement in detail with the Rednet, smoothness, better dynamics, better bass, yes, but where are the comments about hearing the background noises, scratches on guitars, violinists breathing etc that are associated with improved detail ?


----------



## mourip

sbgk said:


> what surprises me is you're not describing a massive improvement in detail with the Rednet, smoothness, better dynamics, better bass, yes, but where are the comments about hearing the background noises, scratches on guitars, violinists breathing etc that are associated with improved detail ?


 
  
 I cannot speak for others but I have been trying to resist creating "The Next Big Thing" syndrome which is so common in our hobby. As I described it in another post the "Trout Farm" syndrome. I am concerned that too much hyperbole cause folks to discount something that really is a turning point for us.
  
 I will admit that I am a detail freak. In my system the D16 combined with the Mutec +3 USB gives me the most clarity I have ever experienced in a playback system. I never realized how much ambient information was contained in even Redbook recordings. If you want clarity, detail, and tonal correctness along with dynamics you will not be disappointed. Did I mention a rock solid sound stage? Yup that too. No images wandering around as the frequencies change.


----------



## rb2013

sbgk said:


> what surprises me is you're not describing a massive improvement in detail with the Rednet, smoothness, better dynamics, better bass, yes, but where are the comments about hearing the background noises, scratches on guitars, violinists breathing etc that are associated with improved detail ?


 

 Oh brother they are there in spades - the level of detail far exceeds the best USB I have heard.
  
 But this is so transformative in SQ  - just describing the usual audio descriptions like detail, smoothness, sound staging, etc..just doesn't do it justice.
  
 It's really at a whole other level  - hard to put into words - other then shockingly good.  I've tried in many posts to do that - I've given up.
  
 Just say a sea change in audio SQ.  Take the best of analog and the best of digital and combine them - then make that 2 times better.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I don't think Ravenna or Dante can be beat for audio. The reason for this is because the audio isn't even processed on the connected PC. There's an ultra low noise CPU on the Dante/Ravenna boards that's actually processing the audio as direct as possible. It spits I2S/DSD direct out of the FPGA on the board. The audio is simply being sent from the server computer over Ethernet as data similar to audio files streaming in off a NAS. With Ravenna a realtime OS is actually processing and sending the audio out of the server computer in the most efficient way possible.


 

 Thanks for sharing this info - we are so used to noisy troubled USB - this a whole other computer audio paradigm.  So as I have said we need to reset our thinking - from other ethernet audio protocols (like DNLA/UPNP, etc...) and esp from USB.
  
 This makes perfect sense from the Audinate information on Dante.  And goes far to explain this sea change in audio SQ.


----------



## Kelowna

Yeah that's going to be USB within a year or 2.


----------



## rb2013

@Kelowna  let me ask you what you think of some folks using ethernet optical and GI isolators between the PC and Dante device.
  
 Do you think this will bare any fruit as it has been reported to have with ethernet audio protocols like DNLA/UPNP, HQPlayer/NAA, Roon/RAAT - or does AES67 Dante and Ravenna operate in a different manner to make those schemes obsolete or min in SQ improvements.
  
 I have focused on the SPDIF to DAC part of the chain spending money there for gains.  So far the Mutec MC-3+USB has helped.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> @Kelowna  let me ask you what you think of some folks using ethernet optical and GI isolators between the PC and Dante device.
> 
> Do you think this will bare any fruit as it has been reported to have with DNLA/UPNP, HQPlayer/NAA, Roon/RAAT - or does AES67 Dante and Ravenna operate in a different manner to make those schemes obsolete or min in SQ improvements.
> 
> I have focused on the SPDIF to DAC part of the chain spending money there for gains.  So far the Mutec MC-3+USB has helped.


 

 It makes an improvement for me. It has for many others that have NADAC's as well. But if you're using a fiber converter, make sure to power the one connected to the endpoint with a very low noise supply. Using fiber ensures that no noise is being transferred from the server or networking gear. Yes I know some say copper Ethernet is galvanically isolated already and it doesn't matter, but my ears say a different story.
  
 These inexpensive fiber media converters are excellent. Power it with a $50 IFI Ipower supply and you have a killer setup for $100. Use another one on the router/switch end if you don't have a switch with SFP port.
  
 https://www.amazon.com/MC210CS-Converter-1000Mbps-single-mode-mountable/dp/B003CFATKQ
  
 http://www.musicdirect.com/p-322395-ifi-ipower-outboard-supply.aspx


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> It makes an improvement for me. It has for many others that have NADAC's as well. But if you're using a fiber converter, make sure to power the one connected to the endpoint with a very low noise supply. Using fiber ensures that no noise is being transferred from the server or networking gear. Yes I know some say copper Ethernet is galvanically isolated already and it doesn't matter, but my ears say a different story.
> 
> These inexpensive fiber media converters are excellent. Power it with a $50 IFI Ipower supply and you have a killer setup for $100. Use another one on the router/switch end if you don't have a switch with SFP port.
> 
> ...


 

 Yes i have had good success with the iPowers, although prefer the cheap LPS TeraDAk with DCiPur.
  
 Thanks for the links and info!
  
 PS so two of the MC210CS boxes and a fiber cable right?


----------



## rb2013

Speaking of cables - just found this beauty!  One of my favorite 'gotta try' digital cables.  The Purist Audio Design Colossus Digital - Unbelievable price!  $349 new on Ebay. 1.5M to boot!   The Current Aqueous Aureus-Luminist - goes for near $800 in a 1.5m.
  

  

  
 They use a unique fluid shielding system.  I have heard many great things about these cables - but they were just too expensive - in the $1000-$4000 range.
  
 I will go AES out of the Mutec and using a Canare AES to SPDIF (110ohm to 75ohm) and 10db attenuator into my DAC SPDIF Coax.
  
 I have done this before to good effect.
  
 Then use the Audio Sens Silver Statement from the RN3 to the Mutec.  Oh this audio addiction!


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Yes i have had good success with the iPowers, although prefer the cheap LPS TeraDAk with DCiPur.
> 
> Thanks for the links and info!
> 
> PS so two of the MC210CS boxes and a fiber cable right?


 
  
 Yes single mode SC to SC duplex. Something with ceramic ferrules and corning fiber is preferable. I find these cheap Monoprice cables are great. They use corning fiber and ceramic ferrules. And any length up to 10 miles is fine.
  
 http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=6843
  
 With Ethernet you don't carry a clock signal that matters for audio. So jitter isn't an issue like it is with USB, or Toslink. So you get all the noise isolation and low loss benefits, without any jitter.


----------



## Kelowna

> Nice cable! My digital cables of choice these days are a couple inches of thick copper PCB traces direct out of an FPGA


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> I cannot speak for others but I have been trying to resist creating "The Next Big Thing" syndrome which is so common in our hobby. As I described it in another post the "Trout Farm" syndrome. I am concerned that too much hyperbole cause folks to discount something that really is a turning point for us.
> 
> I will admit that I am a detail freak. In my system the D16 combined with the Mutec +3 USB gives me the most clarity I have ever experienced in a playback system. I never realized how much ambient information was contained in even Redbook recordings. If you want clarity, detail, and tonal correctness along with dynamics you will not be disappointed. Did I mention a rock solid sound stage? Yup that too. No images wandering around as the frequencies change.


 

 Count me hooked!

  
 +1 well put my trout farming friend!
  
 Really a surprise on 30-40 yr stuff - how much is not been or being heard.  And I had the $30K uber analog setup - it just didn;t have a low enough noise floor to unmask this information.
  
 As @Soundsgoodtome said those subtle performance changes that you now hear - makes for a more direct connection to the music, performer and performance.  And creates a more realistic illusion of live music.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yes single mode SC to SC duplex. Something with ceramic ferrules and corning fiber is preferable. I find these cheap Monoprice cables are great. They use corning fiber and ceramic ferrules. And any length up to 10 miles is fine.
> 
> http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=6843
> 
> With Ethernet you don't carry a clock signal that matters for audio. So jitter isn't an issue like it is with USB, or Toslink. So you get all the noise isolation and low loss benefits, without any jitter.


 

 Yes I see.  Well I just order these as well. And the Monoprice cable - so something new to add to the equation.
  
 Many thanks


----------



## Superdad

kelowna said:


> It makes an improvement for me. It has for many others that have NADAC's as well. But if you're using a fiber converter, make sure to power the one connected to the endpoint with a very low noise supply. Using fiber ensures that no noise is being transferred from the server or networking gear. Yes I know some say copper Ethernet is galvanically isolated already and it doesn't matter, but my ears say a different story.
> 
> These inexpensive fiber media converters are excellent. Power it with a $50 IFI Ipower supply and you have a killer setup for $100. Use another one on the router/switch end if you don't have a switch with SFP port.
> 
> ...


 

 Hey, tweaks for Ethernet audio.  Optical isolation, power supplies, cables, etc.  Just like with USB! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 By the way, I don't think anyone here has given Kelowna a proper welcome, nor has he fully introduced himself.  Kelowna and Mivera Audio is Mike Davis, known on the various forums he has been banned from (What's Best Forum, Computer Audiophile, others I expect) as Blizzard.
  
 Good to see you here Mike.  I am sure you will make friends.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 BTW, the new AES67/Ravenna devices Mike is saying are "'just around the corner" have, according to him, been waiting there for well over a year.  How about some details bud?  All I see on your website as coming soon is a--wait for it--a USB DAC!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Cheers,
  
 --Alex C.


----------



## Kelowna

superdad said:


> Hey, tweaks for Ethernet audio.  Optical isolation, power supplies, cables, etc.  Just like with USB! :tongue_smile:
> 
> By the way, I don't think anyone here has given Kelowna a proper welcome, nor has he fully introduced himself.  Kelowna and Mivera Audio is Mike Davis, known on the various forums he has been banned from (What's Best Forum, Computer Audiophile, others I expect) as Blizzard.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the warm welcome Alex. You still have a couple months left yet to sell your USB based trinkets. However I think you landed on the wrong thread for that. The folks around here already have had a taste of what the superiority of audio over IP can offer. And they haven't seen anything yet!


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Yes I see.  Well I just order these as well. And the Monoprice cable - so something new to add to the equation.
> 
> Many thanks




Yes for the price, not much to lose. If anything you can extend your network 9 miles down the road to your neighbors if you want  At least you aren't lining the pockets of charlatan's with this trinket.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Hey, tweaks for Ethernet audio.  Optical isolation, power supplies, cables, etc.  Just like with USB!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Now Alex let's be nice here.  I'm trying to be a more open minded participant on these threads.
  
 I appreciate @Kelowa's kind, patient, and positive attitude and great information.  Not just a naysayer
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










.
  
 One who lives in a vaporware glass house should not throw stones - right?
  
 The difference here with the inevitable tweeks (and who doesn't mind a good inexpensive tweek
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Life would be so boring without them) - is here we have leaped way beyond the best that USB can offer (at least what i have heard - like the Mutec3+USB and my own uber USB chain).
  
 So with this sea change AOIP SQ as a starting point - Wow!  What potential.  So far my add ons have been on the SPDIF to DAC side - not with AOIP itself.
  
 And that has already produced great rewards.


----------



## sbgk

soundsgoodtome said:


> Those are there. Comparing to the f1/wyrd, with the rednet you can hear bow technique and little emphasis on how a instrument is played. Now you're not just hearing a violin play, you're hearing how Hilary Hahn plays.
> 
> Details of a bow sliding across strings, how an instrument is plucked, was it finesse or forceful, maybe halfway through a passage there's a small difference that makes the performance from good to brilliant that wasn't heard before; it's all there. These are details that separates musicians and it's beautiful to hear these small intricate differences. Specially for someone who used to play those instruments


 
 sounds promising then, think I'll sit this one out for a few cycles until the technology settles.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Thanks for the warm welcome Alex. You still have a couple months left yet to sell your USB based trinkets. However I think you landed on the wrong thread for that. The folks around here already have had a taste of what the superiority of audio over IP can offer. And they haven't seen anything yet!


 

 Speaking of USB gear - I dropped the price of my Regen in the classifieds to $120 and all I hear is crickets...listed on US Audio Mart yesterday...more crickets...
  
 Same for the iUSB2.0 and LH Labs 2G and....


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yes for the price, not much to lose. If anything you can extend your network 9 miles down the road to your neighbors if you want
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 +1


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

If it catches in the audiophile world you should be seeing $300 implementations. What's really holding back from a manufacturer point is the asio control which shouldn't be tough if the market is there.

Maybe a big dac maker like chord, Schiit, 





sbgk said:


> sounds promising then, think I'll sit this one out for a few cycles until the technology settles.


Etc will just put the Dante stuff directly on.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> If it catches in the audiophile world you should be seeing $300 implementations. What's really holding back from a manufacturer point is the asio control which shouldn't be tough if the market is there.
> 
> Maybe a big dac maker like chord, Schiit,
> Etc will just put the Dante stuff directly on.


 

 Exciting news!  Our grass roots efforts are being heard.  The #3 guy at Focusrite is interested in speaking with me and a few others here!
  
 - about a consumer 2 channel interface? I hope.
  
 I think all these REDNET $1000+ boxes flying out the door is getting their attention.  I hear that the Pro retailers are backordered here and in the UK and EU.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I'd be in for beta testing. Make sure they get what's important in our views right. Clocks, isolation, connections, etc all right the first swing. And for desktop realty sake, a smaller footprint! An under 500 price objective would be fantastic as well, it's not just high end stuff this implementation benefits from.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Speaking of USB gear - I dropped the price of my Regen in the classifieds to $120 and all I hear is crickets...listed on US Audio Mart yesterday...more crickets...
> 
> Same for the iUSB2.0 and LH Labs 2G and....




Yeah that was last summers trinket. The great thing about audio over IP is, it isn't just a bandaid for a flawed system. It's an actual far superior solution, and a new audio standard supported by the AES as a replacement for the 80's standard AES/EBU (which is still better than USB). AES67 will dominate for decades as it has no bottlenecks. Wireless AES67 is also in the works as well. They figure by 2020 it should be perfected.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yeah that was last summers trinket. The great thing about audio over IP is, it isn't just a bandaid for a flawed system. It's an actual far superior solution, and a new audio standard supported by the AES as a replacement for the 80's standard AES/EBU (which is still better than USB). AES67 will dominate for decades as it has no bottlenecks. Wireless AES67 is also in the works as well. They figure by 2020 it should be perfected.


 

 After hearing the SQ I couldn't agree more.  Long live King AOIP


----------



## rb2013

Ok so we are starting an informal Audiophile Audio over IP consumer advisory group.  AAOIP
  
 I'm doing a poll of what 4-5 features do you find most important in a 2 channel consumer AOIP device:
  
 Just post here and I will compile to present to the folks at Focusrite, and any other company interested.
  
 Here are mine:
  
 1) Dante/DVS or Ravenna/DVS  - WIN, MAC CoreAudio and maybe but doubtful Linux compatible
  
 2) 2 channels only - max throughput as possbile.  DSD as a maybe if doable wish.
  
 3) Excellent clocking and DC power (for use of an external LPS for some)
  
 4) SR Follow function (this I believe is already in the works).
  
 5) Under $500


----------



## Kelowna

soundsgoodtome said:


> If it catches in the audiophile world you should be seeing $300 implementations. What's really holding back from a manufacturer point is the asio control which shouldn't be tough if the market is there.
> 
> Maybe a big dac maker like chord, Schiit,
> Etc will just put the Dante stuff directly on.




2-24/192 PCM capable endpoint's and switch for only $279 here. Plug and play with a Mac. Otherwise you need the Hono virtual soundcard with Windows. 

http://www.dsp4you.com/products/avb-oem-series/avb-dgk


----------



## occamsrazor

On the wish list....

6. You don't mention inputs/outputs:

Input: Ideally I'd have an SFP slot that comes with copper Ethernet module (cheap) big could be swapped for an optical module if the user wanted. All this stuff is off the shelf so shouldn't be hard, but I wouldn't make it a priority.

Outputs: AES, SPDIF, Toslink, @ 192khz
i2s if possible but certainly required for the higher rates. Not sure if hdmi/rj45 plug is better am sure others will know.

... And here's a bizarre thought... Would it make sense to have a USB output as well? I know the point is to get rid of it, but the device would still have separation from the main noisy computer in the same way as the uRendu, and it would enable higher data rates and a lot of compatibility. But hey... Just a. Thought and certainly not a priority!


----------



## Superdad

kelowna said:


> You still have a couple months left yet to sell your USB based trinkets.


 
  
 LOL Mike.  You really think a majority of the computer audio market is going to abandon USB in a few months time?  Keep dreaming… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 And on the AES67/Ravenna front, please tell where the DAC makers are going to get their multi-platform virtual sound card s/w from and who is going to maintain it.  Merging is not giving away their OS X and Windows s/w for use on other AES67/Ravenna implementations, and the Windows Ravenna Virtual Soundcard s/w ALC NetworX is giving away is crap.
  
 As I have been saying all along:
 It is about s/w as much as h/w.  Until audio over Ethernet s/w is built into the OS, or someone gives it all away and maintains it with every OS update, the barrier to entry for most DAC manufacturers in the high end will remain too high for them to pursue.  I keep hoping that Coveloz will step up and offer something attractive (i.e. including s/w) to OEMs with their BACH-minuet module.
  
 But I am with you about Dante being a dead end--both technologically and business-wise.  I sincerely doubt that any high-end audio company is going to adopt their dusty modules for a new product.  Sorry Rob.


----------



## Kelowna

superdad said:


> LOL Mike.  You really think a majority of the computer audio market is going to abandon USB in a few months time?  Keep dreaming…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 No you will be alright. Your followers will follow you no matter if there's better options available or not.
  
 As far as the answer to the rest, if you knew it, you would have likely already dropped USB


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Now Alex let's be nice here.  I'm trying to be a more open minded participant on these threads.
> 
> I appreciate @Kelowa's kind, patient, and positive attitude and great information.  Not just a naysayer
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's pretty funny, but since you clearly are not familiar with my history with Mike (aka Blizzard) and his escapades elsewhere, I'll cut you some slack.  
 And the truth is, I'm happy to debate him (or anyone else) with real facts, but his vile attacks on me over the past year make that a bit difficult.  The worst of it was deleted from the threads at WBF and CA, but here is a mild sample remainder:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/regen-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-vs-i2s-direct-25653/index14.html#post462582


----------



## Kelowna

superdad said:


> That's pretty funny, but since you clearly are not familiar with my history with Mike (aka Blizzard) and his escapades elsewhere, I'll cut you some slack.
> And the truth is, I'm happy to debate him (or anyone else) with real facts, but his vile attacks on me over the past year make that a bit difficult.  The worst of it was deleted from the threads at WBF and CA, but here is a mild sample remainder:
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/regen-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-vs-i2s-direct-25653/index14.html#post462582




Nice attempt at slander but the truth was the other way around. I was talking about Ravenna and I2S being superior to USB, and you were following me around lying to and misleading everyone because you were worried the education I was providing would shatter your future plans. It seems clear this is already starting to happen again over here.

That one post where I finally got fed up you decide to share. When you had the admin who you have in your back pocket delete all of the slander and foul language you directed at me.

Another great resource here guys:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/i2s-vs-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-25467/


----------



## Superdad

kelowna said:


> Nice attempt at slander but the truth was the other way around. I was talking about Ravenna and I2S being superior to USB, and you were following me around lying to and misleading everyone because you were worried the education I was providing would shatter your future plans. It seems clear this is already starting to happen again over here.
> 
> That one post where I finally got fed up you decide to share. When you had the admin who you have in your back pocket delete all of the slander and foul language you directed at me.


 
  
 I never had anything to do with any deletions Mike.  Never flagged a single post or made any requests of the sort.  You were toxic enough to get yourself banned from multiple forums--include WBF where you had your own sub-forum for a while.  How did you manage THAT?!  I was not even hanging over there to watch you implode.  I miss all the fun.
  
 And for the record, I have been playing around with, investigating, and discussing audio over Ethernet for years before you even knew such existed.  Remember, it is in the public record on the forums that you waltzed in and declared SD card playback on your Resonessence Labs the unbeatable, be-all end-all form of playback, and we schooled you on how it all really works and introduced you to HQ Player.  Like Rob, your enthusiasm carries you away (a good thing), and then you quickly turn around and proselytize as if you know it all and are going to show us the way.  Unlike Rob, who is generally very gracious and also open to learning--plus he buys a lot of things and actually tries them--you are rather thin skinned and quick to show a nasty side and insult people who don't agree with you.
  
 I am sure this all seems out-of-left-field for any others reading this.  But as I've said, Blizzard and I (and a bunch of other kind and thoughtful folks) have a history, and it ain't pretty.  Plus he has a tendency t make crap up.  So I advise taking what he says with a grain (or boulder) of salt.  Like I said, it is most all in the public record.  Maybe he wants to be a new man under the moniker of Kelowna.  I'll try hard to withhold judgement about Kelowna...


----------



## Kelowna

> Okay your entourage of loyal fanboys flagged them. As far as WBF, if you were unaware there was a meltdown between the 2 owners and as a repercussion my section got wiped out in the battle.
> As far as the Resonessence Mirus SD card goes, it's still my reference for low noise low jitter transport. But the drawback is the form factor and GUI. Ravenna gets you the same level of jitter and noise, while being able to take advantage of great audio players such as Roon.
> 
> Anyways this is an audio over IP thread. You have clearly came on here for 1 purpose. To trash Audio over IP. The clear reason being, you don't sell products that use it. So you are slandering both me and competitors products which is a clear violation of the TOS over here.
> ...


----------



## gldgate

Just want to pop in and thank Rob for starting this thread. While I am a new poster on this forum I've been following Rob's threads for a while. While I don't always agree with his assessments I really appreciate his enthusiasm and research. I also appreciate that he is putting his $ where his mouth is and not just speculating or theorizing. He actually tries stuff before making an opinion. Anyway, as a fellow traveler on this crazy audio highway I appreciate the efforts. And yes, a D16 is on the way so I will chime in with my $.02 as well.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> On the wish list....
> 
> 6. You don't mention inputs/outputs:
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks- Yes input and output options very important:
  
 So I'll put that at number 3: Input Ethernet (Dante) Output: SPDIF coax and AES - SPDIF optical as an option and USB (wow that would be cool!) as another.
  
 Sample rates: 44.1K, 48k, 88.2K, 96k, 176.4K, 192K (and higher and DSD is possible but not required).
  
 Thanks!~


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> LOL Mike.  You really think a majority of the computer audio market is going to abandon USB in a few months time?  Keep dreaming…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Well we have Focusrite's attention right now and from what I'm hearing on a WIN10 Haswell iCore 7 - using DVS pretty amazing.  Now for $22 permanent Dante DVS license (on sale) so maybe $29 reg.  Pretty reasonable for sure.
  
 Focusrite already has the programming done on their Dante Controller s/w - all they need to do is make a scaled down REDNET 16 - with no inputs - just 2 channel output on SPDIF and AES - with the Brooklyn II card (that BURL will sell anyone for $250 retail).  DC powered with a SMPS for cheap on the PS side.
  
 It has got to be doable for under $200 - retail $500 a very nice profit margin.
  
 We shall see - but at a min we have the RN3 and RD16d here and now - buy today delivered next week (that is if the order backlog doesn't get longer - then a wait list).


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> That's pretty funny, but since you clearly are not familiar with my history with Mike (aka Blizzard) and his escapades elsewhere, I'll cut you some slack.
> And the truth is, I'm happy to debate him (or anyone else) with real facts, but his vile attacks on me over the past year make that a bit difficult.  The worst of it was deleted from the threads at WBF and CA, but here is a mild sample remainder:
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/regen-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-vs-i2s-direct-25653/index14.html#post462582


 

 Well I'm not one to critize others passionate posts - I've been there.  And it is good they get deleted.
  
 I want to say I appreciate both of you providing your deeper insights here.
  
 Alex you see how many of yours and John's posts I repost here - I am a bit dumbfounded at your seeming reversal from back a few years ago.
  
 From what you posted on that CA thread - you and Miska where really spot on.  And it seems he used some of this AOIP technology in his NAA/HQ Player.
  
 I hope you guys at Uptone are still working on your AOIP solution ( as back then you mentioned you thought Dante (pre-AES67) was to complicated a solution).
  
 But the design ideals of open to any player, GB LAN capable, IP based, all seem to be here now.  Yet you handily reject them.
  
 Maybe the feedback on the microRendu/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as USB DDC) combination is better then the AOIP REDNET 3 or 16/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as SPDIF reclocker).
  
 But that would surprise me, I guess a few folks are going to give it a try.
  
 Worse case well all get to buy discounted returned RN16d open boxes.


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Well we have Focusrite's attention right now and from what I'm hearing on a WIN10 Haswell iCore 7 - using DVS pretty amazing.  Now for $22 permanent Dante DVS license (on sale) so maybe $29 reg.  Pretty reasonable for sure.


 
  
 Well as long as you have their attention, why not ask them for an I2S (over LVDS) output as that is vastly easier and ultimately better sounding than S/PDIF (I am sure my best friend Kelowna will agree).  And 384Khz plus support for DSD are both required if Dante/Focusrite are to have relevance.  I am able to do both with the MicroRendu in my system now.


----------



## Kelowna

The problem with making a great AOIP solution is it takes big bucks to do it right. I'm talking about over $500K if you seriously want a solution from start to finish to work like clockwork. The Lead FPGA engineer over at Coveloz lives down the road from me. His son goes to the same preschool as my daughter. When he told me the bill for just the FPGA programming he did for them my jaw dropped. This is the reason Alex doesn't have a solution. But just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean you should bash it.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Just want to pop in and thank Rob for starting this thread. While I am a new poster on this forum I've been following Rob's threads for a while. While I don't always agree with his assessments I really appreciate his enthusiasm and research. I also appreciate that he is putting his $ where his mouth is and not just speculating or theorizing. He actually tries stuff before making an opinion. Anyway, as a fellow traveler on this crazy audio highway I appreciate the efforts. And yes, a D16 is on the way so I will chime in with my $.02 as well.


 

 Thanks!  Looking forward to your take on what is shaping up to be the GREAT computer audio show down!  And if you have read my 17 tube shootout review - you know how I love shootouts!
  
 In the left corner the Sonore MicroRendu/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as USB) in the right corner the Focusrite REDNET 16d/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as SPDIF reclocker)!~




  
 If you've read my threads you'll know I do have a liking for a bit of drama!
  
 And a good heated (but thoughtful and factual) debate - not only do I learn from these (and why I do love going back into 2013, 2014, 2015, etc.. to find great posts anywhere).  This year has been an amazing audio journey and learning curve.  I have to be very honest - as experienced at this as I am and the time I have spent reading and researching the whole
 Roon/RAAT/Rendu/DNLA/UPNP/NAA/HQPLAYER complex has me totally confused.
  
 I just can't keep up on who works with who or what and why!
  
 I think  - but I have heard conflicting info (and been accused myself of passing bad info) that the microRendu can use any player like Foobar - but then on Sonore's website it doesn't mention it???
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Same for Roon/RAAT working with any USB DDC? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Or why does the totl and very impressive Sonore Rendu Signature not work with Roon, or RAAT or Roon/RAAT? Even thought it does DNLA/UPNP??  But then maybe it does - but Sonore doesn't list it.
  
 And my confusion just goes on and on.  Like HQPlayer working with and USB DDC?  It an enigma wrapped in a mystery for me.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> But the design ideals of open to any player, GB LAN capable, IP based, all seem to be here now.  Yet you handily reject them.


 
  
 Actually, I am a proponent of Ethernet audio.  Please refer to my detailed assessment, made "from a manufacturer's perspective" about some of the impediments to broad adoption.  http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/2025#post_12617288  And those are things that I have discussed with other, very real and well known DAC makers.
  
 Anyway, I really would like to see Ethernet DACs take off.  (And when I do a DAC with Swenson, you can bet it will have interfaces other than USB!)  If I anti-somthing--and very much so--it is S/PDIF!


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Well as long as you have their attention, why not ask them for an I2S (over LVDS) output as that is vastly easier and ultimately better sounding than S/PDIF (I am sure my best friend Kelowna will agree).  And 384Khz plus support for DSD are both required if Dante/Focusrite are to have relevance.  I am able to do both with the MicroRendu in my system now.


 

 Well yes that would be optional - and you know that you and I (and maybe Chord and few other top DAC manuf) disagree heartily on SPDIF and AES.  For me and it appears a few other top DAC designers - while not optimal - it, when well implemented is perfectly capable of top audio performance.
  
 Since 99.9% of my 3200 albums - are mostly Redbook, but many 32/176k digitalized LPs and SACD's (maybe 500-600) the need for 384k, DxD, DSD, i2s is well not a huge priority.  Not saying not nice to have - but totally unessential.  Great if your microRendu can do that - so can the $450 3 yr old Gustard X12.  Big deal.  Not my listening cup of tea.
  
  
 I'll just leave you this quote about this SR/DSD arms race silliness - from one of my favorite audio reviewers  Srajan at 6Moons:
  


> *Buzz-word compliance* is its de rigueur mortis and mega pixel count. It preys on misinformed consumers who shop by the numbers. Hence by mid 2014, AMR's iFi division had gone positively purple with glee to announce 768kHz PCM and DSD _octa compliance_. By then DSD256 whose very first commercial files had just begun to appear was already passé. DSD512 was the new 'in' to remind us that all life is cyclical. It spirals out of control. Then it collapses and begins anew. On cyclical, in the crusades Christianity had its holy wars. Today it's the turn of Islam. In hifi the former were the THD and IMD wars. The latter's present equivalents target digital sample rates. Faced by such accelerating madness, Aqua pray for all-out peace. Their _assalaamu a'laikum_ or _pax vobiscum_ is refusal to participate. Opt out. Say no to DSD and anything above 24/192. How refreshing. If John Darko's assessment had it right, this decision was far from counter-productive. Quite possibly it was the crucial enabler. Obviously neither Metrum's Hex nor Aqua's La Voce had upsampled, quadrupled or DSD'd. Yet on those I was sold already from close familiarity. Time out then from the digital hamster mill which would turn us into _octagenarians_ well before our time. Mind, I'm not singling out iFi. They were simply first to hit those particular numbers. More will undoubtedly follow. That's the whole mechanism of fashion. It's a lemming brigade.


 
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/aqua/1.html


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Or why does the totl and very impressive Sonore Rendu Signature not work with Roon, or RAAT or Roon/RAAT? Even thought it does DNLA/UPNP??  But then maybe it does - but Sonore doesn't list it.
> 
> And my confusion just goes on and on.  Like HQPlayer working with and USB DDC?  It an enigma wrapped in a mystery for me.


 
  
 I can clear that one up for you.  The Sonore Signature Rendu (which Swenson did the truly SotA S/PDIF and I2S/LVDS output boards for), uses an expensive Swiss-made, Blackfin-based DSP module for its Ethernet input.  And it is pretty much a DLNA-only affair.
  
 The MicroRendu on the other hand, is based on a small iMX SoC (system on chip) module (socketed into a groundbreaking audio-optimized six-ways-to-Sunday baseboard by Swenson) running Linux, hence its ability to be set up as an endpoint for all sorts of audio network protocols.  The MicroRendu could easily be installed into a DAC, but as I recall, getting greater than 192Khz I2S out of the iMX6 subsystem is currently impossible.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> The problem with making a great AOIP solution is it takes big bucks to do it right. I'm talking about over $500K if you seriously want a solution from start to finish to work like clockwork. The Lead FPGA engineer over at Coveloz lives down the road from me. His son goes to the same preschool as my daughter. When he told me the bill for just the FPGA programming he did for them my jaw dropped. This is the reason Alex doesn't have a solution. But just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean you should bash it.


 

 +1 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Thank goodness Forcusrite can and has - so why shouldn't they maximize that investment.


----------



## Superdad

rb2013 said:


> Since 99.9% of my 3200 albums - are mostly Redbook, but many 32/176k digitalized LPs and SACD's (maybe 500-600) the need for 384k, DxD, DSD, i2s is well not a huge priority.  Not saying not nice to have - but totally unessential.  Great if your microRendu can do that - so can the $450 3 yr old Gustard X12.  Big deal.  Not my listening cup of tea.


 
  
 The point of high SRC and DSD SDM has nothing to do with source material.  It is entirely about supplanting the resource-constrained digital filters inside the DAC. The higher you can get in s/w--before the DAC--the better.


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> I can clear that one up for you.  The Sonore Signature Rendu (which Swenson did the truly SotA S/PDIF and I2S/LVDS output boards for), uses an expensive Swiss-made, Blackfin-based DSP module for its Ethernet input.  And it is pretty much a DLNA-only affair.
> 
> The MicroRendu on the other hand, is based on a small iMX SoC (system on chip) module (socketed into a groundbreaking audio-optimized six-ways-to-Sunday baseboard by Swenson) running Linux, hence its ability to be set up as an endpoint for all sorts of audio network protocols.  The MicroRendu could easily be installed into a DAC, but as I recall, getting greater than 192Khz I2S out of the iMX6 subsystem is currently impossible.


 

 OK thanks for that.
  
 But I still can't see why Roon/RAAT can't be made to work with the Signature??  It's their totl statement product.
 And Roon does do UNPN (correct my typo for the anal out there - UPNP)  right - at least I see these streamers listed on their website as partners, like Aurualic (not the Vega but the Aries) :
AURALIC ARIES






> *FEATURES*
> *Streaming Services*
> *Local uPnP/DLNA library content*
> Qobuz and WiMP online streaming
> ...


 
*Signature Series Rendu*
 http://rendu.sonore.us/signature-series-rendu.html


> *STANDARD FEATURES*
> Supports *Tidal* lossless streaming via BubbleUPNP controller on an Android device
> Supports *Tidal* lossless streaming via BubbleServer and Linn Kazoo controller
> Supports gapless playback
> ...


 
 You see how I can be confused about this state of affairs (everyone like my new stately diplomatic tone).
  
 Then on the microRendu - you have to use your own USB device - like adding garbage on top of a fine meal (well not completely stately).
 And don't get this wonderful SPDIF design and clocking of the Signature -


> This output board holds the dual Crystek CCHD oscillators, the re-clocking circuitry, and the output drive circuitry for SPDIF and I2S.  Because the Signature Series Rendu generates clean clocks and then reclocks on the output board right before the SPDIF and I2S output jitter is lowered even further.  *Additionally, a very special SPDIF driver circuitry results in a perfectly clean SPDIF waveform which allows one to get the best out of any SPDIF input DAC*.  While the original Rendu has set the Ethernet to SPDIF and I2S standard up to now, the new ​Signature Series​ Rendu takes performance to the next level, this is the best SPDIF and I2S we can make, and we suspect that you will think so as well​


 
 Don't you think Roon and Sonore customers wouldn't want a "perfectly clean SPDIF waveform".


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> The point of high SRC and DSD SDM has nothing to do with source material.  It is entirely about supplanting the resource-constrained digital filters inside the DAC. The higher you can get in s/w--before the DAC--the better.


 

 Well that is what the Mutec is for - as SPDIF reclocker - about the improvement to the USB version of the MC-3+:
  
 http://mutec-net.com/product_mc-3-plus-usb.php
  


> This is what MUTEC’s proprietary re-clocking algorithm paired with the 1G-Clock technology provides at the highest level! Our MC-3+ Smart Clock already impressed critics and users around the world, and the MC-3+USB now marks the next generation of re-clocking by MUTEC. *Extreme oversampling of incoming data allows the audio to be recombined and merged with a newly generated ultra-low jitter clock signal at ultimate precision, enhancing the re-clocked audio with unparalleled richness of details, spatiality, and musicality.*


 
  
 So why burden the CPU with this 'extreme upsampling' when a dedicated and much cleaner DAP/DSP in the Murtec can do it better?
  
 Now I do upsample - 44k to 192k with Foobar and SoX.  Now you can argue that HQPlayer does it better - great not going there - not when I have a Mutec doing this for me h/w optimized.


----------



## Superdad

kelowna said:


> The problem with making a great AOIP solution is it takes big bucks to do it right. I'm talking about over $500K if you seriously want a solution from start to finish to work like clockwork. The Lead FPGA engineer over at Coveloz lives down the road from me. His son goes to the same preschool as my daughter. When he told me the bill for just the FPGA programming he did for them my jaw dropped. This is the reason Alex doesn't have a solution. But just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean you should bash it.


 

 But Mike, the goal of firms like Covelez (and Dante, and several others) is to offer their modules to OEMs for integration.  I am not bashing that.  Read what I wrote.  I am simply complaining that the s/w to support it is not readily available.  Ask Merging how much time and money it took to develop their virtual sound card s/w--for Win and OS X--for their AES67/Ravenna offerings.  That's why they are not sharing it with the rest of the AES67 community.  
  
*And if the expectation is that each DAC maker is going to write their own VSC s/w (for all platforms, and keep it current with OS changes), that's crazy*.  And that's why adoption (by high-end DAC makers) has been very slow.  I am not making this up. We were in serious talks with several prominent DAC designers regarding our now back-burnered "USB>Ethernet Audio Bridge OEM Solution," and they issue is very real.  Each of the firms had also researched the Dante, Covelez, etc. options.
  
 Clearly I have been repeating myself--in pretty much every argument you an I have had on this subject.  *Show me the open s/w solutions and I might be next in line to embrace AES67/Ravenna.*


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> +1
> 
> Thank goodness Forcusrite can and has - so why shouldn't they maximize that investment.




Adopting a 3rd party OEM solution into your product like Focusrite did isn't big bucks. It's coming up with your own solution. Even with Ravenna being open source we are still talking roughly $500K. Well unless you know the right people that is.  Unfortunately Alex doesn't.


----------



## Kelowna

superdad said:


> But Mike, the goal of firms like Covelez (and Dante, and several others) is to offer their modules to OEMs for integration.  I am not bashing that.  Read what I wrote.  I am simply complaining that the s/w to support it is not readily available.  Ask Merging how much time and money it took to develop their virtual sound card s/w--for Win and OS X--for their AES67/Ravenna offerings.  That's why they are not sharing it with the rest of the AES67 community.
> 
> *And if the expectation is that each DAC maker is going to write their own VSC s/w (for all platforms, and keep it current with OS changes), that's crazy*.  And that's why adoption (by high-end DAC makers) has been very slow.  I am not making this up. We were in serious talks with several prominent DAC designers regarding our now back-burnered "USB>Ethernet Audio Bridge OEM Solution," and they issue is very real.  Each of the firms had also researched the Dante, Covelez, etc. options.
> 
> Clearly I have been repeating myself--in pretty much every argument you an I have had on this subject.  *Show me the open s/w solutions and I might be next in line to embrace AES67/Ravenna.*




You made it clear that Ravenna was a poor choice for high end audio a year ago on CA. Now you will be first in line? It's too bad you felt that way a year ago. Because now you're in the back of the line 

While the forward thinkers were adopting, you were trashing.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Adopting a 3rd party OEM solution into your product like Focusrite did isn't big bucks. It's coming up with your own solution. Even with Ravenna being open source we are still talking roughly $500K. Well unless you know the right people that is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Now your just being a tease! LOL! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Well I hope you get to the 'right' people and get us a lower cost Ravenna solution!


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> But Mike, the goal of firms like Covelez (and Dante, and several others) is to offer their modules to OEMs for integration.  I am not bashing that.  Read what I wrote.  I am simply complaining that the s/w to support it is not readily available.  Ask Merging how much time and money it took to develop their virtual sound card s/w--for Win and OS X--for their AES67/Ravenna offerings.  That's why they are not sharing it with the rest of the AES67 community.
> 
> *And if the expectation is that each DAC maker is going to write their own VSC s/w (for all platforms, and keep it current with OS changes), that's crazy*.  And that's why adoption (by high-end DAC makers) has been very slow.  I am not making this up. We were in serious talks with several prominent DAC designers regarding our now back-burnered "USB>Ethernet Audio Bridge OEM Solution," and they issue is very real.  Each of the firms had also researched the Dante, Covelez, etc. options.
> 
> Clearly I have been repeating myself--in pretty much every argument you an I have had on this subject.  *Show me the open s/w solutions and I might be next in line to embrace AES67/Ravenna.*


 

 There is Dante - but you insist on 384k PCM, 256DSD, i2s - when those are not necessary for great audio!


----------



## Kelowna

I'm waiting for the admin lady to contact me with the info to become a sponsor. After that I can talk a bit more


----------



## Kelowna

I wonder what happened to this?


----------



## Kelowna

superdad said:


> The MicroRendu on the other hand, is based on a small iMX SoC (system on chip) module (socketed into a groundbreaking audio-optimized six-ways-to-Sunday baseboard by Swenson) running Linux, hence its ability to be set up as an endpoint for all sorts of audio network protocols.  The MicroRendu could easily be installed into a DAC, but as I recall, getting greater than 192Khz I2S out of the iMX6 subsystem is currently impossible.


 
 The problem with streaming devices with USB outputs are, no matter how great they might be at providing a clean USB signal, the USB path doesn't end at the USB output on the device. It ends at the I2S/DSD outputs on the DAC's USB interface. Most of them are poorly implemented, and devices upstream of the chain from them have no influence on this. You are only polishing half the turd. Yes a half polished turd is better than a completely dull turd, but still not the ultimate solution.
  
 If only resolutions 24/192 or under are required, and you must use USB out of the server PC, a better solution is a very good USB/AES/EBU bridge like the Mutec everyone is raving about here.
  
 But with devices like the Rednet 3 being on par cost wise with a Microrendu and a cheap power supply, it's a no brainer to go AOIP/AES/EBU. This is the next best thing to I2S direct if you have low jitter clocks and a clean signal coming from the bridge.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> So why burden the CPU with this 'extreme upsampling' when a dedicated and much cleaner DAP/DSP in the Murtec can do it better?
> 
> Now I do upsample - 44k to 192k with Foobar and SoX.  Now you can argue that HQPlayer does it better - great not going there - not when I have a Mutec doing this for me h/w optimized.


 
  
 It's not a "burden", the argument is that it is better to do the heavy lifting i.e. upsampling/filtering/PCM>DSD etc on a powerful computer to take advantage of CPU-intensive algorithms to do the best quality upsampling, but also that it makes sense to do this on a machine further back in the chain, so that the extra noise produced by this CPU-intensive process is isolated from the simpler lower-noise device that is actually connected to the DAC.
  
 This is the HQPlayer > NAA architecture and it makes a lot of sense to me. That said I don't like the HQP player interface, or lack of ALAC compatibility (unless used with Roon) and this kills that for me (though clearly not many others)
  
 Here's an idea.... To me, HQP/NAA clearly has a good ethernet transport system (not player, I'm talking the transmission protocol). Does anyone know what exactly it is using for the transmission to NAA? And there are now a few decent NAA endpoints. But not everyone likes the player. I wonder if Miska would consider floating off that side of things and instead of having a player + ethernet audio transmitter combined, instead offered an option to have the ethernet transmitter part spun off into a virtual sound card - as an optional purchase. Then you could run for example a uRendu from any player over ethernet, and not just the various options currently supported.


----------



## occamsrazor

superdad said:


> The point of high SRC and DSD SDM has nothing to do with source material.  It is entirely about supplanting the resource-constrained digital filters inside the DAC. The higher you can get in s/w--before the DAC--the better.


 
  
 Yes I am with you on this. It's a point many don't seem to get - it's not about what your source material is, it's about using a computer to upsample e.g. Redbook files to higher rates... Currently I have a DAC that only supports 96khz PCM, but looking to upgrade to something that does high PCM and DSD rates. It's not because I have lots of Hires or DSD material - the vast majority of my collection is Redbook - but to allow me to take advantage of upsampling.
  
 Look, if we're thinking about AOIP solutions to be adopted, it simply doesn't make sense in 2016 to limit things to 192khz, when ethernet has a bandwidth far, far, far greater - you're just building-in obsolescence.
  
 The more difficult and probably harder problem to overcome is we don't yet have a great interconnect method from ethernet bridge to DAC to use those higher rates - all AES/SPDIF/Toslink are limited, and USB has issues. i2s is the only other current method, or perhaps Thunderbolt. It just seems bizarre to me that in these days of massive bandwidth available we are still using methods that are severely constrained.


----------



## jabbr

occamsrazor said:


> ...
> 
> The more difficult and probably harder problem to overcome is we don't yet have a great interconnect method from ethernet bridge to DAC to use those higher rates - all AES/SPDIF/Toslink are limited, ...




The limits of SPDIF are not necessarily at 192kHz.

Look at the specs of Chord Hugo TT:


> Hugo TT supports up to *32-bit/384kHz audio via coax* and USB, and 24-bit/192kHz over optical, plus DSD64 on all inputs and *DSD128 via coax* or USB (all via DoP).




And the specs of the Chord DAVE:



> Outputs digital:
> 2x *ultra-high-speed coax 768kHz* dual-data mode for use with future-unannounced Chord Electronics products.




So it can (nearly all) be done using SPDIF coax!!


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I'm waiting for the admin lady to contact me with the info to become a sponsor. After that I can talk a bit more


 
 Cheers to that!  Need more audiophile company  'partners' on that list.
 http://www.ravenna-network.com/adopting-ravenna/overview


kelowna said:


> I wonder what happened to this?


 
 Oh salt in the wounds...
  


kelowna said:


> The problem with streaming devices with USB outputs are, no matter how great they might be at providing a clean USB signal, the USB path doesn't end at the USB output on the device. It ends at the I2S/DSD outputs on the DAC's USB interface. Most of them are poorly implemented, and devices upstream of the chain from them have no influence on this. You are only polishing half the turd. Yes a half polished turd is better than a completely dull turd, but still not the ultimate solution.
> 
> If only resolutions 24/192 or under are required, and you must use USB out of the server PC, a better solution is a very good USB/AES/EBU bridge like the Mutec everyone is raving about here.
> 
> But with devices like the Rednet 3 being on par cost wise with a Microrendu and a cheap power supply, it's a no brainer to go AOIP/AES/EBU. This is the next best thing to I2S direct if you have low jitter clocks and a clean signal coming from the bridge.


 
 +1 Cheers to that
  
 One note on the SQ change from the Mutec 3+USB to my own uber USB chain +the XU208 F-1 to the AOIP REDNET.  The stepup from 1 to 2 was noticible and welcome - bu the leap from 2 to 3 was really flooring.  Adding the Mutec as spdif reclocker - just widened the gap.
  
 But this was on my main system which is highly resolving - in my office system the difference are there and noticible - but not as dramatic.
 As someone has reported on a very good USB chain equaling the AOIP REDNET 16 on my other thread - so I would have to say it is of course going to be system dependent as always.
  
 But here would be my current USB DDC ranking and where the AOIP stands in contrast:
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ (SPDIF reclocker)                                                         235
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                               220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB               170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                        155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                   145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                               135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                   135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                      130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                    125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                          110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                   109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                      108
Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                              100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                                 95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                    92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                             85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                          81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                    76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                   72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                      65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                      65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                              60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                         50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                         40


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> It's not a "burden", the argument is that it is better to do the heavy lifting i.e. upsampling/filtering/PCM>DSD etc on a powerful computer to take advantage of CPU-intensive algorithms to do the best quality upsampling, but also that it makes sense to do this on a machine further back in the chain, so that the extra noise produced by this CPU-intensive process is isolated from the simpler lower-noise device that is actually connected to the DAC.
> 
> This is the HQPlayer > NAA architecture and it makes a lot of sense to me. That said I don't like the HQP player interface, or lack of ALAC compatibility (unless used with Roon) and this kills that for me (though clearly not many others)
> 
> Here's an idea.... To me, HQP/NAA clearly has a good ethernet transport system (not player, I'm talking the transmission protocol). Does anyone know what exactly it is using for the transmission to NAA? And there are now a few decent NAA endpoints. But not everyone likes the player. I wonder if Miska would consider floating off that side of things and instead of having a player + ethernet audio transmitter combined, instead offered an option to have the ethernet transmitter part spun off into a virtual sound card - as an optional purchase. Then you could run for example a uRendu from any player over ethernet, and not just the various options currently supported.


 

 If you read back toward the beginning of the thread - I reposted some of his comments from back in 2014 - I'll repost here:
  
Quote:


> *Miska*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  
  
*Miska*




 Masters Level Member Join Date​ Apr 2010
Location​ Finland
Posts​ 6,685
Blog Entries​ 12​



> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Merging Horus
Focusrite RedNet
 Both work with ASIO capable applications.
    _ Do you have a little more background on the DLNA issues, and why that would be bad for the 'perfect' audio path?

_


*UPnP is based on complex three-party handshake based on mDNS, HTTP and XML. In UPnP, Renderer is the instance that actually performs audio reproduction is also the actual player.* So it doesn't provide means for isolating audio recording/reproduction from the player functionality. Also the media streaming is based on HTTP which is really inefficient for the purpose. UPnP Media Server is pretty much just a web server with optionally media transcoding capabilities and the Renderer is player that makes requests to that web server. Control Point tells the Renderer what it should fetch from the Media Server.

 Control Point doesn't really have any control over "how" the actual playback is performed, only "what".

 When you want to play FLAC from MinimServer, Renderer is the one that performs all decoding and playback, MinimServer just provides the FLAC file as-is over HTTP when asked by the Renderer. If Renderer doesn't know how to play FLAC, playback fails. With more advanced Media Server, it could figure out it needs to convert 192/24 FLAC to something supported by Renderer for playback, but it's all up to black magic between the two what that intermediate format would happen to be. It could be for example MP3...

*Because UPnP/AV spec doesn't define any media formats, Media Server and Renderer could have nothing in common. For that reason, there's DLNA that defines restricted small subset of formats that are "mandatory" or "optional". DLNA part doesn't cover such things as DSD at all, so a DSD and DLNA are completely unrelated. So a strictly DLNA compliant system could transfer your DSD files as MP3 or 44.1/16 WAV (mandatory) between the systems, and you wouldn't even know... (other than wonder why it sounds bad)*

 Renderer doesn't really support multiple alternative outputs per renderer either.


 For example NAA makes remote audio devices appear just as if they were locally connected, player behaves the same as if the playback would happen locally. So it's more like the Merging/Focusrite devices above.





> Signalyst - http://www.signalyst.com
> Developer of HQPlayer


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> Yes I am with you on this. It's a point many don't seem to get - it's not about what your source material is, it's about using a computer to upsample e.g. Redbook files to higher rates... Currently I have a DAC that only supports 96khz PCM, but looking to upgrade to something that does high PCM and DSD rates. It's not because I have lots of Hires or DSD material - the vast majority of my collection is Redbook - but to allow me to take advantage of upsampling.
> 
> Look, if we're thinking about AOIP solutions to be adopted, it simply doesn't make sense in 2016 to limit things to 192khz, when ethernet has a bandwidth far, far, far greater - you're just building-in obsolescence.
> 
> The more difficult and probably harder problem to overcome is we don't yet have a great interconnect method from ethernet bridge to DAC to use those higher rates - all AES/SPDIF/Toslink are limited, and USB has issues. i2s is the only other current method, or perhaps Thunderbolt. It just seems bizarre to me that in these days of massive bandwidth available we are still using methods that are severely constrained.


 

 And that is the point - other then a i2s connection - most SPDIF recievers can't handle over 192k - some 96k.
  
 So all this pie in the sky ultra high SR's is really mute for 90% of the folks out there.  i2s is itself a major problem.  This is where I think TB3 and the new USB-c will enter the picture as the likely mainstream standard.
  
 Now I like upsampling as well - and have had good success upsampling my 44k Redbook to 192k (or using the 4X SoX feature).  That is a 4X upsample, is going another 2X - or 4X (that is 384k or 768k) going to make that big a difference?  Well I have tried it!  At least 384k.  And it did to a very minor degree.  So all this hand wringing over a minor improvement is silly IMHO.  It's just a 'game' being played by DDC and DAC companies to convince buyers they need the latest new SR.  A change in digital cable or better AC filtering a much bigger improvement - yet almost everyone here is using a BJC or worse and no AC filtering or one of those PS Audio regenerators (I have tried and don't like).  This part of the audio chain is so much less sexy then 768k upsampling.
  
 I like the Mutec approach - extreme upsampling right at the 1G superclock then combine to output a cleaner SPDIF to the DAC.  And that does help!  I spent $850 for that...but it is incremental.
  
 I'd love to see Sonore and/or Uptone uses JS's magic on a 'perfect SPDIF waveform' SPDIF reclocker...like in the Rendu Signature.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The limits of SPDIF are not necessarily at 192kHz.
> 
> Look at the specs of Chord Hugo TT:
> And the specs of the Chord DAVE:
> So it can (nearly all) be done using SPDIF coax!!


 

 +1 thanks for pointing that out!
  
 DAVE can even do 768k over dual SPDIF:


> Outputs digital:​​ 2x ultra-high-speed coax 768kHz dual-data mode for use with future-unannounced Chord Electronics products.​


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> So all this pie in the sky ultra high SR's is really mute for 90% of the folks out there.  i2s is itself a major problem.  This is where I think TB3 and the new USB-c will enter the picture as the likely mainstream standard.
> 
> Now I like upsampling as well - and have had good success upsampling my 44k Redbook to 192k (or using the 4X SoX feature).  That is a 4X upsample, is going another 2X - or 4X (that is 384k or 768k) going to make that big a difference?  Well I have tried it!  At least 384k.  And it did to a very minor degree.  So all this hand wringing over a minor improvement is silly IMHO.  It's just a 'game' being played by DDC and DAC companies to convince buyers they need the latest new SR.  A change in digital cable or better AC filtering a much bigger improvement - yet almost everyone here is using a BJC or worse and no AC filtering or one of those PS Audio regenerators (I have tried and don't like).  This part of the audio chain is so much less sexy then 768k upsampling.


 
  
 Agreed. 
  
 I'm with the Schiit guys on the ultra high SR stuff - where's the content that's truly high SR, and especially above 192KHz? There isn't much of it out there, and until or if there is, saying that 192KHz is too limiting or a dead end just doesn't make sense to me. The bulk of the content out there is Redbook, and even a lot(if not most) of the "high res" content you can buy wasn't originally mastered as such. If you have the content for it, then sure, I can see where it's a priority to have the ability to go higher than 192KHz, but that's not the case for most.


----------



## mourip

Regarding the "Wish List" for the audiophile oriented AOIP device. I agree with those ideas already put forward and want to add a couple others.
  
 First. Changing the color might be a good idea. Especially for those of us with wives, domestic partners, significant others... etc.
  
 I have my D16 tucked in a cabinet with blackout paper in front and the back open for cooling. 
  
 I do not think that RED will pass the WAF test regardless of how amazing it sounds.
  
 Black and or silver would go better in a home environment. Might as well match up with the other gear!
  
  
 Second. I like the idea of a DC power port for adding an LPS but would not like to get a toss-away wall-wart with the new device when the internal PS sounds so good right now. 
  
 Perhaps the new device could keep the present internal PS but have a switch for allowing external DC power. This would also allow folks to not feel like they had to spend more money to replace the wall-wart right away. Additionally having the external port specified for an easily found voltage might be good. 12v or 5v, whatever works internally. Those LPS's are easy to find and do not involve an adjustable regulator with all of the throw-away heat...


----------



## mourip

mhamel said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'm with the Schiit guys on the ultra high SR stuff - where's the content that's truly high SR, and especially above 192KHz? There isn't much of it out there, and until or if there is, saying that 192KHz is too limiting or a dead end just doesn't make sense to me. The bulk of the content out there is Redbook, and even a lot(if not most) of the "high res" content you can buy wasn't originally mastered as such. If you have the content for it, then sure, I can see where it's a priority to have the ability to go higher than 192KHz, but that's not the case for most.


 
  
 +1
  
 As long as we are trying to provide input for the new audiophile AOIP device lets start with 24/192. Perhaps address DSD later if the market responds...


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'm with the Schiit guys on the ultra high SR stuff - where's the content that's truly high SR, and especially above 192KHz? There isn't much of it out there, and until or if there is, saying that 192KHz is too limiting or a dead end just doesn't make sense to me. The bulk of the content out there is Redbook, and even a lot(if not most) of the "high res" content you can buy wasn't originally mastered as such. If you have the content for it, then sure, I can see where it's a priority to have the ability to go higher than 192KHz, but that's not the case for most.


 

 I agree - but I think the point the OP was referring to was HQ Player's use of high oversampling on Redbook files to improve SQ.  This idea of oversampling to improve SQ has been around for a long time (not just in D-S DAC chips to deal with extreme switching noise).
  
 I seem to remember a French audio company that used FPGA to extreme upsample RedbookCD's in their CD player - that was 10 yrs ago.
  
 Now this is what Mutec is doing in there MC-3+USB.  And what the NAA does?
  
 It's been around a long time - just now it's a bigger marketing buzzword 'gotta have'.
  
 My APL DAC upsamples to 211k Redbook.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Regarding the "Wish List" for the audiophile oriented AOIP device. I agree with those ideas already put forward and want to add a couple others.
> 
> First. Changing the color might be a good idea. Especially for those of us with wives, domestic partners, significant others... etc.
> 
> ...


 

 Yes I think black or sliver is generic and fits with most other gear.
  
 Perhaps the new dissappearing Vantablack!
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> +1
> 
> As long as we are trying to provide input for the new audiophile AOIP device lets start with 24/192. Perhaps address DSD later if the market responds...


 

 ++1


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> I agree - but I think the point the OP was referring to was HQ Player's use of high oversampling on Redbook files to improve SQ.  This idea of oversampling to improve SQ has been around for a long time (not just in D-S DAC chips to deal with extreme switching noise).
> 
> I seem to remember a French audio company that used FPGA to extreme upsample RedbookCD's in their CD player - that was 10 yrs ago.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yep, I do get that - I quoted this particular conversation but my statement was more generic in terms of hearing a lot of dismissal in the audiophile community of products that won't go above 192KHz as dead end or not good enough. Oversampling, when done well, can indeed improve sound quality, at least to my ears, I agree with that, too.


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> ++1


 
  
 Agreed... if the content is out there, then by all means, but if we want Focusrite to listen and put out a consumer-oriented "audiophile" box, our best bet is if they build it around the Audinate module that exists today.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> If you read back toward the beginning of the thread - I reposted some of his comments from back in 2014 - I'll repost here:


 
  
 I really have no idea the point you are trying to make by reposting all those comments by Miska about UPNP & DLNA.
 I was talking about HQPlayer and NAA endpoints, and whether the NAA protocol and endpoint functionality could be floated off into a separate virtual soundcard product.
 Given neither HQP nor NAA uses UPNP or DLNA, I fail to see the relevance.....


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> Agreed... if the content is out there, then by all means, but if we want Focusrite to listen and put out a consumer-oriented "audiophile" box, our best bet is if they build it around the Audinate module that exists today.


 

 Absolutely - and it really is plenty.  All this theory is fine - but it comes down to implementation and SQ for me.
  
 And the REDNET gear has proven itself to me.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> I really have no idea the point you are trying to make by reposting all those comments by Miska about UPNP & DLNA.
> I was talking about HQPlayer and NAA endpoints, and whether the NAA protocol and endpoint functionality could be floated off into a separate virtual soundcard product.
> Given neither HQP nor NAA uses UPNP or DLNA, I fail to see the relevance.....


 

 Well he basically said that NAA was closer to Dante AOIP then UPNP/DNLA ethernet audio.  In fact if you read that post carefully he says it's much like Apple's 'Airplay' 
  


> You shouldn't put LMS or UPnP/DLNA in the same sentence with NAA, because those are vastly different... *NAA is closer to AirPlay than LMS or UPnP/AV*.​ ​


 
  


> * In addition to NAA and building a NAA inside a DAC you have bunch of pro-audio gear (with ADC too) already on this area. So nothing new, but depends on what you want.​*


 


> > _
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 


> For example NAA makes remote audio devices appear just as if they were locally connected, player behaves the same as if the playback would happen locally. *So it's more like the Merging/Focusrite devices above.*​* *


 
  
 I know this stuff is complex and confusing - but it helps to read the posts.
  
 Although it's not AES67.  Anyway not really sure of the deep dark secret working of NAA.  And really don't care much about it.  Unless it's open to any player like Dante/Ravenna - to discuss it is pointless...unless it has been changed to become 'open'.  Does it work with Foobar and JRMC?
  
 Anyway I'm sick and tired of talking about NAA/HQPlayer/Roon/Rendu/RAAT/DNLA/UPNP.
  
 Maybe you can start your own thread about those - or post to threads that address them directly...I only comment here as Alex seems obsessed with mentioning them here constantly.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Well he basically said that NAA was closer to Dante AOIP then UPNP/DNLA ethernet audio.  In fact if you read that post carefully he says it's much like Apple's 'Airplay'
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
  
 Umm... this thread is about "Audio over IP", not just Rednet, I thought discussing the different possible methods of doing so and the merits/disadvantages of each was on-topic and relevant, and has provoked some very interesting discussion so far.For the record I don't personally use HQP or Roon and have no stake in anything, I'm just interested in the technology and possibilities.
  
 There’s a good explanation of how NAA works here:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/hqplayers-network-audio-adapter-13892/index66.html#post553242
  
 But if it's really disturbing you that much I'll leave it at that.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> Umm... this thread is about "Audio over IP", not just Rednet, I thought discussing the different possible methods of doing so and the merits/disadvantages of each was on-topic and relevant, and has provoked some very interesting discussion so far.For the record I don't personally use HQP or Roon and have no stake in anything, I'm just interested in the technology and possibilities.
> 
> There’s a good explanation of how NAA works here:
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/hqplayers-network-audio-adapter-13892/index66.html#post553242
> ...


 

 Well you are right - just I find it a convoluted subject - so post away and I will refrain from comment.


----------



## Kelowna

The Roon RAAT and NAA protocol's appear to work similar to AES67. But there's key differences that make them far inferior. 

1: They are proprietary closed formats that work specifically with Roon and HQplayer. 

2: They are designed to run on general purpose computer hardware running Linux, Windows or OSX. 

AES67 uses audio specific hardware that spits out CMOS I2S/DSD direct from the onboard FPGA's. CMOS I2S/DSD is the language that the DAC chips talk for PCM and DSD. When you use any protocol, (USB, SPDIF, AES/EBU) they all spit out CMOS I2S in the end to send to the DAC chip. Sending it out direct without going through additional processing and conversions is by far the best way it can be done. With AES67 the audio data is actually buffered into the onboard RAM chip, and the CMOS I2S/DSD is pipelined out via the FPGA in the purest way possible. And you are not bound to any particular audio player. AES67 gives the user 100% freedom to choose their favorite audio player. AES67 makes the need for RAAT and NAA null and void. The only way to get the audio out of RAAT and NAA is via the highly flawed USB protocol. The USB protocol was never intended for audio use, it was a compromised solution to a 2008 problem. However it's been a cash cow for trinket manufacturers who take advantage of its shortcomings to line their pockets. AES67 is a nightmare for these guys as the protocol has no ulgy warts requiring band aids. Use dirt cheap fiber Ethernet cable and the endpoint is 100% isolated from the influence of any external tweaks preformed on any of the hardware upstream of the endpoint device. AES67 is going to kill the business of all of these trinket companies offering endless server tweaks, and bandaids for USB. Is this a bad thing for the end consumer? Not in my book. 

Another thing is anyone who has signed an NDA with Dante, Colevoz or anyone else regarding their AOIP products will be sued in a heartbeat if they attempt to make any competitive products. Dante and Colevoz are very aware of who has signed their NDA's and have a close eye on these guys. They also have much deeper pockets and better lawyers, so it's not something I would personally challenge.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> The Roon RAAT and NAA protocol's appear to work similar to AES67. But there's key differences that make them far inferior.
> 
> 1: They are proprietary closed formats that work specifically with Roon and HQplayer.
> 
> ...


 

 To the rescue!  Thanks man


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> The Roon RAAT and NAA protocol's appear to work similar to AES67. But there's key differences that make them far inferior.
> 
> 1: They are proprietary closed formats that work specifically with Roon and HQplayer.


  
 I agree with that sentiment. I'm very much in favour of open standards.
 I do find Dante/AES67/Ravenna exciting and hope they take off more. If a 2-channel cheaper smaller bridge does come out, I'd been very keen on it.  


> The only way to get the audio out of RAAT and NAA is via the highly flawed USB protocol.


 
  
 Is that true though? I don't believe there is anything in the RAAT or NAA protocols that dictates a USB output is there?. Yes, the uRendu only has a USB output but that's just one piece of hardware. You can run an NAA endpoint on many other types of hardware even a Raspberry Pi and output i2s from that, at least from what I've read. It's just a question of the hardware you choose to use it on - not the protocol. As I say, at least from what I've read.

 PS - Thanks for joining this thread, I do find your posts interesting....


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Well you are right - just I find it a convoluted subject - so post away and I will refrain from comment.


 
  
 No worries, I will try to keep discussion on topic and I very much appreciate all your posts and the efforts you've made to explore this area.
 I just try to correct statements or information I see that is not factually correct.
 For what it's worth I'm actually very excited by Dante, and hoping that more hardware becomes available soon.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> I just try to correct statements or information I see that is not factually correct.


 
 You are not alone...


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> Is that true though? I don't believe there is anything in the RAAT or NAA protocols that dictates a USB output is there?. Yes, the uRendu only has a USB output but that's just one piece of hardware. You can run an NAA endpoint on many other types of hardware even a Raspberry Pi and output i2s from that, at least from what I've read. It's just a question of the hardware you choose to use it on - not the protocol. As I say, at least from what I've read.
> 
> 
> PS - Thanks for joining this thread, I do find your posts interesting....




No I suppose there's nothing dictating that USB must be used for an audio output device with NAA or RAAT. They are compatible with any audio output device that can be discovered in Linux, Windows and OSX. The I2S outs on a Raspberry PI are so poor that USB is even a better choice. Tell me about 1 device running NAA or RAAT that spits ultra clean I2S or DSD direct out of an onboard purpose programmed for audio FPGA. Sure it might be possible to build a custom solution, but that's a lot of effort to be bound to a single proprietary protocol.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> To the rescue!  Thanks man




No problem. The truth sure is refreshing. Nice to see its embraced around here


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> No I suppose there's nothing dictating that USB must be used for an audio output device with NAA or RAAT. They are compatible with any audio output device that can be discovered in Linux, Windows and OSX. The I2S outs on a Raspberry PI are so poor that USB is even a better choice. Tell me about 1 device running NAA or RAAT that spits ultra clean I2S or DSD direct out of an onboard purpose programmed for audio FPGA. Sure it might be possible to build a custom solution, but that's a lot of effort to be bound to a single proprietary protocol.


 
  
 Thanks for joining the thread - yes keeping the facts straight.


kelowna said:


> No problem. The truth sure is refreshing. Nice to see its embraced around here


 
 Great insights into the deeper design elements - much appreciated!


----------



## Kelowna

No problem guys. When I have some time later I'll share some details on I2S over LVDS, AES/EBU and SPDIF. And why all 3 can be better than USB for interfacing to external transport devices. 

It's not by accident that folks are getting such great sound from the Rednet 3 via the AES/EBU and SPDIF ports. There's real reasons for it.


----------



## gldgate

Got my D16 today. Will need some more time to absorb and put together impressions. However, I just wanted to say to those folks who like Roon/Tidal it works fine with D16. Right now I'm playing Roon/Tidal through virtual soundcard ASIO to D16 and then out to Mutec MC-3 + USB (for reclocking)  via AES. I am also using AES from Mutec to Yggy. Not a USB cable to be seen. I've also been listening via JRMC.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Hey guys, good news bad news but first I want to acknowledge @atomicbob and his experiment, I read what you did and have some questions. I may want to try replicating your ASIO bridge setup to try it myself with a Breeze Du-u8 and the R3 for a simultaneous control over two output devices. I want to say that while the U12 is a fantastic device I believe that the R3 is a step up so I want to see where things may have changed.. read: does the ASIO bridge/virtual soundcard setup make sq difference void because of how it processes the audio and possibly added (for the lack of words) goobleygook to the audio signal?

 So the good news bad news, from my phone call to Focusrite and having a chat with their Rednet specialist: The good news is the Rednet 3 is capable of outputting to multiple DACs and I've confirmed this to be possible but only via AES/EBU breakout cable (Tascam format not Yamaha). *The output signal on the optical is not your standard spdif optical* but adat optical widely used in pro sound. Unfortunately our DACs are incompatible with only 2ch optical spdif. ADAT is capable of carrying multiple channel signals over optical where as spdif is your standard 2ch; in short the Rednet 3 can't output to our DACs via optical without some kind of conversion from ADAT to SPDIF -- which I'm not sure exists. I'm sure it does but having it in the chain will probably defeat the purpose. So unless you're using a DAC that takes ADAT via optical input, the R3 can not send a signal to your DAC.


----------



## Kelowna

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hey guys, good news bad news but first I want to acknowledge @atomicbob
> and his experiment, I read what you did and have some questions. I may want to try replicating your ASIO bridge setup to try it myself with a Breeze Du-u8 and the R3 for a simultaneous control over two output devices. I want to say that while the U12 is a fantastic device I believe that the R3 is a step up so I want to see where things may have changed.. read: does the ASIO bridge/virtual soundcard setup make sq difference void because of how it processes the audio and possibly added (for the lack of words) goobleygook to the audio signal?
> 
> 
> So the good news bad news, from my phone call to Focusrite and having a chat with their Rednet specialist: The good news is the Rednet 3 is capable of outputting to multiple DACs and I've confirmed this to be possible but only via AES/EBU breakout cable (Tascam format not Yamaha). *The output signal on the optical is not your standard spdif optical* but adat optical widely used in pro sound. Unfortunately our DACs are incompatible with only 2ch optical spdif. ADAT is capable of carrying multiple channel signals over optical where as spdif is your standard 2ch; in short the Rednet 3 can't output to our DACs via optical without some kind of conversion from ADAT to SPDIF -- which I'm not sure exists. I'm sure it does but having it in the chain will probably defeat the purpose. So unless you're using a DAC that takes ADAT via optical input, the R3 can not send a signal to your DAC.




Another problem is clock sync between all of the DAC's. If you want to use your DAC's internal master clock, you won't have sync between the DAC's. Most DAC's these days reclock the incoming AES/EBU and SPDIF signals internally with a reclock/SRC chip. This causes latency. This is one area where having the Ravenna or Dante interface built into the DAC shines. You have clock sync through the IEEE 1588 grandmaster clock protocol. The only other way is syncing them all through word clock in's and outs. But that's a sub par way of doing things because tons of jitter is introduced with the connections and cable length. Unless a DAC has a very poor internal master clock, you will almost always get better jitter performance using the internal master if it's located very close to the DAC chip. With Ravenna and Dante, each DAC still uses its own master, it's just the skew that the grandmaster clocking keeps in sync within 1 nanosecond. Don't confuse this spec with jitter. The actual jitter performance is still determined by each of the DAC's individual masters.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Got my D16 today. Will need some more time to absorb and put together impressions. However, I just wanted to say to those folks who like Roon/Tidal it works fine with D16. Right now I'm playing Roon/Tidal through virtual soundcard ASIO to D16 and then out to Mutec MC-3 + USB (for reclocking)  via AES. I am also using AES from Mutec to Yggy. Not a USB cable to be seen. I've also been listening via JRMC.


 

 Great news!  All the bases covered - thanks!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hey guys, good news bad news but first I want to acknowledge @atomicbob and his experiment, I read what you did and have some questions. I may want to try replicating your ASIO bridge setup to try it myself with a Breeze Du-u8 and the R3 for a simultaneous control over two output devices. I want to say that while the U12 is a fantastic device I believe that the R3 is a step up so I want to see where things may have changed.. read: does the ASIO bridge/virtual soundcard setup make sq difference void because of how it processes the audio and possibly added (for the lack of words) goobleygook to the audio signal?
> 
> So the good news bad news, from my phone call to Focusrite and having a chat with their Rednet specialist: The good news is the Rednet 3 is capable of outputting to multiple DACs and I've confirmed this to be possible but only via AES/EBU breakout cable (Tascam format not Yamaha). *The output signal on the optical is not your standard spdif optical* but adat optical widely used in pro sound. Unfortunately our DACs are incompatible with only 2ch optical spdif. ADAT is capable of carrying multiple channel signals over optical where as spdif is your standard 2ch; in short the Rednet 3 can't output to our DACs via optical without some kind of conversion from ADAT to SPDIF -- which I'm not sure exists. I'm sure it does but having it in the chain will probably defeat the purpose. So unless you're using a DAC that takes ADAT via optical input, the R3 can not send a signal to your DAC.


 
  


kelowna said:


> Another problem is clock sync between all of the DAC's. If you want to use your DAC's internal master clock, you won't have sync between the DAC's. Most DAC's these days reclock the incoming AES/EBU and SPDIF signals internally with a reclock/SRC chip. This causes latency. This is one area where having the Ravenna or Dante interface built into the DAC shines. You have clock sync through the IEEE 1588 grandmaster clock protocol. The only other way is syncing them all through word clock in's and outs. But that's a sub par way of doing things because tons of jitter is introduced with the connections and cable length. Unless a DAC has a very poor internal master clock, you will almost always get better jitter performance using the internal master if it's located very close to the DAC chip. With Ravenna and Dante, each DAC still uses its own master, it's just the skew that the grandmaster clocking keeps in sync within 1 nanosecond. Don't confuse this spec with jitter. The actual jitter performance is still determined by each of the DAC's individual masters.


 

 I can see this an issue in a broadcasting/speaker use standpoint but with headphones where you just want to get a bunch of DACs plugged in to hear what the AES67 can do for their DAC sq over USB, this isn't an issue.


----------



## mourip

Does anyone know if we can use one PC with DVS on it to send music to two different REDNet devices? I would like to eventually consolidate my system so that I have one PC that works for both my speaker system and my headphone system.
  
 I realize that I could use something like a uRendu to do this as I am running JRMC however I am in love with the amazing AOIP sound.


----------



## Kelowna

soundsgoodtome said:


> I can see this an issue in a broadcasting/speaker use standpoint but with headphones where you just want to get a bunch of DACs plugged in to hear what the AES67 can do for their DAC sq over USB, this isn't an issue.


 

 Yes I forgot we are on Headfi I guess.  Only an issue for home use when trying to put together an active or sub/sat system with multiple DAC's that don't have word clock inputs.


----------



## Kelowna

mourip said:


> Does anyone know if we can use one PC with DVS on it to send music to two different REDNet devices? I would like to eventually consolidate my system so that I have one PC that works for both my speaker system and my headphone system.
> 
> I realize that I could use something like a uRendu to do this as I am running JRMC however I am in love with the amazing AOIP sound.


 

 This is one of the beauties of the grandmaster clocking scheme. Clock sync between multiple devices on the same network. In order to take advantage of this, multiple devices must be used on the same network. So the limit of how many rednet devices that can be used, should be capped on the bandwidth of the network. As long as that's not exceeded, you should be fine. But we are talking a boatload of simultaneous high resolution channels playing.
  
 Unless they ding you for licensing per endpoint with Dante. That I'm not 100% sure of.
  
  
 I just found this:


----------



## mhamel

kelowna said:


> This is one of the beauties of the grandmaster clocking scheme. Clock sync between multiple devices on the same network. In order to take advantage of this, multiple devices must be used on the same network. So the limit of how many rednet devices that can be used, should be capped on the bandwidth of the network. As long as that's not exceeded, you should be fine. But we are talking a boatload of simultaneous high resolution channels playing.
> 
> Unless they ding you for licensing per endpoint with Dante. That I'm not 100% sure of.


 
  
 No additional licensing per endpoint unless it's a PC that needs to run DVS or Via.  Otherwise you just need the compatible hardware.


----------



## Kelowna

mhamel said:


> No additional licensing per endpoint unless it's a PC that needs to run DVS or Via.  Otherwise you just need the compatible hardware.


 

 You're good to go as long as you don't exceed 512 channels @ 48khz  And that's playing simultaneously.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Does anyone know if we can use one PC with DVS on it to send music to two different REDNet devices? I would like to eventually consolidate my system so that I have one PC that works for both my speaker system and my headphone system.
> 
> I realize that I could use something like a uRendu to do this as I am running JRMC however I am in love with the amazing AOIP sound.


 

 That should be no problem  - see the diagrams in REDNET Controller manual.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I broke the bad news to the meet tomorrow, unfortunately I false advertised the Rednet capable of Toslink chaining. 





kelowna said:


> Yes I forgot we are on Headfi I guess.  Only an issue for home use when trying to put together an active or sub/sat system with multiple DAC's that don't have word clock inputs.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Yes I forgot we are on Headfi I guess.  Only an issue for home use when trying to put together an active or sub/sat system with multiple DAC's that don't have word clock inputs.


 

 How does this play out with IEEE1588-2008 (also referred to as PTPv2).


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I broke the bad news to the meet tomorrow, unfortunately I false advertised the Rednet capable of Toslink chaining.


 

 You can get a db25 cable for about $45.
  
 https://www.amazon.com/Hosa-DTF-803-Balanced-Snake-XLR3F/dp/B000068OAL/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466218884&sr=1-2&keywords=db25+to+xlr


----------



## Kelowna

If you are using a device that utilizes PTPv2, each endpoint will have clock sync within a nanosecond.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> This is one of the beauties of the grandmaster clocking scheme. Clock sync between multiple devices on the same network. In order to take advantage of this, multiple devices must be used on the same network. So the limit of how many rednet devices that can be used, should be capped on the bandwidth of the network. As long as that's not exceeded, you should be fine. But we are talking a boatload of simultaneous high resolution channels playing.
> 
> Unless they ding you for licensing per endpoint with Dante. That I'm not 100% sure of.
> 
> ...


 

 And that number grows with a REDNET PCIe/R card instead of DVS - wonder about our lowly 2 channel 192k SQ?  Better with this card vs DVS?
  
 For us it's about that bass...err...I mean SQ...
  
 I understand with the RN Dante PCIe the latency drops to very low levels - from 4ms to 150us


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> And that number grows with a REDNET PCIe/R card instead of DVS - wonder about our lowly 2 channel 192k SQ?  Better with this card vs DVS?
> 
> For us it's about that bass...err...I mean SQ...


 

 I would be very surprised if a fiber converter was used, if you could hear a difference between the DVS and the Rednet card.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I would be very surprised if a fiber converter was used, if you could hear a difference between the DVS and the Rednet card.


 

 So moving off the virtual emulation to a real card - with better clocking - not much gain?
  
 What's Sweetwater's return policy?   Kidding - if may be slightly better (or not at all) but not $1000 better!


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Have you guys seen this yet? Although I must say I'm not convinced that the measurement data holds much weight. Seriously how can it be possible that a dirty USB port on a HP laptop is so much cleaner? And what's wrong with sharing the output mode used?
> 
> http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/measurements-of-sonore-microrendu-streamer.577/


 

 I get nauseous just thinking about reading anymore about microrodeo.
  
 Ok with that I'll retire to the listening room with a glass of Small Batch 10yr Four Roses Bourbon.
  
 I have a date with Tracy Chapman and Neko Case...


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> So moving off the virtual emulation to a real card - with better clocking - not much gain?
> 
> What's Sweetwater's return policy?   Kidding - if may be slightly better (or not at all) but not $1000 better!


 
  
 Did you spring for the RN PCIe card?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Good stuff RB, this will be good for future meets but I need one today along with AES/ebu to spdif adapters for the Bellingham meet. 



rb2013 said:


> You can get a db25 cable for about $45.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Hosa-DTF-803-Balanced-Snake-XLR3F/dp/B000068OAL/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466218884&sr=1-2&keywords=db25+to+xlr




We rock out in silence 
except open back phone users, they're quietly loud


kelowna said:


> Yes I forgot we are on Headfi I guess.  Only an issue for home use when trying to put together an active or sub/sat system with multiple DAC's that don't have word clock inputs.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> That should be no problem  - see the diagrams in REDNET Controller manual.


 
  
 Thanks. I thought so but was trying to figure out where I would configure that. Must be in the Dante Control panel where there is that confusing matrix for mapping?
  
 So I guess in my case the simplest would be to map the output of JRMC via DVS to both of the devices, speaker system and HP system when I buy a second RN device.
  
 I also guess that in JRMC if I play a song it will play on both systems at the same time?


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Thanks. I thought so but was trying to figure out where I would configure that. Must be in the Dante Control panel where there is that confusing matrix for mapping?
> 
> So I guess in my case the simplest would be to map the output of JRMC via DVS to both of the devices, speaker system and HP system when I buy a second RN device.
> 
> I also guess that in JRMC if I play a song it will play on both systems at the same time?




Yes, in that matrix which isn't all that confiusing.
One side is all the sending devices and other side is receiving devices.
On the the cross point you mark which (channels of) sending device A map to which (channels of) receiving device B.
There are very usefull instruction videos on the Audinate YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/HMCwwCg6IbE

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

Ok some listening reports with RN3/Mutec 3+ USB as spdif reclocker:
  
 Last night a wonderful listening session.  On Neko Case's 'Fox Confessor Brings the Flood' - the air and transparency was off the charts.  Over the years this album has really grown on me, and I know it very well.  She recorded it with lots of reverb, the guitar honky tonk twangy - a difficult recording for a system to get right.
  
 And boy with the RN3/Mutec - it was right as can be!  The imaging spectacular on the 5ft tall Maggie Planars - never has her image been so focused, with a high lumen inner lit quality - just so realistic.  The only things missing was the clinking of glasses and the smell of spilled beer on the saw dust covered floor.
  
 This is first time I actually felt this recording had tonal richness - as it's purposefully recorded 'dry'.
  
 The ease and smoothness another standout.  Just a sublime delicacy and finesse to the proceedings.  Nothing I have ever heard matches this SQ.
  
 The background noise ink black allowing the lowest level of details to emerge.  These deeply buried details reveal the ambient clues that help the Mind/Ear reconstruct a real image in a 3D sound field.  Going from a sound of staggered flat 2D cardboard cutouts - to point sources emanating in all directions in that 3D sound field.  Yes the main frontal wave - but also the very subtle back and side wave reflections that create spacial realism.
  
 The other stand out is the deep and articulate bass definition.  I used to use a Velodyne sub-woofer with my Maggies - but with these source enhancement - that's not been necessary (since the PUC2 lite entered the picture), but was still a weak spot in my system.  Not any longer! Now the bass is as deep and defined as my old Firebird Diamonds!  Those had 11" Focal woofers.  But the bass is different even from the FB's - better - it just radiates out filling the room.  A bodily tactile sensation.
  
 All this leads to a greater connection to the artist and music - leaving a profound impression.  What all this debate, experimentation in ultimate audio reproduction is about (well at least for me).
  
 As I laid my head down to sleep later that night  - I couldn't help but revel in the memory of that impression.  Neko's voice gently echoing "...or somebodies in between girl...and that's as funny as real love..." I couldn't help but smile.
  
 Folks this is the real deal and  sea change in sound quality for us audiophiles - at least this one.  And I can't help but relish the idea of having this each and every night - a few steps away and a few clicks of a mouse...great times to me a music fan.
  
 Cheers


----------



## rb2013

superdad said:


> Oh, forgot to answer your question.  Quite easily!  Here:
> https://community.roonlabs.com/t/how-do-i-use-roon-and-hqplayer-together/5866
> 
> You will see Roon become quite open.


 

 Open as in still $500 open or free as in Foobar free, or nominal cost like JRMC?


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> So happy you joined this forum!
> 
> Wait until XMOS comes out with a dedicated Ravenna chipset and driver package.  Look at what they did to Amanero with their U-8 and now XU-208 and Thesycon drivers for USB.  Don't see many of those Amanero boards as build-in's anymore (even the new one).




Glad to be here. 

Yes as AES67 is going to be the new standard, it will only be a matter of time until we see low cost ASIC's utilizing the technology. The future sure is looking bright with AES67!


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Glad to be here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Cheers to that!
  
 Got throw a few kudos to Mike for the lead on this REDNET stuff back a few months ago.
  
 In my 26yrs + in high end audio - I've rarely been so happy with my systems' sound as I am now.  Just one night like last night makes it all worth it!
  
 I know it's not cheap - but I look at my neighbor and his sailboat and what that costs!  He just spent $25,000 on new sails - they do wear out I guess.  Get's to take it out about a dozen times in the year  - most of the rest his time on it is maintenance and upgrades.  This hobby is way cheaper.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> That's a cool DAC. I really don't know why manufacturers that make DAC's that limit at 24/192 anyways haven't incorporated Dante yet. I think the issue is they simply don't realize the sonic benefit they will achieve vs USB, and the initial implementation costs vs USB. One thing Alex pointed out that was accurate was the $10500 cost of the PDK evaluation board. A drop in the bucket for large manufacturers, but maybe a bit steep for mom and pop operations. Another thing is Dante might not have enough "audiophile" street cred for them to adopt.


 

 Well we're here to lend them the street creed!
  
 For me it's amazing that these ProAudio companies like Focusrite don't capitalize on their layouts for the PDK and in house s/w to branch out with a line of audiophile products?
  
 Would them lose studio street creed?  Look at what happened to EMU.
  
 A Bomber B2 with USB for those DSD heads and 384k+ gotta have folks but also Dante for the SQ folks like me. Everyone happy!


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> That's exactly what Merging has done with Ravenna. They released the Horus first, then the Hapi (which is a Horus with less board slots), and a year ago the NADAC. The NADAC has been far more successful than they even anticipated. It certainly hasn't hurt their street cred. But the audiophile market has much higher margins, which explains the bulk of price difference between the Hapi and NADAC. They use the distributor/dealer model for the audiophile products, so there's a lot of hungry mouths to feed.


 

 Makes complete sense - better if you or Schiit did a direct buy model.


----------



## mhamel

kelowna said:


> That's a cool DAC. I really don't know why manufacturers that make DAC's that limit at 24/192 anyways haven't incorporated Dante yet. I think the issue is they simply don't realize the sonic benefit they will achieve vs USB, and the initial implementation costs vs USB. One thing Alex pointed out that was accurate was the $10500 cost of the PDK evaluation board. A drop in the bucket for large manufacturers, but maybe a bit steep for mom and pop operations. Another thing is Dante might not have enough "audiophile" street cred for them to adopt.


 
  
 I've been pinging Dangerous suggesting that they add the option to their Convert-2 and Convert-8 DACs. It would be a nice upgrade. If I wasn't already so happy with the Convert-2, I'd probably give the Burl a try but this DAC isn't going anywhere for a long time... the Burl would have to be pretty amazing to lure me away, and the in the few comparisons I've seen the Convert-2 comes out on top.


----------



## Kelowna

mhamel said:


> I've been pinging Dangerous suggesting that they add the option to their Convert-2 and Convert-8 DACs. It would be a nice upgrade. If I wasn't already so happy with the Convert-2, I'd probably give the Burl a try but this DAC isn't going anywhere for a long time... the Burl would have to be pretty amazing to lure me away, and the in the few comparisons I've seen the Convert-2 comes out on top


 
  
 As long as you have a DAC with I2S input, or a USB board that plugs into the mainboard via header pins, you are good to go at adopting this technology with no compromises anyways. This is why I've always been a supporter of DAC manufacturers having an I2S port on their DAC's. This gives direct access to the DAC chip externally without any jitter causing conversions having to take place. When you send I2S over LVDS properly, it has 2% of the jitter of SPDIF, with no ceiling on sample rate. Check out MSB's Pro I2S for a great example. You will simply not beat this system for interfacing to external transports/bridges:
  
 http://www.msbtech.com/products/pro.php?Page=platinumHome


----------



## mhamel

kelowna said:


> As long as you have a DAC with I2S input, or a USB board that plugs into the mainboard via header pins, you are good to go at adopting this technology anyways. This is why I've always been a supporter of DAC manufacturers having an I2S port on their DAC's. This gives direct access to the DAC chip externally without any jitter causing conversions having to take place. When you send I2S over LVDS properly, it has 2% of the jitter of SPDIF, with no ceiling on sample rate. Check out MSB's Pro I2S for a great example. You will simply not beat this system for interfacing to external transports/bridges:
> 
> http://www.msbtech.com/products/pro.php?Page=platinumHome


 
  
 I haven't pulled the Convert-2 apart yet to check the USB input and whether or not it's on a separate board, but I will check that. I had inquired with Audinate about a smaller DIY-centric version of their Brooklyn II development kit but never heard back, and dropping $10K on the full version is a bit much. Heh.  Thanks for the link, I will take a look.


----------



## somestranger26

Got my Rednet 3 yesterday. Setup was a hassle, I thought the people saying that were just tech illiterate but I am a software engineer and thought it was too complicated. I saw the firmware update dated over a month ago and figured I didn't need that since the distributor just got the unit in the day they shipped it to me. The RN3 manual claims that Rednet Control will automatically perform the firmware update but it doesn't.
  
 So then to do the firmware update I downloaded the firmware update tool and hit allow on the firewall popup. I tried to update according to the instructions and it froze at something like "Getting file (1/1)" and then it would fail saying "Error: none". I had to call up support and the info card in the box says "8am - 6pm (PST)" but they were on lunch from 12-1 when I was setting it up. When I finally got through to someone they suggested it could be a firewall issue. Turns out the Intel NIC that I bought was showing up as a public network in my network settings and there was no way to change it, and the default for allowing firewall access is for private networks only.
  
 So then finally got the firmware to update and then update again (really?). Channel mappings, etc. are also a pain when all I want is 2 channel audio.
  
 I wish there was a way to get DVS to work in both ASIO and WDM modes simultaneously like what the XMOS drivers allow. If I want to do anything except listen to music (movies, internet, games...) then I have to turn it off, switch it to WDM, and turn it back on. Also, I was disappointed that WDM mode only supports 48kHz since it's locked at the max 32 channels.
  
 As for the sound quality, out of the box it has an edge to my previous USB chain. I wouldn't say it is a "total sea change" or "night and day difference" though. Hopefully with some burn-in I will think that. Anyway, it's a much simpler chain than what I had before and sounds better so it's worth it. I think I sank a similar amount of $$$ into USB audio as well.
  
 USB Chain:
  
 Modded Belkin F5U602 USB > LH Labs 2G > USB REGEN (Teradak DC30W LPS) > Curious Regen Link > Singxer F-1 > internal I2S > A-GD Master 11
  
 Ethernet Chain:
 Intel EXPI9301CT GbE Controller > Rednet LAN cable > Rednet 3 > Cabledyne Silver Reference RCA > M11
  
 I'm currently doing a hostile takeover of the Cables/tweaks/accessories sale board. You've got some competition, rb2013.


----------



## jabbr

> Channel mappings, etc. are also a pain when all I want is 2 channel audio.


 
  
 This is a Pro-Audio tool, not a consumer device.
  


> I wish there was a way to get DVS to work in both ASIO and WDM modes simultaneously like what the XMOS drivers allow.


 
 This is a *virtual* sound card, not XMOS-drivers for a physical sound card.
  
  
 Reading you first comments makes me wonder if this Pro-tool is the type of device for you.
  
  
 Hope I'm not too blund / bold.


----------



## somestranger26

> Originally Posted by *jabbr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> This is a Pro-Audio tool, not a consumer device.


 
 Obviously. What a useless comment.


> Originally Posted by *jabbr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> This is a *virtual* sound card, not XMOS-drivers for a physical sound card.


 
  
 So what? A virtual sound card can function for both ASIO and WDM simultaneously if it is designed for it. Virtual hardware drivers are no different than drivers for physical hardware in this respect.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> Obviously. What a useless comment.
> 
> So what? A virtual sound card can function for both ASIO and WDM simultaneously if it is designed for it. Virtual hardware drivers are no different than drivers for physical hardware in this respect.




The VB-Audio Hifi cable should be a solution for your WDM issue. It sounds great as well. 


http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/


----------



## gldgate

I posted longer comments over at CA but wanted to post something over here as well. To my ears D16>Mutec MC3>Yggy combo is best sq I have heard in my system to date. I prefer it to both the uRendu and Dual PC systems I also have. I was a bit skeptical with all the praise but after listening consider me a AOIP convert - at least with the Dante implementation of the D16.


----------



## somestranger26

kelowna said:


> The VB-Audio Hifi cable should be a solution for your WDM issue. It sounds great as well.
> 
> 
> http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/


 

 Perfect, thank you! Now I can even route Reclock through ASIO when I'm watching movies and shows. I'm sure I'm not the only person who will find this useful. The set up for the ASIO bridge was less than 5 minutes and much easier than Dante / Rednet setup 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> Perfect, thank you! Now I can even route Reclock through ASIO when I'm watching movies and shows. I'm sure I'm not the only person who will find this useful. The set up for the ASIO bridge was less than 5 minutes and much easier than Dante / Rednet setup  .




No problem. It's a killer piece of software. A big step up from WDM to my ears. Please donate, they deserve it.


----------



## rb2013

Thread back up and running!  Will have a few interesting things to share next week!
  
 Cheers


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

How?? Very interesting developments



rb2013 said:


> Thread back up and running!  Will have a few interesting things to share next week!
> 
> Cheers


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> I posted longer comments over at CA but wanted to post something over here as well. To my ears D16>Mutec MC3>Yggy combo is best sq I have heard in my system to date. I prefer it to both the uRendu and Dual PC systems I also have. I was a bit skeptical with all the praise but after listening consider me a AOIP convert - at least with the Dante implementation of the D16.


 

 That speaks volumes - thanks for the post!
  
 I did a simple tweek that added at least another 5 points to the REDNET/Mutec 3+USB combination.
  
 I have a excellent power cord - one that has out performed every other I have tried before and really does make a difference.  The Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme Red (for low current draws).
  
 I had this into the REDNET 3 and a generic silver pc into the Mutec.  I did a simple power cord switch and it really improved the sound.  Then added a thick copper EMI/RF shield to the Cerious tech power input (very close to the spdif input) another incremental improvement!  These are available from Lowes for $10.
  

  
 Will get another for the RN3 next week.
  
 BTW I paid $250 for the Cerious Graphene  - the normally go for $500.  So having it in the best position is most efficent.  Have another on the ALP DAC.
  
  
 Cheers!


----------



## joelha

Rb2013,

Great information regarding the copper piece.

Could you give the item number, link, or exact description of the Lowes item?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## Lord Raven

rb2013 said:


> Thread back up and running!  Will have a few interesting things to share next week!
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 Congratulations, and I am subscribing, need a lot to read an digest.


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> That speaks volumes - thanks for the post!
> 
> I did a simple tweek that added at least another 5 points to the REDNET/Mutec 3+USB combination.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the feedback. So glad we got the thread back.  This is developing into a key resource for consumer AOIP.


----------



## rb2013

With the reopening of the thread I have changed the title to: "*AUDIO over IP - REDNET 3 & 16 Review.  AES67 Sets A New Standard for Computer Audio*"
  
 I'd like to keep this thread focused more on the REDNET devices and then AES67 developments.
  
 So please try and limit the dicussion of the microrendu to comparisons to the REDNET DDC's.  Same for any AVB stuff.  NAA, HQP, Roon, RAAT as well.
  
 This is a renewed emphasis on these 'here and now' audio products.
  
 AOIP is the new King of computer audio!


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Rb2013,
> 
> Great information regarding the copper piece.
> 
> ...


 

 Yes when I buy another tomorrow, I'll get the product description.
  
 It you have or plan on getting a high end power cord - definitely use it on the Mutec (if your using the RN and Mutec combination).
  
 This is interesting - not only is the REDNET seemingly uneffected by good quality CAT6 cables (I'll be try a few more soon, including the STP  CAT7) but power chords as well.
  
 The Cerious Graphene on the Mutec as reclocker made a nice improvement in image depth.
  
 PS I also have the Purist Audio Design Colussus XLR digital coming tomorrow.
  
 The GB optical ethernet extenders on the way:
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003CFATKQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 And Monoprice optical cable:
 http://www.monoprice.com/Product?p_id=6843&gclid=Cj0KEQjwhZm7BRCUyfS6ho2VjOEBEiQAumpGMpQyZIIMMExv5ePV8GTkskOLw91GIGOj4-lm7qLoko0aAlB78P8HAQ
  
 So much to explore!


----------



## joelha

As it happens, I have a Mutec MC-3 USB.

But first I have to get my D16 running.

That's not an exactly intuitive process . . . at least not for me.

I hope I'm getting close to working that out.

One question: the copper piece you're using was already cut to size or you had to cut it?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Yes when I buy another tomorrow, I'll get the product description.
> 
> It you have or plan on getting a high end power cord - definitely use it on the Mutec (if your using the RN and Mutec combination).
> 
> ...




I'm excited to hear about your impressions of the optical. Keep in mind they can run off both 9 and 5v supplies. I'm thinking my earlier recommendation of the ifi Ipower maybe was a bad one after seeing measurement results. I've actually never tried one myself, and was recommending based on their marketing hype and low price. But sounds like you probably have a nice arsenal of great supplies already at your disposal, so should be good to go


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

What made you change your stance on the fiber optic conversion rb2013? Wouldn't adding more to the signal path from pc to rednet be backwards? Galvanic isolation?


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> What made you change your stance on the fiber optic conversion rb2013? Wouldn't adding more to the signal path from pc to rednet be backwards? Galvanic isolation?




+1

I would be worried about the quality of the optical-into-electrical conversion step.
It is where electrical noise can be put into the cat-wiring again and I don't see any advantage over a direct cat-connection.
If noise on cat is an issue, put in an audiograde LAN-isolator, so not these medical-grades.
Better solution would be a REDNET with mini-GBIC adaptes to accept optical ethernet.

Cheers


----------



## Kelowna

What 





soundsgoodtome said:


> What made you change your stance on the fiber optic conversion rb2013? Wouldn't adding more to the signal path from pc to rednet be backwards? Galvanic isolation?




What it actually does is isolates the Rednet from everything upstream of the fiber converter. The converter itself has a very low noise footprint, and when powered by a clean supply, it is far less noisier than routers and PC NIC's. The signal path for Ethernet doesn't matter like it does with USB. This is because the clocking is not related to the audio like with USB. As long as the data makes it intact, it's all good. This is why AES67 can operate even over a WAN network with 1000 clocks in the chain with no detriment to the sound, or adding any jitter. The first clocking that matters for jitter performance, doesn't happen until the audio reaches the Rednet. 

Hopefully this clarifies some things about AES67.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Ah, this is a revelation on aes67 kelowna. Good explanation on data processing in rednet and long as data arrives intact it's all good. 

Why would the rednet need isolation from upstream devices I guess is the question now? Is there noise from the rednet that can contaminate the pc or pc noise contaminating the rednet? Or are we talking about Rednet units on actual network systems? Ethernet is not galvanic isolated?


----------



## jabbr

kelowna said:


> What
> What it actually does is isolates the Rednet from everything upstream of the fiber converter. The converter itself has a very low noise footprint, and when powered by a clean supply, it is far less noisier than routers and PC NIC's. The signal path for Ethernet doesn't matter like it does with USB. This is because the clocking is not related to the audio like with USB. As long as the data makes it intact, it's all good. This is why AES67 can operate even over a WAN network with 1000 clocks in the chain with no detriment to the sound, or adding any jitter. The first clocking that matters for jitter performance, doesn't happen until the audio reaches the Rednet.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies some things about AES67.




Ethernet/cat was supposed to be GI already, though I know there are still improvements to be made.

I would say use passive components for additional isolation/filtering and not another active converter that requires a top notch PSU again, and maybe still isn't as clean as it could/should.


----------



## Kelowna

jabbr said:


> +1
> 
> I would be worried about the quality of the optical-into-electrical conversion step.
> It is where electrical noise can be put into the cat-wiring again and I don't see any advantage over a direct cat-connection.
> ...




It was actually your recommendation last year that convinced me to try this in the first place. I was skeptical that the converter might create more noise than the connected router in the first place. But I decided to try it with a streamer I built. At first I tried it with the included cheap SMPS. I was disappointed and found it made the sound more brittle. But then I hooked up a very low noise LPS to the streamer side converter. I was shocked at the difference it made. Since then I helped 3 NADAC owners setup fiber with the same setup Rob just ordered. All 3 were very impressed and said it made a considerable difference. But make sure the Ethernet cable from the converter on the Rednet side is as short as possible. 1' or less CAT 6.


----------



## Kelowna

jabbr said:


> Ethernet/cat was supposed to be GI already, though I know there are still improvements to be made.
> 
> I would say use passive components for additional isolation/filtering and not another active converter that requires a top notch PSU again, and maybe still isn't as clean as it could/should.




If you know of a passive way of achieving better results I'm very open to it. But I really do like fiber in general after using it. And the $79 edgerouter x SFP is an excellent switch for AOIP use with its built in SFP port.


----------



## jabbr

kelowna said:


> It was actually your recommendation last year that convinced me to try this in the first place........




Can't have been me, I never dabbled with optical before.

I did notice someone is using the same moniker as me on other fora, so that may be the cause of the confusen.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

One of the main attractions of the rednet was pc, Ethernet, rednet, dac simplicity. Whereas usb was power here, power there, cables and then DAC; the rednet was a one stop shop that didn't care for fancy power cables (smps) and two cables in the link with superior audio. 

I'm curious if there are gains to be had with the fiber itself with no mutec at the end to reclock. Bust out the popcorn


----------



## Kelowna

jabbr said:


> Can't have been me, I never dabbled with optical before.
> 
> I did notice someone is using the same moniker as me on other fora, so that may be the cause of the confusen.




Oh I thought you were Jabbr the optical isolation guru. Anyways like I said I was also skeptical. But not anymore. Rob will soon see. If he doesn't find it to be an improvement, it will be the first to my knowledge. Also without fiber, I could hear a difference with every router, and every connected computer. Not anymore. The only thing upstream of the fiber converter connected to the streamer that can make a difference in sound is DSP in the media player, or the algorithms the players use to decode FLAC etc.


----------



## Kelowna

soundsgoodtome said:


> One of the main attractions of the rednet was pc, Ethernet, rednet, dac simplicity. Whereas usb was power here, power there, cables and then DAC; the rednet was a one stop shop that didn't care for fancy power cables (smps) and two cables in the link.
> 
> I'm curious if there are gains to be had with the fiber itself with no mutec at the end to reclock. Bust out the popcorn




Well it won't make the clocking any better, but it should help quite a bit. I would sure love to hotrod one of these things. I might buy one just to see how far it can be taken with serious mods. Perhaps try to tap into the I2S and output I2S over LVDS on HDMI or RJ-45. I have a pile of HDMI I2S LVDS sender and receiver boards.


----------



## Kelowna

The noise isn't from the Rednet, it's coming from the connected router and computer. I know Ethernet cable is galvanic isolated, but it's not perfect. Noise from the routers, switches, connected computers still gets in.


----------



## Kelowna

Another thing with AOIP that seems to cause confusion is there's actually 3 types of clock timing that matters with AOIP/AES67. 
  
 1: Round trip latency. This is what they are talking about improves when you buy the dedicated Rednet NIC. What this means is say you had a Rednet ADC connected on the network with some mics hooked up to it. And you had a Rednet DAC on the same network. Using the better NIC will lower the roundtrip latency. This means the delay of when the signal leaves the mic, to when it gets to the DAC. For home audio use this doesn't mean much unless you are watching a live video feed or something through a TV tuner on your PC and you need absolute sync. With USB due to async, you always have much more latency anyways.
  
 2: Clock skew: This is the endpoint to endpoint skew or sync between endpoints on the IEEE1588 PTPv2 grandmaster clocking system. For home audio use this is also not very important. This often gets confused with jitter. The only situation this would matter is say you had 2 different Rednet DAC's connected to the system, and the left channel was connected to one, and the right to another. There would be timing errors of around 1 nanosecond with AES67. Not a big deal even if you did do that.
  
 3: Clock jitter. With AES67 each device is still clocked with it's own master. You do designate 1 clock on the system as grandmaster, but that only is for synchronizing the devices, or skew. It doesn't affect the jitter for the audio. This is huge as with the old word clock system where you daisy chain devices, the device closer to the master always will have better jitter performance. Of course the grandmaster system is only used when multiple devices need to me synced anyways. Rare for home use.
  
 Hopefully this clears up a bit of confusion.


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> Yes when I buy another tomorrow, I'll get the product description.
> 
> It you have or plan on getting a high end power cord - definitely use it on the Mutec (if your using the RN and Mutec combination).
> 
> ...


 
 What SFP's are you going to use with the FMC's?


----------



## Kelowna

I think what you're referring to is miniGBIC modules?
  


 He bought SC/SC modules with built in optical transceivers. Here's one out of the case. Very nice boards. They have DENO's to isolate the ground from the DC supplies, and nice LDO regulators to power the different chips. I was shocked to see build quality at this level for the price. I've compared to $450+ FMC boards and the only real difference is these don't have the military certifications. But every bit as good of build quality.


----------



## jabbr

kelowna said:


> The noise isn't from the Rednet, it's coming from the connected router and computer. I know Ethernet cable is galvanic isolated, but it's not perfect. Noise from the routers, switches, connected computers still gets in.




So why not use an audiograde LAN-isolator like GISO-GB from Acousence?
Very beneficial and completely passive.


----------



## Kelowna

I would love to compare. If it's actually better, That's what I will recommend. But for me I have an SFP port on my switch anyways, and the fiber cable is dirt cheap. The streamer I'm using also has built in fiber.
  
 Looking on their website I don't even see a picture, nor do they explain how it works.


----------



## Kelowna

Found it here for 349 Euro for the gigabit version. Quite a bit more than the $150 for 2 FMC's and clean power supply.
  
 https://www.cm-audio.net/giso


----------



## jabbr

```
He bought SC/SC modules with built in optical transceivers. Here's one out of the case. Very nice boards. They have DENO's to isolate the ground from the DC supplies, and nice LDO regulators to power the different chips. I was shocked to see build quality at this level for th
```
uote name="Kelowna" url="/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/435#post_12664335"]I think what you're referring to is miniGBIC modules?





.....
[/quote]

Yes, these come in all fibre cable types / optical protocols.
My Cisco switches allow them, but non of my audio devices / PC's.

And IMHO it is not about cheap solutions, but good solutions.
I would not again want to go the route of additional optical converters around cat-cabled systems with external PSU's , however cheap they are. That IMHO would show the improvement if probably not so much from the CAT/ethernet connection, but more from the quality of the RedNet devices.


----------



## Kelowna

jabbr said:


> Code:
> 
> ```
> He bought SC/SC modules with built in optical transceivers. Here's one out of the case. Very nice boards. They have DENO's to isolate the ground from the DC supplies, and nice LDO regulators to power the different chips. I was shocked to see build quality at this level for th
> ...


 
 Yes, these come in all fibre cable types / optical protocols.
 My Cisco switches allow them, but non of my audio devices / PC's.

 And IMHO it is not about cheap solutions, but good solutions.
 I would not again want to go the route of additional optical converters around cat-cabled systems with external PSU's , however cheap they are. That IMHO would show the improvement if probably not so much from the CAT/ethernet connection, but more from the quality of the RedNet devices.[/quote]

  
  
 Well if it sounds better after adding them than it did before then for some it might be worthwhile. However I just stumbled upon this unit. Maybe I'll try one. If it's better than the optical with Ravenna, then maybe I will stop recommending the fiber converter for those using Ethernet bridges that only have copper inputs:
  
  
 http://www.emosystems.com/product/en-30/


----------



## Muziqboy

This one is supposed to be better than a medical lan isolator but a bit pricey.
  
https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html


----------



## Kelowna

muziqboy said:


> This one is supposed to be better than a medical lan isolator but a bit pricey.
> 
> https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html


 

 Looks cool. But for some reason Ted B on CA tried all of these isolator's years ago and today he's using the exact same TPlink fiber converters  Rob bought in his reference rig today. Following all the threads over there on the topic, it seems they evolved from the GSIO isolators to FMC's
  
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/network-isolation-4265/index2.html


----------



## rw35

TP Link FMCs worked a treat on my Aurender, just put an LPS on the 'business' end.
  
 Glad you got the thread back guys, I'm reading with interest.
  






 
  
 PS, I sent Aurender a message about AOIP and linked to this thread.


----------



## Iving

https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/neutrik/neutrik-nxp-rx-dante


----------



## Kelowna

iving said:


> https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/neutrik/neutrik-nxp-rx-dante




Wow! I haven't seen those yet. I wonder if they work with Ravenna too? Wireless, and maybe even the best sound. I must try!

Edit: ahh maybe not $6420 and max sample rate support of 48khz 


http://www.fohonline.com/current-issue/23-road-tests/14403-neutrik-xirium-pro-cable-replacement-system.html


----------



## somestranger26

kelowna said:


> If you know of a passive way of achieving better results I'm very open to it. But I really do like fiber in general after using it. And the $79 edgerouter x SFP is an excellent switch for AOIP use with its built in SFP port.


 
   
How does that switch offer an advantage over the devices rb2013 bought? It says that the SFP port is only on the inlet. I was hoping maybe I could return this NIC that I bought and just use the switch with SFP out to an SFP receiver and power that with LPS.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> How does that switch offer an advantage over the devices rb2013 bought? It says that the SFP port is only on the inlet. I was hoping maybe I could return this NIC that I bought and just use the switch with SFP out to an SFP receiver and power that with LPS.




It has the advantage that it's an entire switch. And it has QoS ability, and you can plug your NAS and server into it and have everything in your audio system on 1 solid quality enterprise grade switch. You can assign one of the ports for Internet input to bring Internet into the system from a standard router. But you do have to add the cost of a minigbic module to use the SFP port.


----------



## jabbr

kelowna said:


> Well if it sounds better after adding them than it did before then for some it might be worthwhile. However I just stumbled upon this unit. Maybe I'll try one. If it's better than the optical with Ravenna, then maybe I will stop recommending the fiber converter for those using Ethernet bridges that only have copper inputs:
> 
> 
> http://www.emosystems.com/product/en-30/




The GISO-GB is a much improved isolator than these general isolators/medical isolators.


----------



## jabbr

muziqboy said:


> This one is supposed to be better than a medical lan isolator but a bit pricey.
> 
> https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html




The acousence GISO-GB is a much better one, I have heared both. I have the Acoustic Revive still lying about somewhere. The Acoustic Revive is also limited to 100 Mb/s and I prefer to keep my LAN on 1Gb/s if at all possible.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> The GB optical ethernet extenders on the way:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003CFATKQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


 
  
 What you've got should be fine but personally I prefer the MC220L model:
  
 https://www.amazon.com/MC220L-Converter-1000Mbps-supporting-mountable/dp/B003CFATL0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466421218&sr=1-1&keywords=tp-link+Media+Converter
  
 This comes with empty SFP slot so you can add whatever Mini-GBIC model you want, and can change it later. Also if I remember it's easier/cheaper to go wth Multi-mode vs Single-mode converters, given for our use we will never reach the distance limit.
  
 By the way if you're looking for a great switch with SFP slots (they come empty, you need to add the modules) I can very highly recommend this Netgear model:
  
 https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-GS110TP-Gigabit-GS110TP-200NAS/dp/B00LW9A328/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466421446&sr=1-1&keywords=gs110tp


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> What made you change your stance on the fiber optic conversion @rb2013? Wouldn't adding more to the signal path from pc to rednet be backwards? Galvanic isolation?


 

 Great question.  Well first the low cost - $100.  Second the Amazon free return policy (we now have these Amazon drop vaults here for returns - super convienent).  So worth giving it a try.
  
 I was open to the idea before (just busting Benny's balls - as he has done to me many times).  But wanted to get some feedback from those using AES67 AOIP versus the other ethernet audio solutions (Like HQP/NAA) for optical isolation to improve the SQ.
  
 That came with @Kelowna's post on the NADAC folks feedback (I trust his report on this) and his recommendation - which I also trust.
  
 Not just that but this kind fellow - made it so easy - with direct Amazon links on the exact GB converter to use and how (use a iPower - or on my case will be a TeraDak LPS + DCiPur) on the reciever box.  And on which inexpensive fiber cable to use and why.
  
 So versus just a link to another long optical ethernat thread to sift through, our knowledgable friend made  a great case for why these inexpensive optical ethernet converter boxes (and thanks again for the direct Amazon link) work.
  
 I'll try and find his original post (it was right before the fury activity).  Thinking more about it - using this as a galvanic isolation - may try one of the STP CAT7 cables now.
  
 Not saying it will make a difference - I'll know by Friday and report the difference.  And to boot will try in the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB extender running in my office system - for the USB folks who might be interested.
  
 I give you credit for first mentioning it.  Have you tried on the REDNET?


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I'm excited to hear about your impressions of the optical. Keep in mind they can run off both 9 and 5v supplies. I'm thinking my earlier recommendation of the ifi Ipower maybe was a bad one after seeing measurement results. I've actually never tried one myself, and was recommending based on their marketing hype and low price. But sounds like you probably have a nice arsenal of great supplies already at your disposal, so should be good to go


 

 No worries I have a iPower 5VDC (just sold my 9), but the TeraDak X1 has an adjustable votlage output.  So I'll check what the voltage is and set accordingly.
  
 From my experience with the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB extender - using a LPS on both the reciever and sender made a very significant improvement.  I have them shoehorned into my office system (USB).  How's this for a chain in a second system:
  
 PC>Forza Twin Copper split USB (power leg to a 5VDC Tera LPS) (data leg PC USB)>Startech (now fed a LPS on the LEX)>BJC CAT6 550Mhz UTP>REX (Breeze 24VDC LPS)>LH Labs 2G (data leg only)>W4S Recovery (TeraDak X1 with upgrade Nichicon HW caps/DC iPur)>Curious 200mm USB>iPurifier2>F-1>Audio Sens Silver Statement SPDIF 1.5M>W4S Remedy (TeradDak LPS/DC iPur)>ViaBlue RCAtoRCA connector>DAC
  
 That's FOUR LPS's in one chain!!!!
  
 Sounds pretty awesome - but what lengths I had to go through!
 Really love moving away from USB
  
 BTW the DAC is a highly modded true tube output R2R PCM1704/6922 DAC60 - that I did a major mod project on - running my HG Russian magic tubes (see my 17 tube face-off review).  This was extremely successful - liquidity and musicality out the yin-yang.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> +1
> 
> I would be worried about the quality of the optical-into-electrical conversion step.
> It is where electrical noise can be put into the cat-wiring again and I don't see any advantage over a direct cat-connection.
> ...


 

 Which do recommend?
  
*SOtM iSO-CAT6 High End Audio LAN Signal Filter Isolator*
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/252404400491?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 or
*New Acoustic Revive LAN isolator RLI RLI1GB-TRIPLE-**C EMS*
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/172144307287?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 Srajan on 6Moons did a review of the SOtM with the Ravenna HAPI - a very slight improvement that he kinda questioned for the price:
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/sotm2/1.html
  
 I love this guy!  He was on to AOIP back in May of last year!


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> What
> What it actually does is isolates the Rednet from everything upstream of the fiber converter. The converter itself has a very low noise footprint, and when powered by a clean supply, it is far less noisier than routers and PC NIC's. The signal path for Ethernet doesn't matter like it does with USB. This is because the clocking is not related to the audio like with USB. As long as the data makes it intact, it's all good. This is why AES67 can operate even over a WAN network with 1000 clocks in the chain with no detriment to the sound, or adding any jitter. The first clocking that matters for jitter performance, doesn't happen until the audio reaches the Rednet.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies some things about AES67.


 

 Yes, thanks.  And AES67 has full duplex error correction.  Something that USB 2.0 Audio Asyn had to give up to get throughput.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> It was actually your recommendation last year that convinced me to try this in the first place. I was skeptical that the converter might create more noise than the connected router in the first place. But I decided to try it with a streamer I built. At first I tried it with the included cheap SMPS. I was disappointed and found it made the sound more brittle. But then I hooked up a very low noise LPS to the streamer side converter. I was shocked at the difference it made. Since then I helped 3 NADAC owners setup fiber with the same setup Rob just ordered. All 3 were very impressed and said it made a considerable difference. But make sure the Ethernet cable from the converter on the Rednet side is as short as possible. 1' or less CAT 6.


 
 I have a few 12 inch CAT6 to try.  Any benefit to going STP CAT7 on the PC side?


soundsgoodtome said:


> One of the main attractions of the rednet was pc, Ethernet, rednet, dac simplicity. Whereas usb was power here, power there, cables and then DAC; the rednet was a one stop shop that didn't care for fancy power cables (smps) and two cables in the link with superior audio.
> 
> I'm curious if there are gains to be had with the fiber itself with no mutec at the end to reclock. Bust out the popcorn


 
 The Mutec is to help the SPDIF to DAC end - not the PC to RN DDC connection.  Kinda two separate protocols with different needs.  As clean as the AOIP can be - SPDIF can also be a SQ factor.  So careful attention there has to be placed.  Fortunately, it's been around a long time - so many tweeks and quality cables are available.  The Mutec is the best reclocker I have heard - and doesn't do SRC like the Remedy and Synchro-Mesh - with their bit loss.
  
 I'm all for simplicity (and saving money), but SQ comes first.  My ridiculus USB chain did not come by accident, but by careful listening tests and trial & error.  Each helping the SQ improve.  And the simple PC>REDNET>DAC way out performed it.  But that doesn't mean that it can't be made even better. And for me it already has with the Mutec as spdif reclocker.  So how far can this envelope be pushed?  We'll be pushing for sure.  This really is breaking new ground here.  Combining things is new ways for sonic improvements.
  


kelowna said:


> Oh I thought you were Jabbr the optical isolation guru. Anyways like I said I was also skeptical. But not anymore. Rob will soon see. If he doesn't find it to be an improvement, it will be the first to my knowledge. Also without fiber, I could hear a difference with every router, and every connected computer. Not anymore. The only thing upstream of the fiber converter connected to the streamer that can make a difference in sound is DSP in the media player, or the algorithms the players use to decode FLAC etc.


 
 No FLAC for me!  I didn't buy this lossless compression - it still needs processing, so can effect SQ.  With 3TB HDs now available for $150 - what the point?  It's all EAC secure mode ripped WAV files for me!


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> How does that switch offer an advantage over the devices rb2013 bought? It says that the SFP port is only on the inlet. I was hoping maybe I could return this NIC that I bought and just use the switch with SFP out to an SFP receiver and power that with LPS.




You are right. I just got this switch 2 weeks ago and the way I'm using it is I'm bringing in Internet and my NAS from the other room via the SFP port, and outputting to my streamer via FMC. But I thought the SFP port could he assigned as a LAN port as well. But sadly WAN only. I guess the cheaper $59 edgerouter x would be all that's required together with an FMC. Or go for this switch:

https://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-Gigabit-Ethernet-Managed-TL-SG3210/dp/B006B7R3YC


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> What SFP's are you going to use with the FMC's?


 
 What he said below! LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


kelowna said:


> I think what you're referring to is miniGBIC modules?
> 
> 
> 
> He bought SC/SC modules with built in optical transceivers. Here's one out of the case. Very nice boards. They have DENO's to isolate the ground from the DC supplies, and nice LDO regulators to power the different chips. I was shocked to see build quality at this level for the price. I've compared to $450+ FMC boards and the only real difference is these don't have the military certifications. But every bit as good of build quality.


 
 Dude - thanks so much for sharing all this info.  Wow - I was out yesterday for a half a day and look at the ground this thread has covered.  I'm playing catch up.  But your help and guidance here is very much appreciated.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> So why not use an audiograde LAN-isolator like GISO-GB from Acousence?
> Very beneficial and completely passive.


 
 Good question...
  


kelowna said:


> Found it here for 349 Euro for the gigabit version. Quite a bit more than the $150 for 2 FMC's and clean power supply.
> 
> https://www.cm-audio.net/giso


 
 Good answer...


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> What you've got should be fine but personally I prefer the MC220L model:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/MC220L-Converter-1000Mbps-supporting-mountable/dp/B003CFATL0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466421218&sr=1-1&keywords=tp-link+Media+Converter
> 
> ...




I have those FMC's as well. But they sound the same to me as the SC port ones, and they are more expensive with the minigbic module. I haven't tried multi mode, but some people on CA were saying they like single mode better. You won't run out of bandwidth either way.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Code:
> 
> ```
> He bought SC/SC modules with built in optical transceivers. Here's one out of the case. Very nice boards. They have DENO's to isolate the ground from the DC supplies, and nice LDO regulators to power the different chips. I was shocked to see build quality at this level for th
> ...


 
 Yes, these come in all fibre cable types / optical protocols.
 My Cisco switches allow them, but non of my audio devices / PC's.

 And IMHO it is not about cheap solutions, but good solutions.
 I would not again want to go the route of additional optical converters around cat-cabled systems with external PSU's , however cheap they are. That IMHO would show the improvement if probably not so much from the CAT/ethernet connection, but more from the quality of the RedNet devices.[/quote]


 If any one has one of these $500 GISO GB filters and wants to lend to me for a face-off against the Ethernet Optical devices - I'm game!


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> I have a few 12 inch CAT6 to try.  Any benefit to going STP CAT7 on the PC side?
> The Mutec is to help the SPDIF to DAC end - not the PC to RN DDC connection.  Kinda two separate protocols with different needs.  As clean as the AOIP can be - SPDIF can also be a SQ factor.  So careful attention there has to be placed.  Fortunately, it's been around a long time - so many tweeks and quality cables are available.  The Mutec is the best reclocker I have heard - and doesn't do SRC like the Remedy and Synchro-Mesh - with their bit loss.
> 
> I'm all for simplicity (and saving money), but SQ comes first.  My ridiculus USB chain did not come by accident, but by careful listening tests and trial & error.  Each helping the SQ improve.  And the simple PC>REDNET>DAC way out performed it.  But that doesn't mean that it can't be made even better. And for me it already has with the Mutec as spdif reclocker.  So how far can this envelope be pushed?  We'll be pushing for sure.  This really is breaking new ground here.  Combining things is new ways for sonic improvements.
> ...




I don't think anything upstream of the FMC connected to the Rednet will matter sound wise. Cat 6 should get you all the bandwidth you need. But cat 7 won't hurt anything.


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> What he said below! LOL
> 
> Dude - thanks so much for sharing all this info.  Wow - I was out yesterday for a half a day and look at the ground this thread has covered.  I'm playing catch up.  But your help and guidance here is very much appreciated.




No problem. I can't wait to hear more feedback, and experiments from others. I need to see some high res board pics of the Rednet 3 and see if I can spot how this thing can be modded to reach sonic nirvana


----------



## lateboomer

Yup. We can always count on @Kelowna's honest and unapologetic feedback when come to digital audio. Sometimes, I just afraid he is too straight forward and neglect his own interest. Anyway, I know he is going to hit up well with your guys. Too much good info sharing here and I want to compile it to my laptop for slow reading as there are a lot of difficult stuff to grasp.
Cheers!


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Which do recommend?
> 
> *SOtM iSO-CAT6 High End Audio LAN Signal Filter Isolator*
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/252404400491?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> ...


 
 Don't know the SOtM one, but regarding the Acoustic Revive: ------V
  


jabbr said:


> The acousence GISO-GB is a much better one, I have heared both. I have the Acoustic Revive still lying about somewhere. The Acoustic Revive is also limited to 100 Mb/s and I prefer to keep my LAN on 1Gb/s if at all possible.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/neutrik/neutrik-nxp-rx-dante


 

 Very cool!  Wireless in the extreme it looks like.  Dante in AES out?


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The acousence GISO-GB is a much better one, I have heared both. I have the Acoustic Revive still lying about somewhere. The Acoustic Revive is also limited to 100 Mb/s and I prefer to keep my LAN on 1Gb/s if at all possible.


 

 AR has a GB version now too - no?
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/172144307287?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 You had posted some noise measurements here a while ago - that was with the AR 100Mb/s or the GISO-GB?
  
 In the 6Moons review the $350 Sotm had some special sauce - have you tried it?


> *South Korea's Soul Of the Music* aka SOtM bank on it. Their iSO-CAT6 inline 'black box' inserts a
> digital isolation transformer *plus sundry unreported bits* into the
> Ethernet pipeline. That strips off noise which invades from the routers's ground plane. As Wikipedia
> reports, "_network isolators are installed as part of a copper Ethernet system _
> ...


 


> *Based on what we've been told thus far*, two questions arise. One, if exotic 'audiophile' Ethernet wires make an audible improvement as reviewers and users report, could this be due to incorporating an actual isolation transformer perhaps in the receive-end connector; or do they duplicate its noise-suppressing function by some other means? Two, does the recommendation of placing this passive device close to the receive and not send end *imply a certain amount of insertion loss*? The first question remains open-ended. I asked May Park about the second. Then I issued the obvious third. Besides an isolation transformer, *what else was in the box when their materials talk of 'sound tuning'?* I fully expected a diplomatic soft pedal. IP deserves protection. But that never stops our sort. Diplomacy ain't our thing. May proved unfazed. *"Our device contains 10GBASE-T Ethernet magnetics*. And yes, it does cause some insertion loss. That's why a short distance to the PC is highly recommended." By another name, her explanation mentioned the isolation transformer again. I rephrased my question on what else. With her in a different time zone, I had the answer the next day.


 
 What of this 'insertion loss'?
 Wouldn't the 10GBASE Sotm be superior to the 1GB GISO or 1GB AR.  And cheaper then the GSIO.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> What you've got should be fine but personally I prefer the MC220L model:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/MC220L-Converter-1000Mbps-supporting-mountable/dp/B003CFATL0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466421218&sr=1-1&keywords=tp-link+Media+Converter
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the suggestions - well we'll see how this sounds first and I may try a Sotm ISO LAN filter as well - so the STP CAT7 cables can be used with GI.
  
 Many avenues to explore.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I don't think anything upstream of the FMC connected to the Rednet will matter sound wise. Cat 6 should get you all the bandwidth you need. But cat 7 won't hurt anything.


 
 Thanks  - the super expensive HIFI designer CAT6 and CAT7's are out of the question - like the JCAT, AQ, SR, etc...these run into the hundreds, even thousands.  This $100 path is way more acceptable.  Would rather focus on the SPDIF cabling.
  


kelowna said:


> No problem. I can't wait to hear more feedback, and experiments from others. I need to see some high res board pics of the Rednet 3 and see if I can spot how this thing can be modded to reach sonic nirvana


 
 That would be great!  Here are some from someone here who posted Eric I believe.
 I think the SMPS would be a target of improvement - as was done on the Mutec - running an external LPS.

  

  

  
 I'll crack the case open on mine and take some more to post


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> AR has a GB version now too - no?
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/172144307287?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> 
> ...


 
 That  new AR isolator is from after my trials (3-4 years ago), so don't know that one. From the name one would assume it is a 1 GB-version, but it doesn't say it anywhere explicitly.
  
 The measurements I posted are from the AR 100 Mb/s version and they were published by Acoustic Revive on their website.
  
 Cheers


----------



## gldgate

For those going down the optical path, you can great deals on SFP's on e-bay.  A decent 1G SFP (Cisco, Finisar etc..) can be picked up for under $10 a piece.
  
 I have had an optical set-up for about 9 months and think it worthwhile. Unfortunately, I've found the power supplies on FMC's to be horrid and did not get the best sound until I swapped them out. Depending on the number of FMC's you need an alternative option would  be getting an optical switch. I have something like this:
  
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/GXCOM-HS1100-10-100-1000M-8-Port-Gigaibt-SFP-port-with-1-port-10-100/32666639282.html?spm=2114.01010208.3.166.UPT4dc&ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_0,searchweb201602_5_10017_10040,searchweb201603_11&btsid=204ad8ff-ca4a-433e-b98e-334cc14da109
  
 I also found improvement in replacing power supply on the switch.


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> Very cool!  Wireless in the extreme it looks like.  Dante in AES out?


 
  
 Very expensive, and not full bitrate, I believe.
  
 I looked into these, and if I recall, it was around $1500 at each end.


----------



## thisisvv

I am just curious, This entire exercise is to eliminate the USB from our audio chain.  Has anyone tried this.
  
 http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6i7kyk-features-configurations.html
  
 This is an i7 NUC that has a toslink output. We can use this to M3 USB+ or dac directly.  Has anyone tried connecting this NUC directly to DAC and then using Rednet
  
 just asking 
  
  
 V


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> For those going down the optical path, you can great deals on SFP's on e-bay.  A decent 1G SFP (Cisco, Finisar etc..) can be picked up for under $10 a piece.
> 
> I have had an optical set-up for about 9 months and think it worthwhile. Unfortunately, I've found the power supplies on FMC's to be horrid and did not get the best sound until I swapped them out. Depending on the number of FMC's you need an alternative option would  be getting an optical switch. I have something like this:
> 
> ...


 

 Have you tried on the Rednet yet?


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> Very expensive, and not full bitrate, I believe.
> 
> I looked into these, and if I recall, it was around $1500 at each end.


 

 Och - well not so interesting.


----------



## rb2013

thisisvv said:


> I am just curious, This entire exercise is to eliminate the USB from our audio chain.  Has anyone tried this.
> 
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6i7kyk-features-configurations.html
> 
> ...


 

 My experience with toslink is pretty miserable.  I get the GI part.  But maybe today the Electro-Optical converters are better - they have increased throughput to match coax.  Every test on a DAC I have seen the Toslink jitter is ridiculous.
  
 The native TB3 connection looks interesting...


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> I have those FMC's as well. But they sound the same to me as the SC port ones, and they are more expensive with the minigbic module.


 
  
 Not really more expensive..
  
 MC220L = $25
 GBIC= $18, you can get new as low as $15
 Total = $43
 https://www.amazon.com/Fiberopticdistribution-AGM731F-Netgear-100%25-Compatible/dp/B00QEASBSS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1466442310&sr=8-3&keywords=AGM731F
  
 MC210CS = $44 to 47
  
 I wouldn't buy one or the other on price grounds, just saying the MC220L+GBIC doesn't have to be more expensive....


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Thread back up and running!  Will have a few interesting things to share next week!
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 Great! I went over to the new thread I started to see if I could get the moderator to close it and found that done. Thanks!


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> Not really more expensive..
> 
> MC220L = $25
> GBIC= $18, you can get new as low as $15
> ...




I was talking about with the TPlink minigbic module. And in Canada I save $40 per unit going with this. Another reason why I don't like to recommend the SFP port version is because when people have the option to do something poorly it never fails that it often happens. I've only tested the unit with the TPlink minigbic modules. Some might use $10 generic minigbic modules and get poor results. Then fail to mention they did so. Then they end up with poor results based on my recommendation. By eliminating the option of making this a possibility, this will never occur.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Great! I went over to the new thread I started to see if I could get the moderator to close it and found that done. Thanks!


 

 This one's been on fire (in a good way) with it's reopening.  Thanks for openning that one as a place holder - as per your suggestion I changed the title to focus more on the REDNET stuff as that's the 'here and now' solution - but leaving the door open for developments with Ravenna.  With some real products that can be spun off.
  
 I'll redo the front page here with a mini-review of the Rednet 3 - and can include some of others on the RN16.  Anybody have one - I can use some posts from other already.  But those who are just getting your Red boxes I can post those as well.
  
 Will delete a bunch of the CA reposts - just a general cleanup and refocus.
  
 I want Focusrite or any other Manufacturer to have a streamlined read here.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> I was talking about with the TPlink minigbic module. And in Canada I save $40 per unit going with this. Another reason why I don't like to recommend the SFP port version is because when people have the option to do something poorly it never fails that it often happens. I've only tested the unit with the TPlink minigbic modules. Some might use $10 generic minigbic modules and get poor results. Then fail to mention they did so. Then they end up with poor results based on my recommendation. By eliminating the option of making this a possibility, this will never occur.


 

 For this kind of thing I really appreciate the simplicity and fool proofness.  Let's hope SQ wise an improvement.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> I want Focusrite or any other Manufacturer to have a streamlined read here.


 
 +1 for that!


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> Have you tried on the Rednet yet?


 
  
 Not yet. I wanted to get about a week with the system as a "baseline" before I start fooling around with adding optical isolation, different power supplies etc.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Not yet. I wanted to get about a week with the system as a "baseline" before I start fooling around with adding optical isolation, different power supplies etc.


 

 Makes sense.  The Postman just dropped off the Purist Audio Design Colussus XLR SPDIF so time to give her a go!


----------



## rb2013

rb2013 said:


> Makes sense.  The Postman just dropped off the Purist Audio Design Colussus XLR SPDIF so time to give her a go!


 
 Well this was a fail.  Not new at all - reeks of cig smoke.  And it looks like all the fluid has leaked out - strangely flexible.
  
 Tried it  - not bad - but the Audio Sens Silver is just plainly better.  This is a tough digital cable to beat.
  
 So another EBAY 'to good to be true' isn't.  Back to this seller (even the box it came in reeked of cig smoke).
  
 Next up optical ethernet this Friday.


----------



## gldgate

One quick comment on Optical Ethernet. While I had instituted optical isolation on my entire system, the area I found that benefited most was NAS drives. I keep all my music files on NAS drives (not direct PC storage). While I do not have measurement equipment, I would not be surprised to find that NAS drives (I have both Synology and Qnap) are amongst the noisiest computer devices an audiophile could have in his system.


----------



## somestranger26

I have the same optical converters that rb2013 bought (MC210CS) on the way. I listed my LPS for sale since I didn't have anything to use it with, so I'll try it with the fiber isolation first to see if it's worth keeping. Bought the converters from Amazon so easy returns if need be, and altogether I only spent about $90 (open box FTW).


----------



## Kelowna

gldgate said:


> One quick comment on Optical Ethernet. While I had instituted optical isolation on my entire system, the area I found that benefited most was NAS drives. I keep all my music files on NAS drives (not direct PC storage). While I do not have measurement equipment, I would not be surprised to find that NAS drives (I have both Synology and Qnap) are amongst the noisiest computer devices an audiophile could have in his system.




When you optically isolate the Rednet from the rest of the network, you are isolating it from everything including NAS's. There's no need to add any additional isolation elsewhere in the network as long as the endpoint is isolated.


----------



## thisisvv

kelowna said:


> When you optically isolate the Rednet from the rest of the network, you are isolating it from everything including NAS's. There's no need to add any additional isolation elsewhere in the network as long as the endpoint is isolated.


 
 I have been to this route. And in my experience it becomes little more complicated than this. if your PC ,NAS & Rednet  can be in pure optical world that is the best solution. So yes you have to connect your NAS to an ethernet to fiberoptic , PC and Rednet all to fiber optic switch. That is an decent change in sound,.
  
  
 Want to take it further put them in separate subnet than your rest of the home with a Managed switch. See the difference in sound than.
  
 Sharing by experience.
  
 V


----------



## thisisvv

rb2013 said:


> My experience with toslink is pretty miserable.  I get the GI part.  But maybe today the Electro-Optical converters are better - they have increased throughput to match coax.  Every test on a DAC I have seen the Toslink jitter is ridiculous.
> 
> The native TB3 connection looks interesting...


 
  
  
 yes agreed but the Mutec 3 can really help in this situation. Also we can do some TB3 to spdif converter . Just thinking out loud.
  
 V


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

kelowna said:


> When you optically isolate the Rednet from the rest of the network, you are isolating it from everything including NAS's. There's no need to add any additional isolation elsewhere in the network as long as the endpoint is isolated.


 

 What sort of sound quality gain is possible with the fiber isolation in your experience? Since it doesn't change the signal, I'm presuming it's remedying something that exists in certain networks - noise? Also could not using an LPS on the receiver side make things sound worse than without the added gear? This requires an LPS to properly hear the gains?


----------



## Kelowna

thisisvv said:


> I have been to this route. And in my experience it becomes little more complicated than this. if your PC ,NAS & Rednet  can be in pure optical world that is the best solution. So yes you have to connect your NAS to an ethernet to fiberoptic , PC and Rednet all to fiber optic switch. That is an decent change in sound,.
> 
> 
> Want to take it further put them in separate subnet than your rest of the home with a Managed switch. See the difference in sound than.
> ...




I can see that helping with throughput, but I can't see how it would have an impact otherwise. With Ethernet we aren't carrying a clock signal that matters for audio jitter. As long as the data all makes it to the endpoint, and as long as it's devoid of noise, anything upstream shouldn't affect it. Just think about streaming music from Tidal. Think of how many links, switches, and clocks are in the picture between the servers in Olso, and the DAC's around the world. And the data is 100% preserved.


----------



## Albrecht

> have the same optical converters that rb2013 bought (MC210CS) on the way


 
  
 Hi,
  
 FWIW, - I'm using them now. A significant difference in SQ, and much cheaper than more expensive CAT7/6-connectors cables.
  
 Cheers,


----------



## mhamel

kelowna said:


> I can see that helping with throughout, but I can't see how it would have an impact otherwise. With Ethernet we aren't carrying a clock signal that matters for audio jitter. As long as the data all makes it to the endpoint, and as long as it's devoid of noise, anything upstream shouldn't affect it. Just think about streaming music from Tidal. Think of how many links, switches, and clocks are in the picture between the servers in Olso, and the DAC's around the world. And the data is 100% preserved.


 
  
  
 This... and especially on a home network where you are most likely not even coming close to saturation. I could see if you had heavy traffic it might help latency/throughput, but this is a system designed for many channels at once, and we're only using two of them. The most utilization I've seen on the Dante network here is around 20Mbit... around 2.5 MBytes/sec... which is nothing for GigE.


----------



## Kelowna

mhamel said:


> This... and especially on a home network where you are most likely not even coming close to saturation. I could see if you had heavy traffic it might help latency/throughput, but this is a system designed for many channels at once, and we're only using two of them. The most utilization I've seen on the Dante network here is around 20Mbit... around 2.5 MBytes/sec... which is nothing for GigE.




Yes and remember AES67 can operate over WAN with no compromise to the sound as well. If setup properly, the server for someone's Rednet 3 could be located in China. How much traffic is on the World Wide Web? This is why the key is throughput. If we have enough of this, we are good to go.


----------



## thisisvv

kelowna said:


> Yes and remember AES67 can operate over WAN with no compromise to the sound as well. If setup properly, the server for someone's Rednet 3 could be located in China. How much traffic is on the World Wide Web? This is why the key is throughput. If we have enough of this, we are good to go.


 
 One ans try this and see the difference. Audio so many things works which are not logical. I gave my experience don't expect everyone to  accept it or not.


----------



## Kelowna

thisisvv said:


> One ans try this and see the difference. Audio so many things works which are not logical. I gave my experience don't expect everyone to  accept it or not.




That's actually what I'm doing now. I'm bringing in my NAS and Internet into my Edgerouter X via the onboard SFP port, and sending the Ethernet out via FMC to my streamer. I've tried a million different things including 7 different server computers with Ravenna, Roon RAAT, and Signalyst NAA and for the life of me I can't get different sound with the endpoint connected via fiber.


----------



## gldgate

I should point out that my optical isolation comment regarding NAS was in a dual PC config - not with RedNet. If RedNet can be optimized with isolation just between PC and D12 (or without optical isolation at all) I will be a happy camper. IMO,the less devices needed the better.


----------



## Kelowna

soundsgoodtome said:


> What sort of sound quality gain is possible with the fiber isolation in your experience? Since it doesn't change the signal, I'm presuming it's remedying something that exists in certain networks - noise? Also could not using an LPS on the receiver side make things sound worse than without the added gear? This requires an LPS to properly hear the gains?




The gains are similar to the gains experienced by powering anything in the audio chain with clean power vs dirty. But yes you're right, powering the FMC on the streamer end with dirty power does make it worse. I'll be getting an aPX-555 measurement device in the next bit to confirm all of these subjective evaluations. Things like this can be measured. Nobody voices with dirty power to purposely achieve euphoric distortions. I think It's universally accepted by all camps that cleaner power is superior.


----------



## mudge

My gosh...
  
 This is an incredibly interesting thread...


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> When you optically isolate the Rednet from the rest of the network, you are isolating it from everything including NAS's. There's no need to add any additional isolation elsewhere in the network as long as the endpoint is isolated.


AOIP, sea change in computer audio.


----------



## rb2013

thisisvv said:


> yes agreed but the Mutec 3 can really help in this situation. Also we can do some TB3 to spdif converter . Just thinking out loud.
> 
> V


Oh it's coming. And can be another path in this evolution. More exciting would TB3 input directly on the DAC.


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Hi,
> 
> FWIW, - I'm using them now. A significant difference in SQ, and much cheaper than more expensive CAT7/6-connectors cables.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks for the feedback. This is going to be interesting. If this works the PC going into the closet. These super thin optic cables are very easy to hide. Cat6 a little harder, beside no EMI/RF worries on long runs.


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. This is going to be interesting. If this works the PC going into the closet. These super thin optic cables are very easy to hide. Cat6 a little harder, beside no EMI/RF worries on long runs.


 
  
  
 There are no EMI/RF issues with long runs of Cat6, it is inherently designed to reject interference.


----------



## Kelowna

mhamel said:


> There are no EMI/RF issues with long runs of Cat6, it is inherently designed to reject interference.




In theory. But we all know it was never specifically designed for audio. In theory, the fiber converters shouldn't help either. I don't really think there's any reason to even desire copper anymore these days. Fiber is pretty much the same price anyways. Sure a bit more for the switches, but still the TPlink switch with dual SFP ports is still only $100. You need a switch anyways, and even copper only of the same league will be within $30-40. So are we really breaking the bank with fiber? For me personally, even if it only even sounded equal, would use it for the coolness factor alone


----------



## joelha

A few questions.

Has anyone connected their D16 directly to their server?

If so, any tips on how to do this or is it pretty much plug and play?

If a second cable with internet service goes to the secondary port, will I still be able to remotely control my server after it's direct connected to the D16?

Finally, on rednet controller, I'm not getting 176.4 as a sample rate option. I thought that wasn't an issue with the D16. What am I missing?

Thanks in advance any help offered.

Joel


----------



## markus94103

@Soundsgoodtome and @Muziqboy, thank you for bringing your Rednets to the Bellingham meetup. Kudos to you guys for spreading the word among the audiophile community about this remarkable discovery from the world of pro audio equipment.
  
 Some background: I know a lot of people love the Bifrost Uber/Asgard 2 combo, but for me it's been pretty disappointing. For some reason it sounds harsh and fatiguing to my ears, especially after a few hours of listening.
  
 Now I've switched to an NFB-10 and have plans to sell the Schiit stack, but here's the kicker: I plugged the Uber/Asgard 2 into the Rednet 3 and nearly leapt out of my chair with amazement. The sound was completely transformed. Suddenly the wobbly harshness I'd been hearing was completely scrubbed out, and in its place I heard an effortless authority in the signal. Instead of making me feel a bit on edge, the sound was beautiful and engaging.
  
 I would have loved to hear my NFB-10 through the Rednet, but unfortunately we discovered a problem with my coaxial input (which I've never tried using before).
  
 These are just my impressions based on a few minutes of listening, but I was pretty surprised to discover that a better transport from the computer to the DAC could make such a big difference. Previously I had always assumed that a decent DAC could effortlessly handle whatever USB signal you fed it. Now I feel motivated to devote more attention to this part of my signal chain and confirm what I experienced on Saturday.
  
 I noticed someone's comment about the Rednet AM2, which seems like an intriguing option for those of us with limited space and/or a tight budget. Has anyone been able to find a review?


----------



## gldgate

For setting 176Khz use the Dante Controller SW and not the RedNet Control SW. For some reason (at least in my set-up), the RedNet Control SW is missing 176Khz. However, I just went to JRMC and was able to upsample to 176Khz without any problems.


----------



## johnjen

So I'm at 60hrs on my RN3 and the SQ has taken a significant step up.
 It's still changing and I have very little idea of how much time it will take to reach its full peak and remain there.
  
 The difference between my 2-Wyrd setup and the RN3 is increasing, but at this time it isn't a knock you over the head huge difference but the gap is widening.
  
 And I ordered enough stuff to make 2) 2 channel AES breakout cables.
  
 And that ether-optical-ether GI setup is in my sights as well.
 I do have a question about it…
 We should use 2 of the MC210CS units and not use a MC110CS with a 210CS (as suggested by Amazon…), right?
  
 Interesting Times In Audio Indeed!
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

markus94103 said:


> I noticed someone's comment about the Rednet AM2, which seems like an intriguing option for those of us with limited space and/or a tight budget. Has anyone been able to find a review?


 
  
 Someone on CA who mostly does Pro Audio bought one. He liked the convenience but found the SQ short of audiophile.


----------



## JayNYC

mourip said:


> Someone on CA who mostly does Pro Audio bought one. He liked the convenience but found the SQ short of audiophile.


 

 that person was me -- what I posted
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index3.html#post553441
  
 I asked Focusrite yesterday, as of yesterday, which Rednet devices used JetPLL and they told me every Rednet device except the AM2.


----------



## joelha

gldgate said:


> For setting 176Khz use the Dante Controller SW and not the RedNet Control SW. For some reason (at least in my set-up), the RedNet Control SW is missing 176Khz. However, I just went to JRMC and was able to upsample to 176Khz without any problems.


 
 You're a good man, gldgate.
  
 Thanks a lot for the information.
  
 Joel


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> There are no EMI/RF issues with long runs of Cat6, it is inherently designed to reject interference.


 
 Yes the inherent communication protocol - total absence of a analog like wave form - or should I say 'signal intregrity' issues that require AGC schemes.  You should be right  - but then why do STP ethernet cables exist at all?  As you are in the tech field maybe can help understand a little about this.
  


kelowna said:


> In theory. But we all know it was never specifically designed for audio. In theory, the fiber converters shouldn't help either. I don't really think there's any reason to even desire copper anymore these days. Fiber is pretty much the same price anyways. Sure a bit more for the switches, but still the TPlink switch with dual SFP ports is still only $100. You need a switch anyways, and even copper only of the same league will be within $30-40. So are we really breaking the bank with fiber? For me personally, even if it only even sounded equal, would use it for the coolness factor alone


 
 One major attraction of AOIP was the doing away with all the USB gizmos and gadgets.  So not super keen on adding more to the AOIP chain - but if it does improve the SQ well by all means.   Coolness can mean snake oil to some folks:
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/111931217341?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 Will know Friday on the effect of optical ethernet on the SQ in my systems.!


----------



## rb2013

markus94103 said:


> @Soundsgoodtome and @Muziqboy, thank you for bringing your Rednets to the Bellingham meetup. Kudos to you guys for spreading the word among the audiophile community about this remarkable discovery from the world of pro audio equipment.
> 
> Some background: I know a lot of people love the Bifrost Uber/Asgard 2 combo, but for me it's been pretty disappointing. For some reason it sounds harsh and fatiguing to my ears, especially after a few hours of listening.
> 
> ...


 

 The AM2 is not the path you want to go - for a couple of reasons, that have been covered here and my other XU208 thread.  The AM does not use the Dante Brooklyn or Brooklyn II cards like the REDNET 3 & D16 respectively.  It uses the Ultimo Dante Chip - and is limited to 96k.  Additionally the AM has no digital out - just analog.
  
 So for $400 not a great deal - unless you want or need a portable (kinda) HP amp.  But a Red Dragonfly would be cheaper and likely a better solution, certainly smaller.
  
 I share you impression on the RN gear - just a sea change in computer audio.  Although some have reported it equaled their USB chain - so as always YMMV.  I did notice in my office system the differences were not as apparent as in my more resolving main system.
  
 Be patient - as I firmly believe we have iginited  a movement from USB to AOIP in the high audio world - and will see many more, less expensive devices coming down the road.
  
 Cheers!
  
 Here is the Utlimo Chip used in the AM:

  
 Here is the Dante Brooklyn I card used in the RN3:


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Yes the inherent communication protocol - total absence of a analog like wave form - or should I say 'signal intregrity' issues that require AGC schemes.  You should be right  - but then why do STP ethernet cables exist at all?  As you are in the tech field maybe can help understand a little about this.
> 
> One major attraction of AOIP was the doing away with all the USB gizmos and gadgets.  So not super keen on adding more to the AOIP chain - but if it does improve the SQ well by all means.   Coolness can mean snake oil to some folks:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/111931217341?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> ...




What I meant is simply going all fiber is close to the same price anyways. You need gizmos like switches and routers for copper Ethernet as well. So if you had one of the inexpensive switches with SFP ports already, with the Rednet all you would need to add for gizmo's is a single FMC box. In my case the streamer I use has a fiber input, so it's a real clean setup with no additional boxes required in the system. Just need an inexpensive switch with SFP port. This adds about $20-30 to the cost of a switch without one.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Great info on the am2, a few members were waiting word on it.


----------



## occamsrazor

kelowna said:


> In my case the streamer I use has a fiber input, so it's a real clean setup with no additional boxes required in the system.


 
  
 Out of interest what streamer is this that has a fiber input? Thanks.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> So I'm at 60hrs on my RN3 and the SQ has taken a significant step up.
> It's still changing and I have very little idea of how much time it will take to reach its full peak and remain there.
> 
> The difference between my 2-Wyrd setup and the RN3 is increasing, but at this time it isn't a knock you over the head huge difference but the gap is widening.
> ...


 

 Mine evened out around 150 hours. 
  
 Important note:  With some experimentation I found different SPDIF (and I guess AES) have made a significant different in SQ.  I kinda lucked out with starting with the Audio Sensiblity Silver Statement 1.5M.  Using a couple of other cables really robbed the vibrancy and energy of the sound.  It was like the music was happening in slow motion too.
  
 I have added the Mutec MC-3+ USB as a reclocker - and that is a significant improvement.  But maybe the digital is more so.
  
 I'll be trying a few more top end digital cables once the optical ethernet gear arrives to try.  I have 4-5 CAT6 and 5e cables around including the BJC CAT6 550Mhz UTP - they seem to make little difference.  Which was not the case with the Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB extender.
  
 Also try 24bit vs 32bit - they sound slightly different in my main system - the 24bit a bit more zesty, the 32 bit a bit more smoother.  Right now using the 24 bit as the move of the totl Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme Red power cord from the RN3 to the Mutec - really improved the smoothness further.  And added greater depth to an already cavernous sound stage.
  
 BTW you do that in the DVS under options and Dante Controller, click on the PC (mine is called 'Desktop')bar, then set the bit rate under Device Config.  Set them the same.


----------



## Kelowna

occamsrazor said:


> Out of interest what streamer is this that has a fiber input? Thanks.




You will have to google it. I really have to watch what I say or else threads get locked.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

For these TP Link fiber optic senders, are ipowers the go-to or would a decent linear power supply be better? The linear power supply has enough power and outputs to power both transmitter and receiver, would it noisy the receiver to power the transmitter with the lps as well?


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Great info on the am2, a few members were waiting word on it.


 

 It is apples vs oranges to the RN 3 & D16.  Note the very high quality clocks and the use of JetPLL tech by FR in the RN gear - I don't believe the AM has either.
  
 As always it's about implementation.


> *Sonic Excellence* – Advanced A-D/D-A conversion, premium multi-layered board circuitry and rock steady *JetPLL™clocking delivers extremely clean, transparent audio at a dynamic range of 119dB with 24-bit resolution at sample rates up to 192kHz.** *


 
  
 More on JetPLL:
 http://www.tctechnologies.tc/index.php/products/jetpll
  
 http://www.tctechnologies.tc/downloads/jetpll_aes_paper.pdf


----------



## rb2013

jaynyc said:


> that person was me -- what I posted
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index3.html#post553441
> 
> I asked Focusrite yesterday, as of yesterday, which Rednet devices used JetPLL and they told me every Rednet device except the AM2.


 
 Thanks for confirming that - the clocking in not a good as well.  Those Audinate Dante Brooklyn cards are not cheap.


----------



## rb2013

I'll put together a simple Rednet install step by step for us direct connection folks.
  
 I see some folks having a little fustration in getting the RN gear up and running.  I think we are all so used to USB driver installs (at least us WIN guys) this is a bit different.  Some ways much easier, in another a bit confusing.
  
 I laugh when I think back at getting the half a dozen different XMOS USB devices working in my systems.  Some Thesycon drivers worked others didn't, some USB DDC's needed to 'see' a +5VDC on the USB data line (like the Gustard U12) - others didn't (Breeze Audio), some needed to have a device id in the driver for install (most), others didn't (one more thing I loved about the Breeze DU-U8).  I have 6 different Thesycon drivers with different builds.  Some would work with another DDC, some wouldn't.  Sometimes the USB DDC had to powered up and down to get the install, sometimes not, on and on it went.
  
 With my REDNET install it was 10 min deal.  I would recommend getting the DVS installed and licensed before installing RN Controller.  I also had firmware 3.4.1 and did not do the firmware update initially.  With it updated I could not detect any SQ change or functionality change.  So that's your call.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

^ it seems the most stumping part of setup comes when you need to update a unit prior to use, otherwise it's straight forward with reading of the manual.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> ^ it seems the most stumping part of setup comes when you need to update a unit prior to use, otherwise it's straight forward with reading of the manual.


 

 +1 That's why I think it might be better to just get it working with the shipped firmware.
  
 You had an issue with an older WIN machine not getting 192k only 96k on your RN3 right?  It was a 7 yr old Dell laptop I think.
  
 So maybe a warning to folks with older machines that might be an issue.
  
 Also with the DVS being s/w based the SQ may not be as good as on a more powerful new machine.   Mine is a Haswell iCore 7 4790, WIN10.


----------



## rb2013

I also think that matrix screen really stumps folks - but I found it intuitive - my hang up was just getting the DC screen up.  I checked the manual and saw to find the dialogue box to open Dante Controller you just right click the front of the Virtual RN face.
  
 The little wrench button to change the ADAT/AES-SPDIF outputs and clock source.
  
*Important!  Be sure to set the clock source to INTERNAL!  Not SPDIF! * Unless using an ext Word Clock of course.
  
 On that matrix screen just be concerned with 01 and 02 - all the others ignore.  When you get the green checks on the connection matrix you are good to go!
  
 Most important:


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> For setting 176Khz use the Dante Controller SW and not the RedNet Control SW. For some reason (at least in my set-up), the RedNet Control SW is missing 176Khz. However, I just went to JRMC and was able to upsample to 176Khz without any problems.


 
 Your 150 usec 'Device Latency' is grayed out as well.  Mine isn't - and that's what I use.


----------



## rb2013

I see the XU208 thread is now locked


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> Yes the inherent communication protocol - total absence of a analog like wave form - or should I say 'signal intregrity' issues that require AGC schemes.  You should be right  - but then why do STP ethernet cables exist at all?  As you are in the tech field maybe can help understand a little about this.
> 
> One major attraction of AOIP was the doing away with all the USB gizmos and gadgets.  So not super keen on adding more to the AOIP chain - but if it does improve the SQ well by all means.   Coolness can mean snake oil to some folks:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/111931217341?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> ...


 
  
 http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/some-interesting-twists-about-ethernet-cabling/
  
 STP is for extreme cases. If you have that much potential for interference in a home environment, you're going to have much bigger issues with interference and noise in other parts of the system.
  
 From a data standpoint:
  
 Every packet is checksummed and re-transmitted if there are failures. If a packet starts off with X data, and the checksum passes at the other end, then the *exact* data got there, period. If there are packet re-transmits and packet loss, that will show up - you can monitor the interfaces for that, though in practice if you're just running a 2-channel audio stream you'll probably never even notice since you're using such a small portion of the available bandwidth.
  
 We run 10Gb to full saturation over copper and fiber, some of our systems will happily saturate 40Gb LACP trunks. In all cases those cables are run through racks and under floors with literally thousands upon thousands of other cables both for data and power. If we see even a small amount of packet loss, it is immediately noticeable. In almost every case the issue is at one of the endpoints, not the cable itself. GBICs go bad, switch ports or line cards have issues, NICs fail. Rarely, if ever, is it due to an issue with the cabling, and when it is it is most likely at one of the connectors, physical damage along the way or a cable that fails spec.
  
 I'll say it again, in a home network, running tiny amounts of data across cable that has specs which far exceed anything you'll put through it, interference is not going to be an issue.
  
 From an analog "noise" standpoint:
  
 If by some chance there is noise picked up in the cable that doesn't impact the integrity of the packets - it is electrically isolated from the end point by design. Even if you're using the fibre converters, the remote end converts back to copper and is then isolated at the NIC port.
  
 Most likely the change in sound is coming from the 2 additional steps of conversion to/from copper. I haven't heard that myself, so I won't make any claim to whether that is better, worse or just different, but most likely it's something in the conversion.
  
   -Mike


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Didn't your Rednet arrive with the update already applied? You can check what you have, if you've never applied an update most likely you have 3.7 already programmed in. The older is 3.4 iirc

Correct, you'll want a newer machine even if your older pc is capable of 24/192khz over usb or is seemingly fast with multitasking jobs. Quad core 1.7ghz i7





rb2013 said:


> +1 That's why I think it might be better to just get it working with the shipped firmware.
> 
> You had an issue with an older WIN machine not getting 192k only 96k on your RN3 right?  It was a 7 yr old Dell laptop I think.
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/some-interesting-twists-about-ethernet-cabling/
> 
> STP is for extreme cases. If you have that much potential for interference in a home environment, you're going to have much bigger issues with interference and noise in other parts of the system.


 

 I see - thanks!


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Didn't your Rednet arrive with the update already applied? You can check what you have, if you've never applied an update most likely you have 3.7 already programmed in. The older is 3.4 iirc
> 
> Correct, you'll want a newer machine even if your older pc is capable of 24/192khz over usb or is seemingly fast with multitasking jobs. Quad core 1.7ghz i7


 

 No it had the old firmware - yes 3.4.1 was the original.  I check that before updating -so I could rollback if need be.


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> I see - thanks!


 
  
  
 I just updated the post to add some more info.  For the argument that it's audio and not data, the reality is that it IS data. We are not sending analog signals across these cables. Ethernet does not care what's in the packet. As long as the packet is structured correctly and the checksum passes, the data is exact. If even one bit is off in the packet the checksum will fail.


----------



## rb2013

Anyone with a Yggy and a D16 have them connected by spdif?  or any DAC with a D16 by spdif coax?
  
 Someone has PM as they are not able to get them to work together.


----------



## occamsrazor

mhamel said:


> I just updated the post to add some more info.  For the argument that it's audio and not data, the reality is that it IS data. We are not sending analog signals across these cables. Ethernet does not care what's in the packet. As long as the packet is structured correctly and the checksum passes, the data is exact. If even one bit is off in the packet the checksum will fail.


 
  
 Exactly. I monitor my switch at home and have never had a single packet fail. I think the audio/data difference arises in people's mind possibly because USB Audio transmits audio as data with CRC but upon failure does not retransmit errors, making possible the chance of interference etc affecting the data integrity. As Ethernet as you point out would retransmit any failed packets immediately thus preserving data integrity, it's a non-issue. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong...


----------



## mtoc

kelowna said:


> It's a drop in replacement for the 9018. No other mods necessary to the DAC. Just solder a 9028 on the board instead of the 9018 and you have a new DAC.


 
  
 Lord! Pin compatible doesn't mean you could replace it directly. Go learn some bground. none more to say.


----------



## rb2013

mtoc said:


> Lord! Pin compatible doesn't mean you could replace it directly. Go learn some bground. none more to say.


 

 That belongs on the other thread - maybe post once it's unlocked.


----------



## Kelowna

I get my data direct from the engineers who design things. But anyways my DAC discussion days are over around here. A better place for that is on my own forum if anyone has questions.


----------



## Albrecht

> I monitor my switch at home and have never had a single packet fail.


 
  
 Hi,
 With respect, - and I don't wish to belabor the point here too much: this doesn't have anything to do with failed packets, or data integrity. What it's about is the accurate transmission of packets in TIME. It's all about timing, & the more accurate the clock at both the sender and receiving end, (DAC), - the less "work" the DAC's clocks do in cleaning up the signal. This is similar (if you think about it) to disc spinners: - software/firmware error correction doesn't do the job with wobbly discs, and wimpy motors. The VRDS NEO transport with its magnesium disc clamping mechanism & beefy motor "proves" that a great transport improves the SQ, - & substantially. 
 A faster cable (10GB) fiber that has galvanic isolation sounds better than a CAT 5e, due to its speed, carrying "less" noise, & perhaps even conducting less vibration. CAT7 cable with CAT6a connectors with it's "higher" specs also sounds better than CAT5e. (Another test is try plugging in an EMO EN-30 Isolator.
  
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OL54Y7U/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_23?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3DA2BLSV4J2D1
  
 Personally, I have never used the SMPS wall-warts that came with my MC200s. I got some $12 LPSs from JameCo. I heard differences with all 3 cable types.
  
 I would suggest trying fiber to hear for yourself, - if no difference, - you lose almost nothing. A 30ft fiber run with two FMCs costs less than $150.
  
 Cheers,


----------



## mhamel

albrecht said:


> Hi,
> With respect, - and I don't wish to belabor the point here too much: this doesn't have anything to do with failed packets, or data integrity. What it's about is the accurate transmission of packets in TIME. It's all about timing, & the more accurate the clock at both the sender and receiving end, (DAC), - the less "work" the DAC's clocks do in cleaning up the signal. This is similar (if you think about it) to disc spinners: - software/firmware error correction doesn't do the job with wobbly discs, and wimpy motors. The VRDS NEO transport with its magnesium disc clamping mechanism & beefy motor "proves" that a great transport improves the SQ, - & substantially.
> A faster cable (10GB) fiber that has galvanic isolation sounds better than a CAT 5e, due to its speed, carrying "less" noise, & perhaps even conducting less vibration. CAT7 cable with CAT6a connectors with it's "higher" specs also sounds better than CAT5e. (Another test is try plugging in an EMO EN-30 Isolator.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I completely understand what's being discussed...
  
 A few things, also with respect. The cable itself has no "speed" - a 10g spec cable isn't going to do any more or less on a 1g network than 1g.
  
 Per the other Mike, from previous posts, clocking doesn't matter in this case as long as the data gets there intact, due to the way it's handled. 
  
 I do plan to try fiber if for nothing else than to hear (or not) the changes for myself - which is why I haven't and won't comment on what they may or may not be - there would be no validity to my comments if I did. What I am saying is that I think if there are changes it is most likely due to the conversion. Not to mention, if timing is so critical with this tech, adding extra conversion steps would skew that, I would think.


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Hi,
> With respect, - and I don't wish to belabor the point here too much: this doesn't have anything to do with failed packets, or data integrity. What it's about is the accurate transmission of packets in TIME. It's all about timing, & the more accurate the clock at both the sender and receiving end, (DAC), - the less "work" the DAC's clocks do in cleaning up the signal. This is similar (if you think about it) to disc spinners: - software/firmware error correction doesn't do the job with wobbly discs, and wimpy motors. The VRDS NEO transport with its magnesium disc clamping mechanism & beefy motor "proves" that a great transport improves the SQ, - & substantially.
> A faster cable (10GB) fiber that has galvanic isolation sounds better than a CAT 5e, due to its speed, carrying "less" noise, & perhaps even conducting less vibration. CAT7 cable with CAT6a connectors with it's "higher" specs also sounds better than CAT5e. (Another test is try plugging in an EMO EN-30 Isolator.
> 
> ...


 

 Great info!  So even with the fiber you found the ethernet isolator helped?  Which cable did you prefer?


----------



## Albrecht

> The cable itself has no "speed" - a 10g spec cable isn't going to do any more or less on a 1g network than 1g


 
  
 Hi,
 Perhaps speed is the wrong way to describe the cable. Certainly the SPECs of a CAT7 cable are different than CAT5e as far as bandwidth & crosstalk. Higher bandwidth capable cables may transfer less noise? Fiber, also, galvanically isolated may indeed transmit less noise, (somehow) and therefore "sounds" better.
  
 Perhaps EMO isolators may serve one better than fiber? Here's a quote from their SPEC sheet.
  


> EMOSAFE EN-30 Network Isolators disconnect every electrically conducting connection (specifically the
> data and shield conductors) between devices connected together via a copper-based Ethernet network.
> The Network Isolators prevent current flow resulting from differences in electrical potentials, and also
> protect connected devices and their users from stray external voltages and power surges which may be
> ...


 
  
 I was happy to hear an improvement with fiber, and it was much cheaper than a BJC or a Supra or a Meicord.
  
 Glad that you're trying a couple of FMCs, I also can't fully explain why a BJC CAT7 with CAT6 connectors sounds better than a standard CAT5e.


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> I completely understand what's being discussed...
> 
> A few things, also with respect. The cable itself has no "speed" - a 10g spec cable isn't going to do any more or less on a 1g network than 1g.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat like (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.
  
 Here are the noise filtering charts from the Acoustic Revive website:
 http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html

  
 That's the theory at least - we'll see in practice...


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.
> 
> Here are the noise filtering charts from the Acoustic Revive website:
> http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html
> ...


 
  
 The issue with that graphic is that it's way too vague to provide meaningful data.


----------



## Albrecht

> even with the fiber you found the ethernet isolator helped?


 
  
 Hi RB,
  
 No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that i also used an EMO EN-30 with the fiber: (although I will probably try it later). I was just meaning to imply that somehow the isolation properties of converting to Fiber could lower the noise floor and that's why we hear an improvement in SQ.
  
 Sorry about the lack of clarity there.
  
 I tried a short run on loan of Meicord, CAT7 cable, Rosewill CAT7 with CAT6 connectors, regular CAT5e and regular CAT6a cables in my system. the Meicord was the "worst" test cause it was only 6 feet and I had to move the NAS to my audio track to try it and it could've been playing muckety muck with the system due to its SMPS, noisy HD, and general vicinity to the audio gear.
  
 Cheers,


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> The issue with that graphic is that it's way too vague to provide meaningful data.


 

 You mean like their 'Shuman Resonate Frequency Generator" LOL!
  
 I see your point.  I think the best source was the Srajan's 6Moons review of the Sotm Ethernet CAT6 ISO - $350.  He kinds said it wasn;t worth the very min improvement.  Same for their fancy CAT6 cable.  But I guess it a big YMMV.
  
 It might work for some - or the couple of hundred not an issue for a 1-2% improvement.
  
 Need to start a loaner club for this stuff - too expensive to buy and try.
  
 My PPA V2, iFi iUSB2.0, LH Labs 2G haven't sold yet.  Took a bath on the Regen.


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Hi RB,
> 
> No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that i also used an EMO EN-30 with the fiber: (although I will probably try it later). I was just meaning to imply that somehow the isolation properties of converting to Fiber could lower the noise floor and that's why we hear an improvement in SQ.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for that clarification.
  
 My thinking is that this AES67 Dante protocol may not be as sensitive to these noise issues as say a NAS or NAA.  I found not difference in CAT6 cables (I have a few), even the BJC CAT6 550Mhz - from the Red one FR supplies.  That to me was strange - as I can usually detect very minor changes, good, bad or different.
  
 Not my experience with the Startech audio over IP.  Now SPDIF or AES cables heck yeah!
  
 So maybe that's an area folks can look to improve the SQ - the connection AFTER the REDNET.  To the DAC.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_170245_-1

Albrecht, are these the lps you're using?


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> I agree completely - where any SQ effect may come into play is noise on the ethernet line may in some way intermodulate with the receiver and error detection circuit.  Not to level of the poorly designed (for audio) USB, but an effect none the less.  So the insertion of the optical reconstructs the data packet stream - somewhat like (but with different packets of course) the ICRON/Startech GB LAN USB did for USB.


 
  
 That's not how the CRC works. If the data in the packet is changed by even one single bit, the packet is bad and automatically re-transmitted. 
  
 The "speed" rating of an ethernet cable comes into play as you hit the higher bandwidths required for faster data transmission - the BJC cable may be working better not because it's Cat6, but because it is fully tested and meets spec.  Likewise when you're running GigE over a cable rated for 10G, the bandwidth required is much lower than the cable is designed to handle and far below the limits of the sspec - you're not approaching anywhere near the limits of the cable rating, so there's less chance for error along the way.
  
 There are also other factors that could be coming into play - different isolation transformers built into the NICs and switch(es) that we're all using, for one. That might help explain why an isolation device or fiber works better for some than others, or may/may not be audible, for example.  At the Dante input of the Rednet boxes, there's much less of a variation between any of our systems since we're all using either the RedNet3 or D16 at this point, though if you want to dive deep enough you could look at variances in production runs of parts, differences in board designs across models, etc, etc, etc.
  
 To be clear though in all of the discussion we've had going on, I am and will always be all for anything that does make a positive difference in the sound, which is the endless quest in this obsessi...er.. hobby.


----------



## mhamel

rb2013 said:


> You mean like their 'Shuman Resonate Frequency Generator" LOL!
> 
> I see your point.  I think the best source was the Srajan's 6Moons review of the Sotm Ethernet CAT6 ISO - $350.  He kinds said it wasn;t worth the very min improvement.  Same for their fancy CAT6 cable.  But I guess it a big YMMV.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is one of the things about these forums that is both good and bad. 
  
 Years back this would have been a local user group where we all hashed this stuff out at meet over a few drinks or dinner - then all sat down in the same room to check out the gear, try different pieces brought by the group, etc.. that's much more difficult when everyone is scattered.
  
 On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.


----------



## Albrecht

> are these the lps you're using?


 
  
  
 Hi,
  
 No, - these ones. The FMCs are rated at .6A but these .5A work fine.
  
  
https://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_162996_-1
  
 Cheers,


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> That's not how the CRC works. If the data in the packet is changed by even one single bit, the packet is bad and automatically re-transmitted.
> 
> The "speed" rating of an ethernet cable comes into play as you hit the higher bandwidths required for faster data transmission - the BJC cable may be working better not because it's Cat6, but because it is fully tested and meets spec.  Likewise when you're running GigE over a cable rated for 10G, the bandwidth required is much lower than the cable is designed to handle and far below the limits of the sspec - you're not approaching anywhere near the limits of the cable rating, so there's less chance for error along the way.
> 
> ...


 
 So noise is not a factor - but spec matching is.  The $27 BJC is pretty hard to beat.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Interesting thread here guys:
> 
> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19241-Nadac/page20&highlight=NADAC


 

 Thanks for that  - interesting feedback there using the Ravenna NADAC.


----------



## rb2013

mhamel said:


> This is one of the things about these forums that is both good and bad.
> 
> Years back this would have been a local user group where we all hashed this stuff out at meet over a few drinks or dinner - then all sat down in the same room to check out the gear, try different pieces brought by the group, etc.. that's much more difficult when everyone is scattered.
> 
> On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.


 

 Global now - I'm not a audio meeting kinda guy.  To busy when the markets are shut.  Typing while I watch these boring markets more my flavor.  Got do something on a day the DOW ranges by 40pts!
  
 But Brexit vote is coming Thursday...


----------



## Albrecht

> On the other hand, the nearly unlimited access to information and the ability to have these discussions, learn from each other and find new things to enjoy the hobby that the internet brings to the table are awesome.


 
  
  
 +1 for sure
  
 To further clarify, - a noticeable improvement doesn't mean a dramatic improvement. I certainly agree with RB that you get more improvements with SPDIF, (and also) USB cables. Also, - I'm betting RedNet/Dante is much different than say and Aurender or a Aries. With the Aurender & Aries, one is streaming files & loading them up into cache. With some of these players, that don't cache, or have less RAM memory, - they may behave differently.
 Take a look at the F-1, - it has built in Isolation & really good clocks: moreso than bandwidth, it's likely that there is some benefit garnered from isolating, but whether or not that benefit is worth it or even noticeable is contingent on both upstream & downstream equipment.
 People are also noticing differences with different NAS PSUs. 
  
 My downstairs neighbor came up to listen to Peter Gabriel the other night and asked if I could play the microRendu instead of the SACD, - I told him that we WERE listening to the microRendu..
  
 He makes fun of me for running fiber, - yet, - that is part of what goes into the final result. If fiber doesn't make any difference than CAT6a with Rednet/Dante, - I'll be happy to throw it away and get rid of those 2 bloody annoying FMC power supplies, and dumb converter boxes....
 Cheers,


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> +1 for sure
> 
> To further clarify, - a noticeable improvement doesn't mean a dramatic improvement. I certainly agree with RB that you get more improvements with SPDIF, (and also) USB cables. Also, - I'm betting RedNet/Dante is much different than say and Aurender or a Aries. With the Aurender & Aries, one is streaming files & loading them up into cache. With some of these players, that don't cache, or have less RAM memory, - they may behave differently.
> Take a look at the F-1, - it has built in Isolation & really good clocks: moreso than bandwidth, it's likely that there is some benefit garnered from isolating, but whether or not that benefit is worth it or even noticeable is contingent on both upstream & downstream equipment.
> ...


 

 +1


----------



## Iving

Spoiler Alert!
  
 Buying and experiencing the audiophile qualities of my D16 AES has been an arduous journey and it is not over. But I am glad to be on the road, and I may be counted as another RedNet fan very glad to be walking away from USB. I'll spare you the details of the whole saga; however, I want to post an aspect that may be informative.
  
 Using spdif, my Linn DAC, integral in an AV5103, would NOT recognise the signal from the D16. Blank, Zilch, Nada
  
 The same DAC's spdif input previously accepted output from a Gustard U12 with no issues.
  
 A Cambridge DacMagic Plus from my second system worked: (i) between the D16 and the pre-amp without issues; and, (ii) as a daisy chain relay (it has both spdif in and out) between the D16 and the spdif input of the Linn DAC! It is as if the D16 speaks French only, the Linn DAC English only and the Cambridge both languages - able to act as translator too. Since the Linn speaks English only, the Gustard (unlike the D16) must output English (if not French too).
  
 I could find no solution. I shared with friends on the thread via PM but we couldn't resolve. I thought the issue ("consumer" vs. "pro") discussed in this link possibly relevant - but I am told it is not the answer: http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/pro-consumer-s-pdif-standards-explained/.
  
 I imagined the Linn's age - about 20 years - must account for the problem - even if only symptomatically.
  
 I bought a £2,000 DAC to replace the Linn - retaining its function as a pre-amp - a job which it does very nicely. A brand new Schitt Yggdrasil arrived today.
  
 Via spdif, it behaves exactly as the Linn in every respect! It does not recognise the D16!
  
 Please assume I (with Focusrite UK's impressive and lengthy telephone support) have checked all connections, cables and settings on equipment and in fb2k, DVS, RedNet Control, Dante Controller.
  
 Focusrite support were good enough to speak with Mark at Electromod. To the best of my understanding they are meeting tomorrow with an Yggy and a D16 to attempt to replicate/investigate.
  
 There is an spdif conflict of some kind lurking - and nobody knows what it is as we go to press. Until we know the explanation, there is an unquantifiable probability that if you buy a RedNet unit intending to use spdif, it may not work with your DAC.
  
 I will update when I have anything concrete and hope others will contribute helpfully. It is vital to know whether Yggys (or GuMBys for that matter) work with the D16; indeed, any RedNet via spdif. Is it a broader phenomenon - i.e., is anybody else having trouble getting their DAC to speak the same spdif language as any RedNet.
  
 Meantime - even with a cheap, long mic XLR cable between D16 and Yggy I am listening on new musical horizons. The USB banshee has clicked her heels and gone. I was going to use AES anyway - and have a better cable coming. All the same, the spdif enigma needs putting to bed one way or another.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Spoiler Alert!
> 
> Buying and experiencing the audiophile qualities of my D16 AES has been an arduous journey and it is not over. But I am glad to be on the road, and I may be counted as another RedNet fan very glad to be walking away from USB. I'll spare you the details of the whole saga; however, I want to post an aspect that may be informative.
> 
> ...


 

 Sorry I could get that to work...it is preplexing.  Will take my DAC60 down stairs to see if the RN3 will feed it's spdif.  Let me report back soon.
  
 BTW on the PUC2 Lite - since it' AES only, using a Canare adapter adn 10db atten - it worked great with the APL DAC, but not with the older SPDIF reciever in the DAC60.  This is is referenced in this link:
  
 http://www.rane.com/note149.html


----------



## Muziqboy

iving said:


> Spoiler Alert!
> 
> Buying and experiencing the audiophile qualities of my D16 AES has been an arduous journey and it is not over. But I am glad to be on the road, and I may be counted as another RedNet fan very glad to be walking away from USB. I'll spare you the details of the whole saga; however, I want to post an aspect that may be informative.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I encountered no problems when using the SPDIF rca out of the RedNet 3 into the SPDIF rca in of my Theta Dac given it is almost as old as your Linn Dac. I even tried with same connection out of RN3 into a Canare 75ohm rca to 110ohm AES into the AES/EBU inputs of the Theta, also without any problems.


----------



## rb2013

OK just swapped DACs - using my heavily DIY modded DAC60 in the main listening room.  All I have to say is
  
 OMfreakingG!!!  Unbelievable the sound I just heard!
  
 Not only did the DAC60 work - it just blew my $7k APL out of the water!
  
 The bass at least a half octave lower - perfect pitch.  Amazingly more detail then the APL - and the vocal tonality!   Well thanks @Iving for your post - I'm just floored.
  
 Now the DAC60 can only do 96k but being fed by the Mutec MC-3+ USB spdif reclocker and the RN3 jaw dropping!
  
 So I guess the APL is going to the second string bench in the office.  The main room has a new DAC champion.  I had compared the two back when I did the final coupling cap upgrade a yr ago - the final version using the Mundorf Supreme Silver/Gold/Oil caps.  Back then the DAC60 was very close.  Those caps need 500-1000 hours to fully burnin.
  
 Momma Mia - have they ever!  The R2R PCM1704UK just landed a knock out blow to the 32-bit SDM AKM's and that's with 6 per channel!
  
 I know this doesn't help your issue - but at least you know the RN3 and an older DAC work great over SPDIF coax.
  
 Anybody want a killer source for under $4k REDNET 3>Mutec MC-3+ USB> DAC60 (with about a $1000 in DIY upgrades)!
 I might just drag this package to one of those meets and blow everybody away.
  
 Before:


 After:

  
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
  
 I may have a W4S Remedy reclocker going up for sale.


----------



## sbgk

rb2013 said:


> OK just swapped DACs - using my heavily DIY modded DAC60 in the main listening room.  All I have to say is
> 
> OMfreakingG!!!  Unbelievable the sound I just heard!
> 
> ...


 
 the emf from the transformers will still be having an effect on the sq, have you tried it with them out of the box, looks like the leads are long enough.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

iving said:


> Spoiler Alert!
> 
> Using spdif, my Linn DAC, integral in an AV5103, would NOT recognise the signal from the D16. Blank, Zilch, Nada
> 
> ...


 

 Hi Iving, you are not alone. During our Bellingham meet last Saturday the same thing has occurred with @gefski's YGGY. Luckily by sheer luck (and the fact that the Optical Outputs do not work with our SPDIF Optical) I opted to bring my Matrix Mini-i which also has a spdif RCA pass-through. It worked with the pass through but later in the day we wanted to see what the Yggy could do plugged directly into the R3 and after multiple cable swaps we could not get the Yggy to see the signal but other DACs (including my R2R I had in the car and my Matrix Mini-i) would.

 I will PM you directly to make sure we're on the same page with what Focusrite comes up with. @gefski will want to be getting in on a Rednet 3 during fall so the solution to this is needed here as well.


----------



## rb2013

sbgk said:


> the emf from the transformers will still be having an effect on the sq, have you tried it with them out of the box, looks like the leads are long enough.


 

 No and I need to unseat them and twist those wires - but it's dead silent.  Same for the Hammond choke.
  
 One of the magic ingredients is the finest tube I've ever had a chance to meet.  The Russian HG.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/761078/6922-tube-review-17-top-6922-6n23p-e88cc-cca-7308-e188cc-tubes
  
 What this tube does is pretty amazing.
  
 I love the DAC60- true tube output (not just a opamp with tube buffer), R2R PCM1704UK DACs.  It needed a lot of component swapping (see my thread).
  
 My next upgrade will probably be a Neutron Star - fed by a separate LPS. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The liquidity and tonality of this box now are to die for - especially with AOIP - tonight it's going to be a party


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hi Iving, you are not alone. During our Bellingham meet last Saturday the same thing has occurred with @gefski's YGGY. Luckily by sheer luck (and the fact that the Optical Outputs do not work with our SPDIF Optical) I opted to bring my Matrix Mini-i which also has a spdif RCA pass-through. It worked with the pass through but later in the day we wanted to see what the Yggy could do plugged directly into the R3 and after multiple cable swaps we could not get the Yggy to see the signal but other DACs (including my R2R I had in the car and my Matrix Mini-i) would.
> 
> I will PM you directly to make sure we're on the same page with what Focusrite comes up with. @gefski will want to be getting in on a Rednet 3 during fall so the solution to this is needed here as well.


 

 The optical ins/outs are ADAT not SPDIF unfortunately.
  
 Wonder if the Gumby MB has the same issue.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> +1


 
  
 There is an actual +1 button (thumbs up next to Multi, Quote, and Reply). Posts with just a +1 like this make the thread harder to read.
  


> Originally Posted by *rb2013* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I love the DAC60- true tube output (not just a opamp with tube buffer), R2R PCM1704UK DACs.  It needed a lot of component swapping (see my thread).


 
 Those are PCM1704, not PCM1704UK. The UK version would be able to take 192kHz input, like the ones in my Audio-GD Master 11 DAC.
  


johnjen said:


> So I'm at 60hrs on my RN3 and the SQ has taken a significant step up.
> It's still changing and I have very little idea of how much time it will take to reach its full peak and remain there.
> 
> The difference between my 2-Wyrd setup and the RN3 is increasing, but at this time it isn't a knock you over the head huge difference but the gap is widening.


 
 Pretty much my thoughts on the RN3. It's a step above my USB chain but I'm not as blown away as rb2013 (yet, hopefully).


----------



## Iving

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hi Iving, you are not alone. During our Bellingham meet last Saturday the same thing has occurred with @gefski's YGGY. Luckily by sheer luck (and the fact that the Optical Outputs do not work with our SPDIF Optical) I opted to bring my Matrix Mini-i which also has a spdif RCA pass-through. It worked with the pass through but later in the day we wanted to see what the Yggy could do plugged directly into the R3 and after multiple cable swaps we could not get the Yggy to see the signal but other DACs (including my R2R I had in the car and my Matrix Mini-i) would.
> 
> I will PM you directly to make sure we're on the same page with what Focusrite comes up with. @gefski will want to be getting in on a Rednet 3 during fall so the solution to this is needed here as well.


 
  
 Thank you! That is a breakthrough. I will collate any other such relevant info and forward it to Focusrite/Electromod (schitt.eu) to help them with their investigation. Also I will respond to any PM.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> The optical ins/outs are ADAT not SPDIF unfortunately.
> 
> Wonder if the Gumby MB has the same issue.


 

 Yes, they are ADAT. I believe I was the first to post in this regards after talking with Focusrite over the phone -- I falsely told people at the Bellingham meet to bring the Toslink cables only to find out days before that they're incompatible. They do make converters but that is another digital conversion process that will most likely lower SQ.
  


iving said:


> Thank you! That is a breakthrough. I will collate any other such relevant info and forward it to Focusrite/Electromod (schitt.eu) to help them with their investigation. Also I will respond to any PM.


 

 You've got a PM with @gefski included. For a second there we thought there was just something wrong with my Rednet or the Yggy.

 I don't remember if the Bifrost DS we had plugged in was daisy chained or direct. @markus94103, do you remember if it was direct to the R3 or it was daisy chained through my Matrix? (Also quite possibly your AGD Wolfson DAC's spdif input may not be defective, you'll be able to test it with the DU-U8 soon)


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> There is an actual +1 button (thumbs up next to Multi, Quote, and Reply). Posts with just a +1 like this make the thread harder to read.
> 
> Those are PCM1704, not PCM1704UK. The UK version would be able to take 192kHz input, like the ones in my Audio-GD Master 11 DAC.
> 
> Pretty much my thoughts on the RN3. It's a step above my USB chain but I'm not as blown away as rb2013 (yet, hopefully).


 

 And who told you that?  Not true read the TI (Burr Brown) data sheet on the PCM1704UK used with the DF1704 filter - the limit is 96k.
  
 The Audio-GD uses a different filter - so does that drool worthy La Scala MK2 tht DAR has as his #1 DAC.
  
 The variation from 1704U to UJ to UK have to do with tolerances on the resistors - the better UK have closer matching - so less distortion.
  
 And BTW UK chips don't have UK written on them in marker (as seen on Ebay 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) - but two dots.
  
 The amount of blowing away will depend on how resolving your system is - in my office it made a difference.  But as I have posted here many times - not nearly to the degree in my main system.
  
 Also the SPDIF or I guess AES cable will have a significant impact.  Same goes for adding the Mutec MC-3+ USB as relocker. 
 All I can say is my digital source is now light years ahead of my old $30K analog setup (and that was rolled and tweeked for years).
 As in all things audio YMMV!


----------



## rb2013

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/the-darko-dac-index/
 Quote:


> _Premier League _​
> Aqua Hifi La Scala MKII
> _Division 1_​
> Chord Hugo TT
> ...


----------



## rb2013

http://www.dddac.de/files/PCM1704.pdf


> 24-Bit, 96kHz BiCMOS Sign-Magnitude DIGITAL-TO-ANALOG CONVERTER 49% FPO International Airport Industrial Park • Mailing Address: PO Box 11400, Tucson, AZ 85734 • Street Address: 6730 S. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85706 • Tel: (520) 746-1111 • Twx: 910-952-1111 Internet: http://www.burr-brown.com/ • FAXLine: (800) 548-6133 (US/Canada Only) • Cable: BBRCORP • Telex: 066-6491 • FAX: (520) 889-1510 • Immediate Product Info: (800) 548-6132 PCM1704 ® FEATURES ● SAMPLING FREQUENCY (fS): 16kHz to 96kHz ● 8X OVERSAMPLING AT 96kHz ● INPUT AUDIO DATA WORD: 20-, 24-Bit ● HIGH PERFORMANCE: Dynamic Range: K Grade = 112dB typ SNR: 120dB typ THD+N: K Grade = 0.0008% typ ● FAST CURRENT OUTPUT: ±1.2mA/200ns ● GLITCH-FREE OUTPUT ● PIN-PROGRAMMABLE DATA INVERSION ● POWER SUPPLY: ±5V ● SMALL 20-LEAD SO PACKAGE © 1998 Burr-Brown Corporation PDS-1454C Printed in U.S.A. February, 1999 TM DESCRIPTION The PCM1704 is a precision, 24-bit digital-to-analog converter with exceptionally high dynamic performance. The ultra-low distortion and excellent lowlevel signal performance makes the PCM1704 an ideal candidate for high-end consumer and professional audio applications. When used with a digital interpolation filter, the PCM1704 supports 8X oversampling at 96kHz. The PCM1704 incorporates a BiCMOS sign-magnitude architecture that eliminates glitches and other nonlinearities around bipolar zero. The PCM1704 is precision laser-trimmed at the factory to minimize differential linearity and gain errors. In addition to high performance audio systems, the PCM1704 is well-suited to waveform synthesis applications requiring very low distortion and noise.


 


> DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE(3) THD+N VO = 0dB PCM1704U 0.0025 0.0030 % PCM1704U-J 0.0015 0.0025 % PCM1704U-K 0.0008 0.0015 % VO =–20dB PCM1704U 0.008 0.020 % PCM1704U-J 0.007 0.015 % PCM1704U-K 0.006 0.01 % Dynamic Range EIAJ, A-weighted PCM1704U, U-J 102 110 dB PCM1704U-K 106 112 dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio EIAJ, A-weighted 112 120 dB Low Level Linearity f = 1002Hz at –90dB ±0.5 dB


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> There is an actual +1 button (thumbs up next to Multi, Quote, and Reply). Posts with just a +1 like this make the thread harder to read.
> 
> Those are PCM1704, not PCM1704UK. The UK version would be able to take 192kHz input, like the ones in my Audio-GD Master 11 DAC.
> 
> Pretty much my thoughts on the RN3. It's a step above my USB chain but I'm not as blown away as rb2013 (yet, hopefully).


 

 I seem to have read that a few folks liked the REDNET gear:


> Why am I telling you this? *I am now getting the most realistic, non-fatiguing, tonally satisfying sound that I have ever been able to achieve. It is WAY better that my *​*USB** system*. I will not go further as I do not want to over sell this equipment. I only want to start dialog concerning it and it's possibilities.​


 


> Here is my subjective assessment (rank order):​​ ​ 1) D16>Mutec MC3 +​USB> Yggy​​ 2) uRendu>Mutec MC3 +​USB>Yggy​​ 3) Dual PC (​CAPSPipeline)>Mutec MC3+​USB>Yggy​​ ​ I went deep into last night and this morning listening, comparing and taking notes. What struck me is that while my notes for uRendu and my Dual PC set-up contained comments about frequency extention, tonality, noise floor and timing, my comments on the D16 set-up were much less technical and *much more emotional. I wrote down "engaging", "immersive","fluid" and "liquid". I connected more to the music with the Rednet set-up. *​​ ​ All the usual caveats apply. This is one persons opinion and I'm not making any definitive declarations about products or technologies.​​ ​ ​ For those interested in Rednet (AOIP) solutions, I will say the following:​​ ​ a) The market for Rednet (Dante) gear is Pro Audio - not consumer. The D16 is overkill from a consumer standpoint. I really only need a small 2 channel device with​AES. I have a full, very solid 1 rack unit device with 16 channels and connections I will never use. The uRendu by comparison is the size of a pack of cards.​​ ​ b) As has been mentioned before but bares repeating - The device does not auto-switch for varying sample rates. If you are playing a 44Khz track and want to play a 192Khz track you need to go into the SW and manually switch 44 to 192. Not a big deal for me but for some this may be problematic. There is talk that there may be firmware later this summer that will address this. However, I have not seen confirmation in writing from the Mfg.​​ ​ c)The D16 took a bit of time to set up and configure. While the uRendu was plug and play (10 minutes) It took me about an hour and a half to be up and running with the D16. It's not really that complicated after the first couple of times. There are even you tube videos available to help you get oriented. In comparison, dual PC systems in my experience with SW like Jplay, AO, and Bitsum are at least if not more complicated and more finicky.​​ ​ d) As with many pro devices, you will not find a​USBconnection anywhere. This means no​DSD.​​ ​ If you have no problems with any of the above, you may want to check out AOIP products like the Rednet. The D16-Mutec-Yggy combo is now my main system with the following benefits:​​ ​ ​ - *Best SQ that I have experienced to date in my system.*​​ - I can still use all the playback SW I have with the free ASIO Virtual Sound Card that comes with unit (Roon/Tidal, Infinity Blade, JRMC, HQP).​​ - Connection is rock solid. No musical drop outs or sw glitches/crashes. Infinity Blade which I've always liked was very temperamental in dual PC/Jplay set up. It runs like a dream with D16.​


 


> Subbing in. Got my Rednet 3 yesterday and *am floored at the SQ difference between it and USB implementation. Cellos and violins have so much more details while the bow is sliding, attack and decay is on point and there's a natural warmth overall (without dulling the details) along with open-ess between instruments that did not exist before*. These are through active Fostex bookshelves and a mid-fi dac, not my main critical listening setup. Can't wait to take the beast to my home setup and see how it sings.
> Audio over ethernet is the way in comparison to USB implementations even with serious clocks/chips, no doubt.


 
 Maybe you need a better system (DAC in particular)


----------



## Albrecht

> Not only did the DAC60 work - it just blew my $7k APL out of the water!


 
  
 Wow... holy crap.
  
 You're the first person on earth that's ever written anything like that
  
 A DAC that beats an APL?  Is such a thing even possible?


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Wow... holy crap.
> 
> You're the first person on earth that's ever written anything like that
> 
> A DAC that beats an APL?  Is such a thing even possible?


Well as a APL owner you know how good they are, and unquie in design.

Not expecting this $650 Chinese DAC to beat it. Of couse this is a very special DAC60. Put the APL in the office system. Yup the modded DAC60 is better.

Should of tried this a long time ago.

I did think there were better DACs then the APL before. The Aqua HIFI La Scalla mk2, Total DAC D1 Tube but they're 6-7k.

So happy right now! Just listened to Florence and Machine 'Dog days".
Sat mezmerized in my listening chair


----------



## Albrecht

> I did think there were better DACs then the APL before.


 
 I have yet to hear one..      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 As well as just about every other APL owner, - your DAC must be awesome.
  
  


> So happy right now! Just listened to Florence and Machine 'Dog days".


 
  
 I may just be buying a Rednet 3 before I planned!!    WOW again.
  
 My only thing is I need to make sure that everything goes well, (meaning works well), with a new MAC Pro. I know that there is a Dante Virtual sound card driver for the MAC, - but will it work with Roon setting the SoundCard? And, - in addition to the $2K for the Mutec and RN3, - I need to buy Roon.....   ouch....


----------



## rb2013

I really cant believe what I' m hearing.

Thinking I should buy a 2nd - they're getting hard to find.

If you can try the RN, I thought I read it works with Roon. But don't quote me on that.


----------



## rb2013

Listening the last few hours - the best way to put it - the richest tonal density and vibrancy I have ever heard - analog included.
  
 The sound picture just painted with a deeper hued palette of tonal color.  Like going from water colors to acrylics to the best french oils.


----------



## gldgate

Yes, Roon will work fine with virtual sound card. I've used the D16>Mutec MC3+ USB>Yggy combo successfully with the following players:
  
 a) Roon
 b) HQPlayer
 c) JRMC
 d) Bughead
  
 No issues what so ever


----------



## rb2013

I think I'll give Jason Serinus a call - he's a reviewer for Stereophile.  He doesn't live to far away and see if he'd be willing to faced off his $22k DCS Rossini DAC against my motley REDNET ensemble.
  
 He invited me to a private audition at his home - one of the finest systems I have heard.  Well over $100,000.  Just his Nordost Odin cable loom north of $30k.
  
 This system is an order of magnitude greater in resolution then mine.
  
 In addition to being an articulate audio reviewer, he's a great guy, and one of the West Coast's most knowledgable experts on Operatic music.  So a different musical blend to try on this combination.
  
 I bet he would be impressed!
  
 Here's his system from my private audition last November.

  
 Cheers!


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> And who told you that?  Not true read the TI (Burr Brown) data sheet on the PCM1704UK used with the DF1704 filter - the limit is 96k.
> 
> The Audio-GD uses a different filter - so does that drool worthy La Scala MK2 tht DAR has as his #1 DAC.
> 
> The variation from 1704U to UJ to UK have to do with tolerances on the resistors - the better UK have closer matching - so less distortion.


 
 The PCM1704UK on its own takes up to 1.536MHz (192kHz with 8x oversampling input). I'm not talking about the filter chip, which any DAC designer can swap out to their heart's content. Regardless, the chips in your DAC60 are not the UK variant.
  


rb2013 said:


> I seem to have read that a few folks liked the REDNET gear:
> Maybe you need a better system (DAC in particular)


 
 Maybe I am just not as hyperbolic as others. There are so many people that describe subtle changes with things like cables and tweaks as total game changers that it is hard to tell what each person's relative sound quality scale is like.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> The PCM1704UK on its own takes up to 1.536MHz (192kHz with 8x oversampling input). I'm not talking about the filter chip, which any DAC designer can swap out to their heart's content. Regardless, the chips in your DAC60 are not the UK variant.
> 
> Maybe I am just not as hyperbolic as others. There are so many people that describe subtle changes with things like cables and tweaks as total game changers that it is hard to tell what each person's relative sound quality scale is like.


 

 How the heck do you know what chips are in my DAC?  You know nothing about this - see the TI PCM1704 Datasheet.  "I'm not talking about the filter chip, which any DAC designer can swap out to their heart's content." Do be silly my friend.  So you're a DAC designer now?
  
 Do you how to tell a UK from a K?  Tell me?  How by looking at the chip?
  
 You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink...
  
 As for the REDNET - maybe it's not right for everyone.  YMMV.  Send it back and get your money and buy a better DAC.
  
 It's amazing folks who'll spend $1000-$1600 for a min SQ improvement - interesting.   Or they just like to be naysayers.
  
 I think those posts (2 from the CA thread) were quite balanced and thoughtful - not hyperbolic in the least.  Just because your system is limited and can't scale to keep up with the greater SQ of the REDNET's don't say no ones can.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> The PCM1704UK on its own takes up to 1.536MHz (192kHz with 8x oversampling input). I'm not talking about the filter chip, which any DAC designer can swap out to their heart's content. Regardless, the chips in your DAC60 are not the UK variant.
> 
> Maybe I am just not as hyperbolic as others. There are so many people that describe subtle changes with things like cables and tweaks as total game changers that it is hard to tell what each person's relative sound quality scale is like.


 
 If the PCM1704UK could really take up to 1.536 Mhz - why is your Master 11 limited to 192k on USB and i2s?  Not 384k?  768k?
  
 Everything you've said makes no sense.
  
 But once again here is the TI (Burr-Brown) datasheet on the PCM1704U, U-J, U-K:
  
 http://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Texas%20Instruments%20PDFs/PCM1704.pdf
  
 Let's move on or take this up on DAC60 mod project thread...please


----------



## rb2013

Now back to Jason Serinus from Stereoreview.
  
 He is very close to the DCS folks - if he's impressed enough - a strong word there could be very interesting.
  
 Imagine DCS goes for AES67 either Dante or with their resources more likely Ravenna - that would be something!


----------



## Luckbad

No need to discuss the capabilities of a DAC chip in this thread.

Anyway... I have a Rednet 3 coming Friday.

I hate you all for feeding my addiction.


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> No need to discuss the capabilities of a DAC chip in this thread.
> 
> Anyway... I have a Rednet 3 coming Friday.
> 
> I hate you all for feeding my addiction.


 

 See @Soundsgoodtome Dave clip!


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> How the heck do you know what chips are in my DAC?  You know nothing about this - see the TI PCM1704 Datasheet.  "I'm not talking about the filter chip, which any DAC designer can swap out to their heart's content." Do be silly my friend.  So you're a DAC designer now?
> 
> 
> Do you how to tell a UK from a K?  Tell me?  How by looking at the chip?


 
 Hmm I don't know maybe because it's listed as PCM1704 on every site that I can find the DAC60? Unless you swapped it out yourself, it's a non-UK version.
 http://www.analogmetric.com/goods.php?id=252
 http://gr-research.com/dac-60.aspx
  


> Originally Posted by *rb2013* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink...
> 
> ...


 
 How do we go from me saying that it is a significant step up (I'm not "blown away" with the improvement) from my whole USB gizmo chain to "min SQ improvement" and me being a "naysayer".
  
 And now you are criticizing my system as being limited??? Have you even heard any of Audio-GD's TOTL DACs? You keep copy-pasting the same list from John Darko and he lists the Reference 7.1 in his Category 2. Master-11 is an upgrade from that.
  
 I do not understand how you take anything but the highest praise as a criticism.
  


rb2013 said:


> If the PCM1704UK could really take up to 1.536 Mhz - why is your Master 11 limited to 192k on USB and i2s?  Not 384k?  768k?
> 
> Everything you've said makes no sense.
> 
> ...


 
 The PCM1704UK does accept 1.536MHz. Do the math... 192kHz input x 8x oversampling = 1.536MHz. I don't see what doesn't make sense to you.
  
 Quote: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/Reference10/RE10EN.htm 





> *Even though the PCM1704 PDF declare the PCM1704 support up to 96KHz / 24bit, highest word clock input is 768KHz.
> In fact the PCM1704UK can support 192KHz / 24bit at 8X oversampling , the word clock input is 1.536MHz , as high as ESS9018.*


----------



## rb2013

See my post on the DAC60 Mod thread. Let's pick it up there. Please for the second time. Trying to be patient with you my friend.

Take it as you may. If you like the Rednet or if you don't - I really don't care. Won't argue DAC stuff here, but I have heard your DAC. I've heard almost all PCM1704U/U-K DACs. Not for me.

Please read the post my DAC60 page. I'm just going to ignore your continuation of this OT here.


----------



## somestranger26

Has anyone experienced an occasional popping sound with the RN3? I've been noticing a pop or slight skip in the audio like a mini dropout every 15-30 minutes.
  
 I'm using these settings:

4ms Dante Latency
1ms Rednet latency (Max network size: Gigiabit network with ten switches) <- I increased this from 150usec hoping it would fix the popping
32 samples ASIO buffer
24-bit, 192kHz
Direct connection (no switch)
  
 It is my understanding that rb2013 and probably others have their latency and buffer settings at the minimum without issues.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> Has anyone experienced an occasional popping sound with the RN3? I've been noticing a pop or slight skip in the audio like a mini dropout every 15-30 minutes.
> 
> I'm using these settings:
> 
> ...




I would list every component in your network chain. Such as switch model, cables etc. One thing about AOIP is, it really should be used with switches and network gear known to give flawless results. There's so many variables like switch firewall settings, glitchy firmware and all kinds of quirks that can potentially happen. For example, Merging recommends the Dell 2808 switch. This doesn't mean 20 other switches don't also work great, what it means is that's the switch they have tested and know for sure works flawless.


----------



## somestranger26

kelowna said:


> I would list every component in your network chain. Such as switch model, cables etc. One thing about AOIP is, it really should be used with switches and network gear known to give flawless results. There's so many variables like switch firewall settings, glitchy firmware and all kinds of quirks that can potentially happen. For example, Merging recommends the Dell 2808 switch. This doesn't mean 20 other switches don't also work great, what it means is that's the switch they have tested and know for sure works flawless.


 

 I meant to say I have it connected directly from an Intel PCI-E NIC in my computer to the RN3, with the CAT6A cable that came with it.
  
 Edit: Huh... I just got multiple dropouts in a  row and had a huge latency spike. 14.6ms peak latency... that's even higher than the highest setting (5ms "Safe setting").


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> I meant to say I have it connected directly from an Intel PCI-E NIC in my computer to the RN3, with the CAT6A cable that came with it.




Well I guess that eliminates the switch from the equation when troubleshooting.


----------



## joelha

Actually, it would be great to know what latency, buffer, and other settings people are using as well as preferred cables and network equipment.

Joel


----------



## Albrecht

> . Now back to Jason Serinus from Stereoreview.





Hi RB,

I have heard Jason's system a few times when he was in Oakland, and running BAAS. He's also heard mine a few times. He seems to have big, open, rooms, that allow the Sasha's to breathe: which is a good idea IMO.
I haven't heard the system with the DCS stuff in it though. I'm not such a fan of the Pass Labs gear, but perhaps a really nice synergy between the DCS, Wilson's and Pass. 
I like how Jason values performance, and doesn't have to be a stickler for great recording sonics, - he''s not shy about putting on a great recorded performance. 
He's also had AlexP over as well, and had APL stuff in his system. 
I am up in Seattle fairly often, so I should look him up....

I think that it would be great for him to hear the Pro-Audio RedNet3, - especially if you surprise him with it. 

Cheers,


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Has anyone experienced an occasional popping sound with the RN3? I've been noticing a pop or slight skip in the audio like a mini dropout every 15-30 minutes.
> 
> I'm using these settings:
> 
> ...


Try increasing the buffer to 1024. That's where mine is set.


----------



## gldgate

I currently have the following settings:
  

​4ms Dante latency
250us Rednet latency
128 sample ASIO buffer
32-bit (various sample rates)
Direct connection
  
 Over 4 days (20 hrs of playback) I have had one pop.
  
 Computer is Intel i7-4790 @ 4GHz. 32GB RAM, Windows 10 Pro.
  
 Not that I have the budget for it right now, but I am kind of hoping someone splurges on the RedNet PCIe card and provides some feedback. Not sure it would enhance sq but it sure as heck should improve any latency issues.


----------



## lateboomer

Hi RB,
  
  
 Your main listening room is highly resolving as you said. May I know what interconnects and speaker cables you are using? What power cords you use for your amp?
  
 I can't find any info from your profile.


----------



## sbgk

rb2013 said:


> Try increasing the buffer to 1024. That's where mine is set.


 
 is that because it sounds best at that setting, or does the buffer size no longer make a difference to the sq (as long as it's big enough to avoid dropouts) ?


----------



## joelha

Rb2013,

Did you ever get the specifics on the copper tubing you purchased?

Length, diameter, item number, did you buy it pre-cut or did you have to cut out yourself?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## markus94103

soundsgoodtome said:


> I don't remember if the Bifrost DS we had plugged in was daisy chained or direct. @markus94103, do you remember if it was direct to the R3 or it was daisy chained through my Matrix? (Also quite possibly your AGD Wolfson DAC's spdif input may not be defective, you'll be able to test it with the DU-U8 soon)


 
  
 Sorry, I don't remember which it was. Looking forward to trying the DU-U8 though!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Well, this isn't good news. I was banking on a date processor to remedy my 24/192khz woes on the rednet. Can you turn your Windows power settings to high performance and set minimum cpu process to 100%.

Also get into your bios and turn off cpu speedstep.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

^^^ read last post 

somestranger26
computer specs?


----------



## somestranger26

soundsgoodtome said:


> Well, this isn't good news. I was banking on a date processor to remedy my 24/192khz woes on the rednet. Can you turn your Windows power settings to high performance and set minimum cpu process to 100%.
> 
> Also get into your bios and turn off cpu speedstep.


 

 I7-5820K, 16GB DDR4, Windows 10
  
 I'm trying out 250us RN latency, 256 ASIO buffer and also increased Foobar2000 buffer to 100ms since it was happening more frequently with F2K than my video player. I'll go up toward 1024 ASIO buffer and 500-1000us RN latency if I need to. Will report back if/when the issue is fixed.
  
 I hope it isn't related to the power in my apartment, although this could definitely be related to my lack of being totally-blown-away with the RN3. My Power Plant P5 reads almost 7% THD on the input and I don't plug my computer into it. I imagine with such crap power in this apartment that the optical dealies will bring an improvement. Moving in 2 months thankfully.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Power settings, minimum cpu state and speedstep off? Also turn off antivirus programs 





somestranger26 said:


> I7-5820K, 16GB DDR4, Windows 10
> 
> I'm trying out 250us RN latency, 256 ASIO buffer and also increased Foobar2000 buffer to 100ms since it was happening more frequently with F2K than my video player. I'll go up toward 1024 ASIO buffer and 500-1000us RN latency if I need to. Will report back if/when the issue is fixed.
> 
> I hope it isn't related to the power in my apartment, although this could definitely be related to my lack of being totally-blown-away with the RN3. My Power Plant P5 reads almost 7% THD on the input and I don't plug my computer into it. I imagine with such crap power in this apartment that the optical dealies will bring an improvement. Moving in 2 months thankfully.


----------



## somestranger26

soundsgoodtome said:


> Power settings, minimum cpu state and speedstep off? Also turn off antivirus programs


 

 I turned it to high performance to prevent sleep (for burn in), and so CPU is at 100% since I haven't changed the settings. I don't use AV.


----------



## Iving

Still investigating D16 AES > Yggy not working via spdif/coax (cf. http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123) ...
  
 ... all is well with AES though.
  
 My settings are (i7-2600K @ dual 3.40GHz 8Gb RAM Windows 7 64-bit PC remote from listening room streams courtesy unremarkable Cat 5 > Router > wireless to Windows 10 MS Surface Pro 3 fb2k UPnP > Docking Station > unremarkable Cat 6 > RedNet D16 AES > Yggy via AES > Linn AV 5103 > 2 x Quad 909 with DADA revisions vertically bi-amping > LK 400 > Snell Type A III):
  
 fb2k:
        W7 Server - Sox @ 192000/Best
        W10 Player [UPnP Browser] - min buffer 50ms OK but 2000ms needed for gapless
  
 DVS:
        Dante Latency: 4ms (Windows 10 tablet peaking at 1.9ms)
        ASIO Buffer: 128 (default - haven't tried others)
        ASIO Encoding: 24 bits
        ASIO Latency: 10ms (default - haven't tried others)
  
 RedNet Control:
        SR 192000
        ASIO Buffer 128
  
 Dante Controller:
        SP3 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Encoding: PCM 24
        D16 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Latency - 250us (150us is greyed out)
  
 The above are provisional since listening experience is still very limited - that said, there are no obvious problems.
  
 Neither of my Windows PCs run anything like HQPlayer, Roon, JRiver, JPLAY, Fidelizer, AudiophileOptimizer etc. All the same I have rolled back Windows as far as I can without screwing anything up. Windows 7 is a work machine as well as a Server. Windows 10 is dedicated to music replay - the fan is off most of the time.
  
 My source material is about 100% red book CDs ripped to flac in stringent EAC.
  
 The sound is outstanding. It's pointless comparing with USB (pretty much everything short of a microRendu) - as in more of this or less of that. I've had to spend some money - but the result is cheese to USB's chalk - and quite spectacular. For me, it's the first time digital has competed with analogue. My bag is the vinyl era starting late 1950s. I'm interested in very little music post-1979. There is new delight listening to everything from Gene Vincent to Pink Floyd to Alison Krauss. OK, Alison Krauss is post 1979 - but you know what I mean. And Travis too. I think what I like most is the way I can appreciate the band in the mix - shut my eyes - watch the guitar player - not get annoyed and turn it off because of the bronchial USB banshee.
  
 I'd like to know what the spdif/coax issue is between D16 and Yggy (may apply more broadly): hopefully we will know soon enough. In the meantime, I'm a happy (but sadly more indebted) camper.


----------



## mtoc

folks, calm down, waiting for the Brooklyn II version Rednet, now they are using Brooklyn I.


----------



## jabbr

mtoc said:


> folks, calm down, waiting for the Brooklyn II version Rednet, now they are using Brooklyn I.




What are you specifically refering to?
D16 already uses Brooklyn II, only Rednet 3 uses Brooklyn I.

Cheers


----------



## mtoc

lol sorry, i did a double check, d16 is using Brooklyn II, so we gonna stick with d16...


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Hi RB,
> 
> I have heard Jason's system a few times when he was in Oakland, and running BAAS. He's also heard mine a few times. He seems to have big, open, rooms, that allow the Sasha's to breathe: which is a good idea IMO.
> I haven't heard the system with the DCS stuff in it though. I'm not such a fan of the Pass Labs gear, but perhaps a really nice synergy between the DCS, Wilson's and Pass.
> ...


 

 Wow - we live in a small audio world.
  
 He's tough to catch up here - traveling down to the Bay area weekly and then his show coverage for Stereophile.
  
 Once I have the REDNET optimized with associated tweeks (like optical ethernet).  I'll shoot him and email.
 Are you on his email group list?
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> I currently have the following settings:
> 
> 
> ​4ms Dante latency
> ...


 
 It seems the DVS needs a fairly new PC to run well.  Yours looks more then up to the task. 
  
 Also curious on the Rednet PCIe for SQ improvement.


----------



## rb2013

sbgk said:


> is that because it sounds best at that setting, or does the buffer size no longer make a difference to the sq (as long as it's big enough to avoid dropouts) ?


 
 It's the best I've heard so far - but really not a SQ issue.  Just thinking the way AOIP Dante works - a big buffer should be a good thing.  Does not effect latency - as mine is 4ms in DVS and 150us on the RN3.
  


joelha said:


> Rb2013,
> 
> Did you ever get the specifics on the copper tubing you purchased?
> 
> ...


 
 Yes it is pre-cut.  I've been tied up - but will get there this morning.  So I'll have details.
  


markus94103 said:


> Sorry, I don't remember which it was. Looking forward to trying the DU-U8 though!


 
 I have a nice one for sale in the classifieds.  Get the Talema transformer upgrade - its worth the extra $20.
  


somestranger26 said:


> I7-5820K, 16GB DDR4, Windows 10
> 
> I'm trying out 250us RN latency, 256 ASIO buffer and also increased Foobar2000 buffer to 100ms since it was happening more frequently with F2K than my video player. I'll go up toward 1024 ASIO buffer and 500-1000us RN latency if I need to. Will report back if/when the issue is fixed.
> 
> I hope it isn't related to the power in my apartment, although this could definitely be related to my lack of being totally-blown-away with the RN3. My Power Plant P5 reads almost 7% THD on the input and I don't plug my computer into it. I imagine with such crap power in this apartment that the optical dealies will bring an improvement. Moving in 2 months thankfully.


 
 i set the F2k buffer to 50ms the lowest setting with out any issues at all.  Not a single pop or click.  Are you using AO or FO?
  
 Be sure the clock setting is 'internal'.
  
 Good stuff on this thread in case anyone has missed it:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/


----------



## rb2013

mtoc said:


> lol sorry, i did a double check, d16 is using Brooklyn II, so we gonna stick with d16...


 

 Why?  The D16 is $600 more - that could be better spent partly funding a Mutec MC-3+ USB for reclocking.  Unless you need 176k.  The audio processing is otherwise the same in the two and SQ as confirmed by the Focusrite folks I spoke to.
  
 Here is the Audinate website for more info one the BKII:
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-brooklyn-ii
  
 It seems that folks are having more issues with the D16 then the 3.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ...
> It seems that folks are having more issues with the D16 then the 3.


 
  
 That's because nobody else has the RN3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Just kidding.


----------



## rb2013

lateboomer said:


> Hi RB,
> 
> 
> Your main listening room is highly resolving as you said. May I know what interconnects and speaker cables you are using? What power cords you use for your amp?
> ...


 

 Hi - well my entire system has been honed and refined over two decades of intense equipment rolling.  500+ transactions between Audiogon (Rb99), Ebay (Rb90002009), US Audio Mart (Tubelover2).  So every part of the audio chain has gone through 10, 12, 20 different pieces (not counting tubes which number into the hundreds).  Started as a SS guy 25 yrs ago (actually my audio lust began at 16 when I built my own speakers with Radioshack parts), when I started making some serious money.  Went through all kinds of Krell, Mark Levinson, PASS, Threshold SS stuff - never to my LT satisfaction.  Always a follower of Harry Pierson who founded The Absolute Sound - I went all tubes - 300B SET (4 different amps), 211, 845, then the big 6550's and KT88s settling on the ASL Hurricanes (8 KT-88sper channel 200W Mono blocks), had three versions of those - including the V-Cap Teflon capped Response Audio modded version ($5K in cap upgrades alone).  Still not completely satisfied went tube/SS hybrid - that hit the mark.
  
 So for interconnects I went through Nordost Valhalla (and SPM), SR Tesla Apex, Tellurium Q, Cerious Tech Graphene, Supra Sword ISL, and about 20 others.  Finally discovering these:
 Aural Thrills - BCS tube active shield - teflon plugs.  Rolled a dozen 12au7's settled on a '50s NOS black plate Mullard and a half dozen power chords settle on the Venom's.  The tube unit is NOT in the signal!  It only powers the active shield.  SR has something similar called the Enigma.  Each different tube I tried sounded slightly different!  Same for the  different power chords I tried.  So this is just my main system interconnect story.  $999 for 1M.  How's that for a demented case of Audio OCD.
  
 These are the most resolving, noise free, holographic IC's I've ever heard.  The dynamics are outstanding - same for the detail and transparency.
  
 http://www.auralthrillsaudio.com



> Compared to my other active cable this is without a doubt the best sounding. As usual it is much more difficult and expensive to make. It uses house voltage to power the shield. It is an actual tube amplifier in all respects including 12.6v filament transformer and 240v power transformer. The AC filament gives it a very rich tube sound. The refined power supply activating the shield adds more space than any other model I make. Besides tube rolling you can also change the power cord on this model giving you the ultimate control.​ So how does it sound? Like a cable which is a good tube amplifier instead of the low tech solid state offerings of other companies. Extended highs and lows with imaging that only an active cable can bring.  I dare you to compare this cable to the finest out there. The shield is charged to 80 volts by a 12au7 tube amplifier which is coupled to the signal lines via some specifically manufactured resistors. Musicians step out of your speakers and into your room. Uncanny is the only way to describe it. At times I have been startled by sounds contained in recordings that seemed alive and in my room. Try out your favorite NOS tubes and you will hear the differences just like in amps. Change to your favorite power cord and you will again hear the difference just like in your amp. Nothing else like it.​ The signal lines are connected to the shield by a pair of specifically manufactured resistors. What is created is a pseudo balanced interconnect, as the shield is effectively neutral relative to both conductors. Relative to the equipment ground, the shield sees half the signal voltage swing. Einstein would ponder the following question, what if the wires do not know that ground is ground? The results are stunning!​ The wire used is the same awesome 22awg used in our Bass Boss cable. I feel this cable has the best balance of highs, lows, bass, and detail. The wire is surrounded by a poly shield which is charged by the output of the tube amplifier.​ We need to talk about the importance of a good connector. Most connectors are made of Brass. This is done because brass is easy to cast into the desired shape not because it is a good conductor. Brass is a alloy of Copper and Zinc. Zinc is a terrible conductor of electricity. For that reason we have developed a Brass free Rca conductor which eliminates Brass form the signal path. It uses only the same silver alloy that is contained in our wire as conductors. The base of our exclusive Rca is made of solid Teflon, one of the best electrical isolation materials around. It effectively blocks all outside interference from entering your equipment through the Rca connection resulting in a quieter background. Connectors of this quality costs $50 or more each from other companies. They are standard on the Tube Powered BCS.​
> Exclusive AC Tube Powered BCS Design​
> High End Brass Free Silver Connectors​
> Four runs of 22awg Wire​
> ...


 


> For years I have wanted to get the Brass out of my cables. Brass is a terrible conductor and adds a real dullness to the sound. Silver is the best conductor followed by Copper and then Gold. Brass is way further down the list. The reason that RCA connectors are made of Brass is ease of manufacture as well as malleability. Conductive ability is not on the list of positives for this type of construction. ALL Rca connectors are made of brass and then coated with Silver, Gold,
> 
> 
> 
> or some exotic metal to make you think it is a great conductor. The truth is that it is just Brass that has been coated, no matter what they advertise, Straight Copper, Silver, etc., would be far too soft and not hold it's shape. Finally, I have designed what I feel is the finest connector on the market.. PERIOD. It uses a solid, pure Teflon base that has been machined to accept a center pin and ground conductor. Teflon is one of the most inert substances on the planet. The Teflon plug surrounds the RCA connections on your equipment as well as the cable wires to insure a quiet, interference free sound. Getting rid of the Brass allows the use of super conductor metals which insure the pristine delivery of your sonic pleasures. Why make a cable that is painstakingly designed to deliver all information and then plug up both ends with a poor conducting Brass connectors? Why use 99.999% purity wires and then use Brass in the circuit? Brass is really just copper with impurities in it. There is more to a good cable than the metallurgy of the wire. This design features a Silver,  center pin and a thin Silver return line to insure a minimal contact point. Silver has a sound of great detail, air and space. The thing that really impressed me the first time that I heard this design was the spaciousness and unbelievable detail.  Next I noticed the black background. A product of the solid Teflon plug. These plugs sound as good or better than the WBT NextGen's which sell for more than $35 EACH. These plugs blow away and are more reliable than the Eichman Bullet


 
 I use their 'Self Powered BCS' with Teflon plugs in my office system for my tuner and phono preamp.  The Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme IC's for the Digital there (they're better then the SP BCS Aurals - but not nearly as good as the tube BCS Aurals).
  
 I'll share some of my other stuff later.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> That's because nobody else has the RN3
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well true more D16s so far the 3s - but there are a few out there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 We have to be a little careful - as I think this AOIP is now in 'play'.  And with the word of mouth spreading  - new products will be coming down the pike soon.
 I'll move the 3 to my office once something better comes along.
  
 And my proclivities to roll gear like people change socks - do not want to take a bath on a resale.
  
 Folks this AOIP for us audiophiles is just beginning.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Still investigating D16 AES > Yggy not working via spdif/coax (cf. http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123) ...
> 
> ... all is well with AES though.
> 
> ...


 

 We share similar tastes in music - love Alison Krauss! 'New Favorite' and 'Forget About It' my two favorites.
  
 Well in you communications it looks like the Gumby MB works with the spdif out to BNC in - on the D16 unit.  So that's good news.  Wondering on this issue with the Yggy.  Hopefully it's not systematic and maybe just your unit.
  
 I'm also wondering why my RN3 I can get 150us and the D16's that's grayed out?
  
 Good luck!


----------



## occamsrazor

somestranger26 said:


> I meant to say I have it connected directly from an Intel PCI-E NIC in my computer to the RN3, with the CAT6A cable that came with it.


 
  
 Just a suggestion, but have you tried it WITH a switch?


----------



## Albrecht

> Are you on his email group list?


 
  
 Yep.
  
 Never been to Port Townsend & will likely spend 10 days traveling around with the GF as she finishes up Grad-School in Sept.
  
 Likely won't have time though to visit Jason for more than a cup of coffee or something....
  
 Cheers,


----------



## lateboomer

rb2013 said:


> I use their 'Self Powered BCS' with Teflon plugs in my office system for my tuner and phono preamp.  The Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme IC's for the Digital there (they're better then the SP BCS Aurals - but not nearly as good as the tube BCS Aurals).
> 
> I'll share some of my other stuff later.
> 
> Cheers!


 
 Cool and thank you! Really an eye opener that you are so hard-core in pushing the SQ envelop. The website says you can do interconnect rolling with BCS Aurals. Do you use their Big Boss interconnects or your own ones? Because of active shield, does it rob away a little bit of airiness or ambient cues from the music which gives you the black background feeling?


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Rb2013,
> 
> Did you ever get the specifics on the copper tubing you purchased?
> 
> ...


 

 I found it - Lowes 1.5" by 2.25".  I like to use some fine sandpaper on the edge if it has any bur left.
  
 The 1.5" fits over all my power cords with a nice lose - but not to lose fit.


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Yep.
> 
> Never been to Port Townsend & will likely spend 10 days traveling around with the GF as she finishes up Grad-School in Sept.
> 
> ...


 

 One of my favorite NW towns.  You can visit so many great water front parks nearby as well.  Fort Worden State Park is great.


----------



## somestranger26

occamsrazor said:


> Just a suggestion, but have you tried it WITH a switch?


 
  Yes I had the same problem.
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rb2013* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> i set the F2k buffer to 50ms the lowest setting with out any issues at all.  Not a single pop or click.  Are you using AO or FO?


 
 I don't use any of those tweaking softwares. I manually disabled non-essential services on my computer but reactivated to isolate the root cause.

 By the way, I bought a couple of those Graphene Extreme power cables as I was finally able to get a hold of Mr. Grost to get them at a sale price. Did you say there was no difference with upgraded power cable on your RN3, or the difference is just smaller than on the Mutec?


----------



## rb2013

lateboomer said:


> Cool and thank you! Really an eye opener that you are so hard-core in pushing the SQ envelop. The website says you can do interconnect rolling with BCS Aurals. Do you use their Big Boss interconnects or your own ones? Because of active shield, does it rob away a little bit of airiness or ambient cues from the music which gives you the black background feeling?


 

 It comes with the IC - that have the power lines attached.  I don't think it would work with normal IC's.  Yes the Big Boss with the silver teflon plugs.
  
 You can see them in the picture:

  
 Those small wires connect up to the tube box - not the IC itself.
  
 I think he was referring to the Teflon/Silver plugs - that you can buy separate to reterminate your existing IC's
  
  
  
 Check this tube active shield unit by Synergistic Research called the Enigma - never heard it - but looks so cool!
  
 $6000 no cables- those are extra.


----------



## rb2013

My Speaker cables are the same kinda deal - went through Nordost Valhalla (and SPM), SR Tesla Apex, etc...
  
 Using these, they combine the best of the Valhalla and the best of the Tesla, and add just an amazing flow factor I've not heard from any other speaker cable.
  
 Tellurium Q Ultra Black in the main system and the Black in the Office (the reg Black are a great bargain).  Funny tried their IC's  - was not impressed.
  
 They're from the UK - I almost signed a US distribution agreement with them - great guys!  Well deserving rave reviews on the Ultra's speaker cables.
  
 http://hifiheaven.net/shop/Tellurium-Q-Ultra-Black-Speaker-Cables-2m?language=en&currency=USD&gclid=CjwKEAjw7qi7BRCvsr3N58GvsTkSJAA3UzLv2kxEX2XMxK7IrRbJr-_AY4s5Hj8nE-wqeEfSoIh6cRoCHMPw_wcB
  

  http://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/tellurium-ultra-black-speaker-cable---a-financial-health-warning?reply=1566878604226912
  
 Quote:


> Tellurium Ultra-Black speaker cable - a financial health warning!
> 
> Members - the Hi-Fi+ review on this stuff is accurate - don't listen to it!​​ ​ OK it's stupidly priced but having had a dem sample for a couple of days, it's the biggest value upgrade I've ever come across (better than adding PS's to kit by some way).​​ ​ The noise floor is so low in relative terms and the spaciality and detailing coming through is something else, plus it doesn't lack the PRaT we all love nor does it bloat the bass like many high-end cables I've tried.​


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> The discussion over here has turned to AOIP. AOIP is taking over!!
> 
> 
> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20768-I-m-Not-Gonna-Tell-How-Great-My-MicroRendu-plus-Sonore-Signature-Power-Supply-Sounds!/page9


 

 Nice!  I found the other link you posted fascinating.  Thanks


----------



## Iving

Update on the D16 AES > spdif/coax > Yggy story (http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123) ...
 As of a few hours ago, we had no known cases of successful RedNet > spdif/coax > Schitt except for a Gungnir BNC input reported to be working (not a resolution of my problem - both the Gungnir and Yggdrasil have RCA/Phono and BNC inputs - it is the Phono input on my unit that doesn't work). There may be other success reports in the pipeline. We have one known failure apart from mine (and very like it it seems): http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668224. The finger of possible fault points at the Yggy - whether as a species (until we get reports of success) or my particular unit - also because (other things equal) a Cambridge DAC works fine in its place. On the other hand - the finger points at the D16 because: 1) it didn't work with the Linn DAC which works fine with a Gustard U12; and, 2) it doesn't work with the Yggy. My cable works in lots of scenarios and, with live telephone Focusrite support, I tried two other cables with same results.
 Stop Press
 Mark Dolbear at Electromod very co-operatively dropped off an Yggy at Focusrite UK this morning (both are in the same town - High Wycombe). The Yggy performed with flying colours - working perfectly with a D16 AES - including responding to changes in SR etc. Focusrite conducted a range of electrical tests which confirmed that the Yggy is actually very input-tolerant. So we are nowhere nearer understanding why *my particular* brand new Yggy will not detect *my particular* brand new D16 AES via spdif/coax/Phono.
 Demonstrating stellar customer service, Will Kent at Focusrite offered to take my two units - along with the enigma lying between them (and also my digital cable) - back to HQ for tests parallel to those successful ones just reported for Mark's Yggy. The courier was arranged within minutes! and the Yggy and D16 are en route now. The earliest I may hear the results is Friday - but could be early next week depending on the availability of engineering time at Focusrite. If somehow the Yggy I bought only hours ago it seems is, after all, exactly as it should be on leaving the factory and requires no remedial attention - then I shall welcome its return - use AES - but have the satisfaction of knowing that it is otherwise just as it ought to be - for example if I ever wanted to sell it. Otherwise I presume I am faced with lengthy waits for repair or replacement - and I don't relish that outcome on several grounds - including the prospect of owning a fettled DAC + tbh a little part of my buying decision was to have an Yggy now rather than wait a few weeks - and even then with no real certainty about timescale - for a Gungnir. So we shall see what Will says in the next few days. He has confirmed that if the D16 AES is faulty they will simply replace it. Of course it may just be something we have all (OK, I!) have overlooked.
 I'm aware that this may simply turn into a consumer issue for me personally - what an ordeal it's been getting on board the good ship RedNet! I posted the behaviour issue in case there lurks after all some RedNet/DAC (or Schitt in particular) compatibility problem that could affect others (as well as help with the detective work on my issue). I guess Soundsgoodtome and gefski will be interested to hear the lab outcome on my own recent purchases. I have to say I am struck by the bespoke attention Mark and Will have afforded me. Whilst I have spent £3,000 across both, part of my untold story has been far more "lump it or return it" at best.


----------



## Albrecht

rb2013 said:


> One of my favorite NW towns.  You can visit so many great water front parks nearby as well.  Fort Worden State Park is great.


 

 Awesome...  Thank you


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> I don't use any of those tweaking softwares. I manually disabled non-essential services on my computer but reactivated to isolate the root cause.
> 
> By the way, I bought a couple of those Graphene Extreme power cables as I was finally able to get a hold of Mr. Grost to get them at a sale price. Did you say there was no difference with upgraded power cable on your RN3, or the difference is just smaller than on the Mutec?


 
 I moved the Cerious Graphene (Red) from the RN to the Mutec and noted an improved SQ.  Not earth shaking but better - notably the depth of the image increased.
  
 The story on those is Cerious Technology ran a Christmas Black Friday special on these interesting cables - normally $500 - $250 on 'sale'.  Anyway did a little research (their previous version was well reviewed) and bought them.
  
 When I used it to power my DAC - I was very impressed!  It's by far the best PC I have heard.  And I have rolled through so many I lost count.  Nordost Valhalla, SR Tesla, yatta-yatta...
 These for the money are a real audio bargain.
  
 I bought a third!  He was so kind to honor his Xmas price of $250.  I posted my experience on my old Gustard thread and his was slammed with orders - it became impossible to reach him!
  
 Anyway they are great  - I only have the low current RED version - there is a high current BLUE version I have not tried.
 http://www.cerioustechnologies.com/cables/lcHome.html
 https://www.audiogon.com/listings/interconnects-cerious-technologies-graphene-extreme-1m-interconnect-2015-06-04-cables-85382-peoria-az
  
 Since then I have tried their RCA SPDIF Digital - not as good as the AS Statement -sent it back to him.  Tried the Graphene ICs they were pretty good - not in the same league as the AT BCS Tube - I used them in my office system.  He had a great deal going on them.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Update on the D16 AES > spdif/coax > Yggy story (http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123) ...
> As of a few hours ago, we had no known cases of successful RedNet > spdif/coax > Schitt except for a Gungnir BNC input reported to be working (not a resolution of my problem - both the Gungnir and Yggdrasil have RCA/Phono and BNC inputs - it is the Phono input on my unit that doesn't work). There may be other success reports in the pipeline. We have one known failure apart from mine (and very like it it seems): http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668224. The finger of possible fault points at the Yggy - whether as a species (until we get reports of success) or my particular unit - also because (other things equal) a Cambridge DAC works fine in its place. On the other hand - the finger points at the D16 because: 1) it didn't work with the Linn DAC which works fine with a Gustard U12; and, 2) it doesn't work with the Yggy. My cable works in lots of scenarios and, with live telephone Focusrite support, I tried two other cables with same results.
> Stop Press
> Mark Dolbear at Electromod very co-operatively dropped off an Yggy at Focusrite UK this morning (both are in the same town - High Wycombe). The Yggy performed with flying colours - working perfectly with a D16 AES - including responding to changes in SR etc. Focusrite conducted a range of electrical tests which confirmed that the Yggy is actually very input-tolerant. So we are nowhere nearer understanding why *my particular* brand new Yggy will not detect *my particular* brand new D16 AES via spdif/coax/Phono.
> ...


 
 What a bummer - good luck in getting that resolved.  At least they are working to resolve that.


----------



## rb2013

Well I dropped the hammer on one of these Audience Au24se digital cables - good deal on Audiogon.
 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue72/audience_au24se.htm
  
  
 It was between that one and this

  
 Almost went for the Valhalla - so sweet - but another grand?
  
 https://www.audiogon.com/listings/digital-nordost-valhalla-1-5-meter-digital-cable-75-ohm-bnc-rca-new-sealed-2016-05-26-cables-33487-highland-beach-fl


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> I moved the Cerious Graphene (Red) from the RN to the Mutec and noted an improved SQ.  Not earth shaking but better - notably the depth of the image increased.
> 
> The story on those is Cerious Technology ran a Christmas Black Friday special on these interesting cables - normally $500 - $250 on 'sale'.  Anyway did a little research (their previous version was well reviewed) and bought them.


 
 I know you said it's more noticeable with the RN, but do you notice a difference with a cheapo vs cerious on the RN alone?
  
 In addition to the blue there's also a yellow "power conditioner optimized" which I purchased to use with my power regenerator. I'll put the red one on the DAC or the RN probably.
  
 Also, I came across this interesting post in the CA thread that was linked. Could the SU-1 be a cheaper alternative to the Mutec for reclocking?
  
     





> > On another forum (not head-fi!) someone compared it against USB with the new xmos chip (f-1) and could not really find an improvement. He ended up returning the RedNet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Muziqboy

I don't believe the SU-1 does SPDIF reclocking like the Mutec but instead has a WORD CLOCK out which can be hooked up to the RedNet and used as a Master Clock.


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> I found it - Lowes 1.5" by 2.25".  I like to use some fine sandpaper on the edge if it has any bur left.
> 
> The 1.5" fits over all my power cords with a nice lose - but not to lose fit.


 
  
 rb2013,
  
 First, thanks so much for this information.
  
 Second, I want to thank you for taking so much time to share so much information on this thread. You've been a big help to me and, I strongly suspect, to many others as well.
  
 Thanks for helping me to enjoy my audio system that much more than I had before.
  
 Joel


----------



## Albrecht

joelha said:


> rb2013,
> 
> First, thanks so much for this information.
> 
> ...


 

 that's a big PLUS 1 from me too....


----------



## Kelowna

No problem. Yes that NADAC thread was interesting. However there was attacks on AOIP involved there as well. The OP went back and edited several positive posts with negative, then closed the thread. Then proceeded to launch attacks together with a partner on other threads and forums. But he was busted red handed and exposed later on. It's crazy how cutthroat the audio business is.


----------



## jabbr

...


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The actual price difference in Europe is only about $140, so that makes it a completely different proposition.


I'd get the D16 too for that price difference. Crazy that pricing. Can I ask the Euro price for the D16?


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> rb2013,
> 
> First, thanks so much for this information.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for that!




albrecht said:


> that's a big PLUS 1 from me too....


 Same here, I want to pass my experiences along. They're just mine.


----------



## somestranger26

Argh I got the single-mode fiber cable and the transceivers, but one of them they sent the wrong item - MC200CM - which is multimode so I can't use it. Back to Amazon you go...
  
 The power supply is 9V 0.6A input if anyone is wondering.
  
 Edit: I just placed another order and got Amazon to give me free 1-day shipping so I should have another one Friday.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

somestranger26 said:


> Argh I got the single-mode fiber cable and the transceivers, but one of them they sent the wrong item - MC200CM - which is multimode so I can't use it. Back to Amazon you go...
> 
> The power supply is 9V 0.6A input if anyone is wondering.


 

 Quite interested if this fixes your 24/192 popping issue. LMK!


----------



## rb2013

So we have confirmation the Gumby MB takes the RN D16 SPDIF RCA and BNC.
  
 The YGGY does not directly.  But does take the Mutec SPDIF RCA and BNC from the RN 16D


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

After some dialogue in a PM, it seems the Schiit YGGY is to blame. Schiit was offering free service swaps for their BNC/RCA connections with improper impedance when you sent your DAC in for service. Perhaps it's time to contact the Schiit service dept to get proper impedance connections if you're getting into Rednet products. The Focusrite guys will probably want to hear this as well. Again this only applies on the Schiit Yggy

 Attn: @Jason Stoddard


----------



## joelha

OK, I have to confess, I could use a little help here.

I have the Mutec MC-3+ USB but don't know how to set Dante controller to sync externally.

When I try to check the box for that option, it doesn't stay checked.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> After some dialogue in a PM, it seems the Schiit YGGY is to blame. Schiit was offering free service swaps for their BNC/RCA connections with improper impedance when you sent your DAC in for service. Perhaps it's time to contact the Schiit service dept to get proper impedance connections if you're getting into Rednet products. The Focusrite guys will probably want to hear this as well. Again this only applies on the Schiit Yggy
> 
> Attn: @Jason Stoddard


 
 This issue came out a few months back. I have two Yggys. At first they were just taking them all in and paying shipping both ways. They then said that they felt it made no audible difference but would fix it when in for another repair or upgrade. They fixed my first one with with shipping both ways but I an waiting on the second. I was just using USB and now will just be using AES with my D16.
  
 They might need to change their policy if they start getting issues with Rednet devices. Units shipped in the last few moths should have the correct BNC. If yu buy from an overseas distributor you could have new old stock.


----------



## joelha

joelha said:


> As it happens, I have a Mutec MC-3 USB.
> 
> But first I have to get my D16 running.
> 
> ...


 
 And, as long as I'm asking, extra credit for showing me how to properly set the Mutec as an external clock via a BNC cable.
  
 Joel


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> So we have confirmation the Gumby MB takes the RN D16 SPDIF RCA and BNC.
> 
> The YGGY does not directly.  But does take the Mutec SPDIF RCA and BNC from the RN 16D


 
  
 Yes, confirmed on my end as well.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> I know you said it's more noticeable with the RN, but do you notice a difference with a cheapo vs cerious on the RN alone?
> 
> In addition to the blue there's also a yellow "power conditioner optimized" which I purchased to use with my power regenerator. I'll put the red one on the DAC or the RN probably.
> 
> Also, I came across this interesting post in the CA thread that was linked. Could the SU-1 be a cheaper alternative to the Mutec for reclocking?


 

 I didn't know about the yellow version - thanks!
  
 I did not try the RN with just a generic alone - without the Mutec.
  
 But moving from the RN to the Mutec did make a very noticible difference.  Which kinda makes sense - it's the clock feeding the SPDIF to the DAC.  The other cable was a silver chord with Niobium plugs.
  
 The SU-1 can be used as a Word Clk not as a SPDIF reclocker.  See the WC BNC output.  The Mutec MC-3+ USB is a very sophisicated clock - doubt the SU-1 could beat it.  I tried the Mutec as a Word Clock and it actually hurt the sound very slightly - the clocking in the RN is very good.  The Mutec is better as a SPDIF reclocker - I begged to buy the loaner after sending it back.  And did.
  
 Back of the SU-1: It only has USB input - no SPDIF - so impossible to do SPDIF reclocking.  Not even sure it would work on the RN as a W Clock.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> After some dialogue in a PM, it seems the Schiit YGGY is to blame. Schiit was offering free service swaps for their BNC/RCA connections with improper impedance when you sent your DAC in for service. Perhaps it's time to contact the Schiit service dept to get proper impedance connections if you're getting into Rednet products. The Focusrite guys will probably want to hear this as well. Again this only applies on the Schiit Yggy
> 
> Attn: @Jason Stoddard


 

 Holy Schiit!  Wow folks we found a bug in the Yggy.  Got to love this thread.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Out of spec SPDIF and BNC connectors - not encouraging.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> Holy Schiit!  Wow folks we found a bug in the Yggy.  Got to love this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 LOL. They claim that there's no difference in sound quality when the impedance mismatch is so bad some devices don't even work with it.


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> OK, I have to confess, I could use a little help here.
> 
> I have the Mutec MC-3+ USB but don't know how to set Dante controller to sync externally.
> 
> ...


 
 How do you want to use the Mutec as SPDIF reclocker (my rec) or Word Clock?  The set up is different.
  


joelha said:


> And, as long as I'm asking, extra credit for showing me how to properly set the Mutec as an external clock via a BNC cable.
> 
> Joel


 
 Easy on that one BNC from the Mutec Word Clock out to the RN Word Clock in.  Set clock source on RN to external.  The Mutec menu system is a PIA and to hard to explain in text.  A call to their custoer support would be advised.  I just messed with the menu and selector until W CLock int was lit on the Mutec.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> LOL. They claim that there's no difference in sound quality when the impedance mismatch is so bad some devices don't even work with it.


 

 That is pretty bad - maybe a note up on their website, in their snarky lilt - "if this super high tech DAC doesn't work, it's because we send them out with bad connectors".
  
 Our UK friend JUST received his a day ago!  And this was found out how many months ago?
  
 And the Schiit rep needed to pow-wow with Focusrite to 'diagnose' the problem.  That would have been an embarrassing meeting.
  
 Imagine the FR engineers sneer and eye roll at the red faced Schiit rep.


----------



## joelha

Thanks rb2013,

But I read you (greatly?) prefer the Mutec as an spdif reclocker, is that right?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Thanks rb2013,
> 
> But I read you (greatly?) prefer the Mutec as an spdif reclocker, is that right?
> 
> ...


 

 Yes most definitely - but give the WC option a try.  I even had BJC make me a 12 in belden BNC to BNC just to be sure I had a 'in spec' cable.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> I'd get the D16 too for that price difference. Crazy that pricing. Can I ask the Euro price for the D16?




I did the calculation wrong, which is why I deleted the post.

It is actually the RN3 that is expensive compared to the USA.
The RN3 is EURO 1425 and the D16 is EURO 1600. So the difference is only EURO 175 (about $195).


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> After some dialogue in a PM, it seems the Schiit YGGY is to blame. Schiit was offering free service swaps for their BNC/RCA connections with improper impedance when you sent your DAC in for service. Perhaps it's time to contact the Schiit service dept to get proper impedance connections if you're getting into Rednet products. The Focusrite guys will probably want to hear this as well. Again this only applies on the Schiit Yggy
> 
> 
> Attn: @Jason Stoddard




It is actually unbeleivable that they used components with off-spec impedance in the first place, and in the Yggi, a device with that price.
For me it is telling for the sense of quality that company has.


----------



## johnjen

If you know the history of the 'bad' part that was used in the Jggy it was because the supplier substituted a non- 75Ω coax connector instead of the one spec'd.
 It slipped thru because all of the parts were sent to the board house which then made up the boards and was only caught later on.
  
 All new builds use the correct part and have done so for many months now.
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

Update on RedNet > Yggdrasil direct via spdif failure by way of information summary referring to my post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123 and this reply: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668224 ...
  
 Known user instances of RedNet " DAC via spdif(coax/Phono=RCA) *OK*

 *User*
 *RedNet Source*
 *DAC*
 Iving
 D16 AES
 Cambridge DacMagic Plus
 Soundsgoodtome/gefski
 REDNET 3
 Matrix Mini-i
 Soundsgoodtome/gefski
 REDNET 3
 R2R

  
 Known user instances of RedNet " DAC via spdif(coax/Phono=RCA) *null*

 *User*
 *RedNet Source*
 *DAC*
 Iving
 D16 AES
 Yggdrasil
 Iving
 D16 AES
 Linn AV 5103
 Soundsgoodtome/gefski
 REDNET 3
 Yggdrasil

  
 Further instance of *Yggdrasil null* (but not GuMBy) via spdif where Source is D16 AES:
 Matrix of D16 AES(/Gustard U12) " GuMBy/Yggdrasil [credit: "atomicbob"]
_Where the Reclocker and next column are marked "none" it means the Source Transport connected directly to the DAC input. The final column, simply titled "works" indicates whether you will hear music or not. _

 GuMBy reads spdif from D16 AES *but Yggdrasil does not* confirmed by gldgate here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/645#post_12671773.
  
 Re possible explantions:
  
 Yggdrasil's successful reception of Pro and Consumer spdif [credit: "atomicbob"]
_Here is another, highly regarded pro-audio interface *that works fine transporting SPDIF to the Yggdrasil* ... The SPDIF data stream has two sub-modes, one is for Professional audio use of the control word and the other is Consumer which has the copy restriction bit which prohibits copying of the SPDIF data stream._

 Yggdrasil receives Pro *and* Consumer spdif OK albeit from a *non-RedNet source*. But in my less technical testing, a Cambridge DacMagic Plus works fine with the D16 AES whereas Yggdrasil does not - meaning that whatever the reading capabilities of the Yggdrasil, the Cambridge DacMagic Plus does it better.
  
 Reportedly Yggdrasil has a history of difficulties around spdif BNC input: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/schiit-yggdrasil-best-digital-analogue-converter-available-24351/index18.html; see also http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/630#post_12671711.
  
 We await the results of Focusrite UK's further bench tests on my D16 AES / Yggdrasil.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I did the calculation wrong, which is why I deleted the post.
> 
> It is actually the RN3 that is expensive compared to the USA.
> The RN3 is EURO 1425 and the D16 is EURO 1600. So the difference is only EURO 175 (about $195).


 

 Thanks - so using today's Euro/$ interbank rate = RN3 $1622, RND16 $1821
  
 I see why you would want to go with the D16.  I paid $800 for my RN3 - glad I live in the states


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> If you know the history of the 'bad' part that was used in the Jggy it was because the supplier substituted a non- 75Ω coax connector instead of the one spec'd.
> It slipped thru because all of the parts were sent to the board house which then made up the boards and was only caught later on.
> 
> All new builds use the correct part and have done so for many months now.
> ...


 

 So why did our UK friend just get a bad one this week - he bought it new?  Wouldn't a company with Schiit's reputation replace these on their totl DAC even if they were sitting in  a box in the warehouse.
  
 At least add a big WARNING letter inside -"If your new DAC does not work - it's because of an out of spec part - contact us for a long wait and hassle to cross ship and we will fix it for you - thank you for your purchase".  Pretty cheesy


----------



## rb2013

Ok using my DDM I tested both the F-1 and the X-1 for galvanic isolation.  They both have it - completely isolated. SPDIF coax from USB.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Update on RedNet > Yggdrasil direct via spdif failure by way of information summary referring to my post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123 and this reply: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668224 ...
> 
> Known user instances of RedNet " DAC via spdif(coax/Phono=RCA) *OK*
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for posting that - and so sorry for your hassles.  But at least we know it's not the REDNET or Dante gear.
  
 When you finally get the kinks worked out - it'll be worth it - trust me.

 And good luck on the big vote today.  When do they announce the results?


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> So why did our UK friend just get a bad one this week - he bought it new?  Wouldn't a company with Schiit's reputation replace these on their totl DAC even if they were sitting in  a box in the warehouse.
> 
> At least add a big WARNING letter inside -"If your new DAC does not work - it's because of an out of spec part - contact us for a long wait and hassle to cross ship and we will fix it for you - thank you for your purchase".  Pretty cheesy


 
  

 Whereas there are several known instances of Yggdrasil baulking at spdif input from RedNet devices, there is a known instance of success at Focusrite UK with a "demo unit" supplied by the Schitt UK distributor.
 Given reported BNC connector issues in Yggdrasil (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/schiit-yggdrasil-best-digital-analogue-converter-available-24351/index18.html),
 *perhaps there are inconsistencies in the hardware profile of Yggdrasil units*.
 The serial no. of the problematic one I had seemed very low to me, but then I don't know where serial no.s can be located chronologically - nor do I know what kind of quantities of Yggdrasils were made.
 Anyway, mine is now a return unit with thanks to Mark at Schitt.eu. Story over for me. I am keeping the D16 AES and will try to find a DAC that won't fight with it.


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> Thanks for posting that - and so sorry for your hassles.  But at least we know it's not the REDNET or Dante gear.
> 
> When you finally get the kinks worked out - it'll be worth it - trust me.
> 
> And good luck on the big vote today.  When do they announce the results?


 
  


  
 No exit poll. Quick counting. Probably overnight/asap.
  

  
  
 tbh I haven't taken that much interest. I am a "Remainer" for reasons that don't get discussed routinely. The debate here is all about economics and immigration. But people dress up jingoism/nationalism as one thing and another. The cause of wars is nations! I have written about it formally and will send a link via PM. But anyway Bob - way OT!


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> No exit poll. Quick counting. Probably overnight/asap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I look forward to the link - well anyway good luck to you and your countrymen.


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> I look forward to the link - well anyway good luck to you and your countrymen.


 

 Thoughtful. Thanks. Let's hope we don't need too much luck.


----------



## leter15

Hi guys.
 i am Leter,from the Singxer.
 It's a pleasure to come to this forum.
 this is a crazy thread.
 more and more AES67 product will come out.
 I also think the AES67 will represent the future
 thanks.


----------



## rb2013

leter15 said:


> Hi guys.
> i am Leter,from the Singxer.
> It's a pleasure to come to this forum.
> this is a crazy thread.
> ...


 

 Well a big HELLO!  Love your gear as you may surmise - I have one thread dedicated to your amazing F-1 and X-1 (doesn't get enough credit that one!).
  
 So looking forward to your talented design skills in coming up with a AES67 DDC.
  
 A warm welcome here.
  





 Rb2013
  
 PS This thread continues to amaze me.


----------



## leter15

Hi Rb2013
 nice to meet you.
 you did a good job.thanks very much.
 i had saw your other thread.
 cheers


----------



## Luckbad

leter15 said:


> Hi Rb2013
> nice to meet you.
> you did a good job.thanks very much.
> i had saw your other thread.
> cheers


 
  
 Welcome!


----------



## rb2013

leter15 said:


> Hi Rb2013
> nice to meet you.
> you did a good job.thanks very much.
> i had saw your other thread.
> cheers


 

 Great to hear that - the F-1 is pretty special.
  
 Willing be having a few questions on your take on the F-1, SU-1 and the future of AOIP.


----------



## leter15

Hi Rb2013
 this is an open forum.i am sorry.
 I  think it is no  quite appropriate to talk about our products here.
 pls PM me,thanks.


----------



## rw35

leter15 said:


> Hi Rb2013
> this is an open forum.i am sorry.
> I  think it is no  quite appropriate to talk about our products here.
> pls PM me,thanks.


 

 I think if you are openly asked questions here you probably have the right to answer them without being a sponsor?
  
 I think the SU-1 needs a version with DC input so users can use their own LPS.
  
 + Is the SU-1 clock femto?
  
 ... a galvanic isolated USB > SPDIF / AES device that clocks as well as the W4S Recovery would likely sell well.
  
 (just realised this is OT and should be on the other thread)


----------



## leter15

Hi rw35
 you can PM me
 i am sorry.it is no  quite appropriate to talk about our products here.
 Here is the night.
 I must to get off the line.
 have a good day.


----------



## rb2013

leter15 said:


> Hi Rb2013
> this is an open forum.i am sorry.
> I  think it is no  quite appropriate to talk about our products here.
> pls PM me,thanks.


 
 Do not want to get you in any hot water!  Yes - we will PM our conversation.
  


rw35 said:


> I think if you are openly asked questions here you probably have the right to answer them without being a sponsor?
> 
> I think the SU-1 needs a version with DC input so users can use their own LPS.
> 
> ...


 
 No worries on the OT - with our honored guest, please offer up your suggestions. 
  
 This is exactly what I was hoping for in starting these threads - to get a grass roots user feedback loop back up to these very talented designers and manufacturers.
  
 How we can move the needle in our beloved hobby.


----------



## Kelowna

The needle for AES67 is sure moving! Keep up the great work.


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> The needle for AES67 is sure moving! Keep up the great work.


----------



## rw35

rb2013 said:


> No worries on the OT - with our honored guest, please offer up your suggestions.
> 
> This is exactly what I was hoping for in starting these threads - to get a grass roots user feedback loop back up to these very talented designers and manufacturers.
> 
> How we can move the needle in our beloved hobby.


 
  
 Cheers bud!


----------



## rb2013

rw35 said:


> Cheers bud!


 

 Get a feeling the next 12 months are going to be interesting.


----------



## Albrecht

rb2013 said:


> Get a feeling the next 12 months are going to be interesting.


 
  
 Can you imagine a AES67 AOIP Ethernet to COAX SPDIF the size of an F-1??
  
 Would so ROCK!!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

This this would be amazing but even a router sized unit would be great (in comparison to the rednet).





albrecht said:


> Can you imagine a AES67 AOIP Ethernet to COAX SPDIF the size of an F-1??
> 
> Would so ROCK!!


----------



## atomicbob

iving said:


> Whereas there are several known instances of Yggdrasil baulking at spdif input from RedNet devices, there is a known instance of success at Focusrite UK with a "demo unit" supplied by the Schitt UK distributor.
> Given reported BNC connector issues in Yggdrasil (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/schiit-yggdrasil-best-digital-analogue-converter-available-24351/index18.html),
> *perhaps there are inconsistencies in the hardware profile of Yggdrasil units*.
> The serial no. of the problematic one I had seemed very low to me, but then I don't know where serial no.s can be located chronologically - nor do I know what kind of quantities of Yggdrasils were made.
> Anyway, mine is now a return unit with thanks to Mark at Schitt.eu. Story over for me. I am keeping the D16 AES and will try to find a DAC that won't fight with it.


 
 Ok, I believe I know root cause for the issue. I have support screenshots if anyone is interested in seeing them. Data obtained using RME DigiCheck Channel Status monitor.
  
 Summary:
  
 Yggdrasil *will work* with *all SPDIF devices* I have tested, *professional and consumer modes*, 
    *except Rednet D16* which is professional mode only.
  
 All SPDIF devices I have test have the SCMS flag in the control word set for "Copy permitted"
    except Rednet D16 which has the SCMS flag set for "Copy Prohibited".
  
 The MC-3+ ignores the SCMS flag from input and sends SCMS set to "Copy permitted" on output.
  
 Yggdrasil honors the SCMS flag and won't accept the input SPDIF data stream when set to "Copy prohibited".
  
 List of tested devices so far:
 Lavry AD11 pro-audio A/D converter
 RME Fireface UC pro-audio interface
 Gustard U12 consumer DDC
 Mutec MC-3+ reclocker
 Rednet D16 pro-audio Dante EN to Digital Audio transport
  
 Final thoughts: Focusrite should not be setting the SCMS flag to Copy Prohibited for a pro-audio device.


----------



## gldgate

Bob:
  
 Thanks so much for the further investigation. Really appreciate it. It looks like the next question(s) need to go to Focusrite/RedNet.


----------



## mhamel

atomicbob said:


> Ok, I believe I know root cause for the issue. I have support screenshots if anyone is interested in seeing them. Data obtained using RME DigiCheck Channel Status monitor.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Great find/research. Based on how responsive Focusrite has been so far, hopefully they can fix this easily in a firmware update for those having issues with it.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

atomicbob said:


> Ok, I believe I know root cause for the issue. I have support screenshots if anyone is interested in seeing them. Data obtained using RME DigiCheck Channel Status monitor.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...


 


 Where would us audiophool guys be without the pro-audio people?! Thanks for the further testing Bob!! So the non-75ohm SPDIF inputs of the Yggy is not to blame - but the type of signal the Rednet is sending. So the Spdif has this extra feature for the Yggy but not the AES input -- AES input does not have this issue.

 Is this copy prohibited signal media related, meaning some music files will work while others won't? Or is this directly related to the signature/label that the Rednets are sending? I should add for further data -- this same issue happened to my Rednet 3 and a Yggy, so it's not just the D16 that's having the issue.


----------



## gldgate

For those (like me) who did not know what SCMS was:
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System


----------



## Albrecht

Very interesting, - and I second others saying "great detective work."
  
  
 Quote:


> Yggdrasil honors the SCMS flag and won't accept the input SPDIF data stream


 
  
 How is that done? firmware at the SPDIF receiver?
  
 Fascinating.


----------



## rb2013

atomicbob said:


> Ok, I believe I know root cause for the issue. I have support screenshots if anyone is interested in seeing them. Data obtained using RME DigiCheck Channel Status monitor.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks so much for digging deeper into this - so it looks like the issue is with the Rednet.  Hopefully a firmware update can fix this if they choose to do so.  Or maybe Schiit could update the Yggy to ignore the flag, like Mutec does.


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Can you imagine a AES67 AOIP Ethernet to COAX SPDIF the size of an F-1??
> 
> Would so ROCK!!


 

 Yes with a DC power input for LPS.  It's coming...


----------



## johnjen

Isn't it amazing how just one s/w bit can disable functionality…
 And that the RIAA managed to screw with us decades later while dealing in the digital domain.
 All due to the perceived threat that DAT presented. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 And thanks to AB for his sleuthing prowess to find the root cause of this isolated problem.




  
 JJ


----------



## wht

albrecht said:


> Can you imagine a AES67 AOIP Ethernet to COAX SPDIF the size of an F-1??
> 
> Would so ROCK!!




+1


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Thanks so much for digging deeper into this - so it looks like the issue is with the Rednet.  Hopefully a firmware update can fix this if they choose to do so.  Or maybe Schiit could update the Yggy to ignore the flag, like Mutec does.


 
 On a protools device it should be configurable in software, depending on the destination of the signal.
 If the signal remains in pro-domain it should be set to no-protection.
 If it is destined for consumer domain it should be set to yes-protection.
  
 So should be fully configurable in my opnion.


----------



## atomicbob

jabbr said:


> On a protools device it should be configurable in software, depending on the destination of the signal.
> If the signal remains in pro-domain it should be set to no-protection.
> If it is destined for consumer domain it should be set to yes-protection.
> 
> So should be fully configurable in my opnion.


 
 yes, this should be configurable. But sadly it is ignored by many DAWs and hardware devices alike. I have older devices such as Eventide DSP7000 and Drawmer DC2476 that both allowed configuration of this flag in the digital data stream.


----------



## mtoc

advice: stay away from schiit dac if you wanna stay away from all kinds of sudden bug, don;t bite me. world's big, choice is everywhere.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> On a protools device it should be configurable in software, depending on the destination of the signal.
> If the signal remains in pro-domain it should be set to no-protection.
> If it is destined for consumer domain it should be set to yes-protection.
> 
> So should be fully configurable in my opnion.


 

 Maybe Schiit could update the Yggy to ignore it like the Gumby MB, since the Gumby MB works fine.  If that is the issue.  Al of this seems very fluid right now.


----------



## rb2013

Playing with the settings in REDNET last night - discovered an interesting SQ change.
  
 Trying different Device Latency settings in DC for the REDNET 3, I found the SQ best at the min setting of 150us, trying the rest up to the 5ms.  The SQ became noticibly thicker and sluggish sounding, with the 150us having a zesty dynamic quality - very nice :
  

  
  
 I also noticed that in DVS I have set for 1ms yet DVS shows 4ms once I hit OK:

  
 But looking at the actual DVS Desktop Latency report, while showing 4ms as the setting - I'm actually getting closer to 1ms in real performance.  Peak: 1.1ms and Ave: 1.1ms


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Playing with the settings in REDNET last night - discovered an interesting SQ change.
> 
> Trying different Device Latency settings in DC for the REDNET 3, I found the SQ best at the min setting of 150us, trying the rest up to the 5ms.  The SQ became noticibly thicker and sluggish sounding, with the 150us having a zesty dynamic quality - very nice :
> 
> ...




I think these are different types of latencies:

The ASIO is about buffering inside the driver, so the time it will take to fill the buffer in the ASIO driver before it is sent out of the virtual audio device.
The Latency shown in the Dante Controler is about the network latency of the device. I interepret that as the time it takes to get the IP-packeges sent to the RN and translated into SPDIF again.

So I think these latencies are about different segments in the complete software/device chain.

Cheers


----------



## atomicbob

mtoc said:


> advice: stay away from schiit dac if you wanna stay away from all kinds of sudden bug, don;t bite me. world's big, choice is everywhere.


 
 I'd like to provide an alternate viewpoint. I have the Ygg, GuMB and two BiMB. All have been powered 24/7 since arrival, each of which was shortly after first available from Schiit. I have yet to encounter any problems other than the one with the one. All perform flawlessly with the only notable exception being the RN D16 -> Ygg over SPDIF only. Also note that AES/EBU has been working flawlessly with RN D16 to Ygg. The sound achieved with all three models using the RN D16 and Mutec MC-3+ is exemplary. I've been very happy with all four Schiit DACs I own.
  
 search the DAC section of this head-fi  for the technical measurements I have made and published to see detailed information.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I think these are different types of latencies:
> 
> The ASIO is about buffering inside the driver, so the time it will take to fill the buffer in the ASIO driver before it is sent out of the virtual audio device.
> The Latency shown in the Dante Controler is about the network latency of the device. I interepret that as the time it takes to get the IP-packeges sent to the RN and translated into SPDIF again.
> ...


 
 Well I think that the ASIO buffering you're refering to is set by the 'Buffer' setting in the DVS - and mine is set to a very high level.  So this would imply a longer latency.  Every time I increase the FB2K buffer it has caused a longer PC responsiveness (latency) - BTW this is set for the lowest 50ms.
  
 Now there are two 'Device Latency' settings one for the DVS and one for the REDNET device - these are set separately.  One is set for 1ms (the lowest) and the other 150us (the lowest).
  
 So far I have not detected a SQ change with the DVS Buffer sample size - but need to experiment with some more different settings.
  
 I have to say with each fine tuning measure - the sound just gets better and better.  Today the Optical Ether stuff arrives as well as the Audience Au24 SE SPDIF cable.
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

Ok the optical ethernet boxes arrived and optical cable:
  
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003CFATKQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 Just plugged them in powering the end point unit with a LPS TeraDak X1 set to 9VDC, and adding a DC iPur (DC noise filter).
  
 The results?
  
 Well - barely a change.  I seem to detect a bit more fullness in the mid-bass region.  Maybe a tad less dynamic vibrancy. 
  
 I'm on the fence as to wether to keep them or send them back to Amazon.  It's only around $300 with the LPS and DC iPur.  But it's also more junk - two more boxes - another SMPS on the sender box, another LPS and power chord (Silver with Niobium plugs - another $80).  I'll have to let it play for a week or so - maybe they need to burn in.
  
 Just as a comparison the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB extender - was a blow away experience on install - and that was BEFORE using any LPS's - just the stock SMPS.
  
 The simple tweeking in the RN latency setting a greater precieved change - same for moving the Cerious Graphene from RN to Mutec.
  
 I'm a little worried about my Robbie-Hypes-A-Lot reputation though.  This I won't - sorry dart throwers.
  
 The Audience au24 SE will be here today - maybe I can salvage my rep.


----------



## lateboomer

May be you should also power the sender box with normal LPS also. That is how I power mine, I don't like smps thing, but may be that is psychology.


----------



## rb2013

lateboomer said:


> May be you should also power the sender box with normal LPS also. That is how I power mine, I don't like smps thing, but may be that is psychology.


 

 Well I don't know if that would make much of a difference - but will try it.  I'll grab one of the LPS's from my office system and reset the voltage to 9VDC.
  
 I did try swapping the BJC Cat6 and RN Red CAT6 - no difference I could tell.  Also took out the AR (Best Buy) digital spdif running from the RN to the Mutec, and replaced with a BJC 1.5M BNC to BNC.  A very tiny, almost imperceptible improvement.  But the BJC was only $27 or something like that.
  
 I may try one of those GISO or Sotm CAT6 filters.
  
 I have a feeling this Dante/REDNET AES67 AOIP is a lot less sensitive then other ethernet audio hookups.
  
 Still on the fence on trying the Nordost Valhalla SPDIF - it just that all this USB gear I have listed in the classified is not selling to well.  The pile of gear is growing.
 https://www.audiogon.com/listings/digital-nordost-valhalla-1-5-meter-digital-cable-75-ohm-bnc-rca-new-sealed-2016-05-26-cables-33487-highland-beach-fl


----------



## Muziqboy

rb2013 said:


> Well I don't know if that would make much of a difference - but will try it.  I'll grab one of the LPS's from my office system and reset the voltage to 9VDC.
> 
> I did try swapping the BJC Cat6 and RN Red CAT6 - no difference I could tell.  Also took out the AR (Best Buy) digital spdif running from the RN to the Mutec, and replaced with a BJC 1.5M BNC to BNC.  A very tiny, almost imperceptible improvement.  But the BJC was only $27 or something like that.
> 
> ...


 
  
 My thoughts exactly. I was kinda like on the sidelines when I read about the Fiber Media Converters when applying it on the RedNet systems. I think since we already addressed the noise issue that USB was doing to our systems by incorporating Dante RedNet AOIP, inserting the FMC's into the chain would produce little or no benefit at all.
 And it also goes to show how well designed the RedNet devices are.
  
 These are just my thoughts and like they always say, YMMV.


----------



## mhamel

atomicbob said:


> I'd like to provide an alternate viewpoint. I have the Ygg, GuMB and two BiMB. All have been powered 24/7 since arrival, each of which was shortly after first available from Schiit. I have yet to encounter any problems other than the one with the one. All perform flawlessly with the only notable exception being the RN D16 -> Ygg over SPDIF only. Also note that AES/EBU has been working flawlessly with RN D16 to Ygg. The sound achieved with all three models using the RN D16 and Mutec MC-3+ is exemplary. I've been very happy with all four Schiit DACs I own.
> 
> search the DAC section of this head-fi  for the technical measurements I have made and published to see detailed information.


 
  
 I've got to agree. While ultimately I preferred the sound of the Dangerous DAC, the Yggy is a great product and built like a tank. I've previously owned a Gungnir, Bifrost and Modi and all have worked flawlessly as have the various Schiit amps I've owned. When they have had product issues, they are up front about letting people know and doing the right thing to get them resolved.
  
 While I agree that we all have a choice and should explore options, I don't think it's a fair statement to Schiit to tell people to stay away from their products or make blanket statements about the quality. They're good guys making excellent products, and they deserve a ton of credit for what they've brought to the table.
  
 Many of this group that are jumping into the Rednet/Dante solution are bridging the gap between pro and consumer audio - there are bound to be some hiccups along the way. What's encouraging to see is that manufacturers like Focusrite are open minded and eager to help.


----------



## mhamel

muziqboy said:


> My thoughts exactly. I was kinda like on the sidelines when I read about the Fiber Media Converters when applying it on the RedNet systems. I think since we already addressed the noise issue that USB was doing to our systems by incorporating Dante RedNet AOIP, inserting the FMC's into the chain would produce little or no benefit at all.
> And it also goes to show how well designed the RedNet devices are.
> 
> These are just my thoughts and like they always say, YMMV.


 
  
 This gear is designed and built to use in environments where the potential for noise and interference is far beyond anything you'll encounter in a consumer/home setting. Think of the number of components that might be in a recording studio - they're racked up, in close proximity, tons of cables, long runs, potentially sharing the network with many other devices and running many more channels of audio than we're using. The fact that it's barely if even at all affected by the FMCs is not surprising in the least.
  
 It's one of the reasons I like high end pro gear, they've already factored in a lot of this stuff and designed/tested the gear in environments that would wreak havok on many consumer level components. Think of it this way - if this type of gear had issues with noise, excessive jitter and many of the other things we look for as audiophiles - how would studios be able to produce the high quality mastering and recordings that we're listening to? We focus on trying to reproduce "the real thing" when in fact, the best we will ever be able to reproduce is whatever was in the master that came from that pro gear.


----------



## jabbr

mhamel said:


> This gear is designed and built to use in environments where the potential for noise and interference is far beyond anything you'll encounter in a consumer/home setting. Think of the number of components that might be in a recording studio - they're racked up, in close proximity, tons of cables, long runs, potentially sharing the network with many other devices and running many more channels of audio than we're using. The fact that it's barely if even at all affected by the FMCs is not surprising in the least.
> 
> It's one of the reasons I like high end pro gear, they've already factored in a lot of this stuff and designed/tested the gear in environments that would wreak havok on many consumer level components. Think of it this way - if this type of gear had issues with noise, excessive jitter and many of the other things we look for as audiophiles - how would studios be able to produce the high quality mastering and recordings that we're listening to? We focus on trying to reproduce "the real thing" when in fact, the best we will ever be able to reproduce is whatever was in the master that came from that pro gear.




On the other hand I own a pro-gear device ( of a reputable company) that needs additional audiophile devices to reach some level of decency in sound reproduction.
I keep it for the A/D capabilities.


----------



## mhamel

jabbr said:


> On the other hand I own a pro-gear device ( of a reputable company) that needs additional audiophile devices to reach some level of decency in sound reproduction.
> I keep it for the A/D capabilities.


 
  
 Like anything, it depends on the gear/manufacturer.  There are good and bad in just as there are on the consumer side.


----------



## rb2013

I think it's coming down to a game of severely diminishing returns.  The SQ is just so good from this source - I'm not really sure the rest of my system can keep pace with further improvements.
  
 May just be to the point of settling with this gear for a good long while.


----------



## Kelowna

Lateboomer
  
_"May be you should also power the sender box with normal LPS also. That is how I power mine, I don't like smps thing, but may be that is psychology."_
  
  
  
 It all comes down to the power regulation quality. Dirty SMPS's are used all the time in high end DAC's costing even over $20000. The Merging NADAC uses one, same with the Nagra HD DAC. Ultra high PSRR/ultra low noise regulation is the key.


----------



## jabbr

mhamel said:


> Like anything, it depends on the gear/manufacturer.  There are good and bad in just as there are on the consumer side.




It's by RME.


----------



## rb2013

Ok the Audience au24 se SPDIF coax RCA cable arrived.
  
 Installing it between the Mutec and the DAC60 the results:
  
 Now that is better!  An immediate impression of better SQ - added detail - an even greater sense of space and image focus.  A more luminous inner lit quality to the vocals.  Great sound field penetration into the corners behind me (this whole get up already was a total immersion experience).
  
 This one's a definite keeper.  Has me wondering about the Nordost Valhalla on Audiogon.
  
 http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/audience_au24_digital_followup.htm
  
 I guess not quite done yet.  Will try the Audio Sensibility between the RN and Mutec - but my experience is link is much less important than the Mutec to DAC connection.


----------



## atomicbob

jabbr said:


> It's by RME.


 
 Well, my RME Fireface UC has great ADC, as you note, but I agree that the DAC side is only usable for cue mixes and moderate level SR (sound reinforcement). I have always sent a digital output to an outboard DAC for two-bus monitoring.


----------



## joelha

So here's a question.

I'm using roon to HQPlayer with the Dante Virtual soundcard.

What I'm hoping to do is to automatically downsample 176, 96, 88, and 48 sample rates to 44.1.

Can I do that given the software I'm using with the D16, and if so, how do I set HQPlayer to do this?

I know downsampling is not ideal, but I'd like to give it a shot until the Dante software is upgraded.

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> So here's a question.
> 
> I'm using roon to HQPlayer with the Dante Virtual soundcard.
> 
> ...


 
 My understanding is that the D16 will only accept one sampling rate at a time. The good news is that there may be a firmware update in August that will allow on the fly sample rate changes
  
 For now I would set the D16 to 196K and your software player to the same.


----------



## mourip

mtoc said:


> advice: stay away from schiit dac if you wanna stay away from all kinds of sudden bug, don;t bite me. world's big, choice is everywhere.


 
 -1
  
 I have wonderful sound come from my RB D16 to Mutec USB to Yggy setup...


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> My understanding is that the D16 will only accept one sampling rate at a time. The good news is that there may be a firmware update in August that will allow on the fly sample rate changes
> 
> For now I would set the D16 to 196K and your software player to the same.




You're right, mourip.

It's just that the vast majority of my files are 44.1, so I'd rather downsample on rare occasion rather than upsample almost all of the time.

Thanks for the reply though.

Joel


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Thanks so much for digging deeper into this - so it looks like the issue is with the Rednet.  Hopefully a firmware update can fix this if they choose to do so.  Or maybe Schiit could update the Yggy to ignore the flag, like Mutec does.


 
  
 Hopefully Focusrite will do this as the Yggy has no provision for firmware updates by the user.


----------



## somestranger26

I also tried the optical isolation solution like @rb2013 and any improvement could be chalked up to placebo so I'll save the money and return them. As far as dropouts, I got a whole bunch while using the optical transceivers so it actually made the problem worse. I'm still trying to dial in the settings to avoid them... I wish I knew why I get 15ms latency spikes in DVS since I think those are when the dropouts happen.
  
@Soundsgoodtome


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> I also tried the optical isolation solution like @rb2013 and any improvement could be chalked up to placebo so I'll save the money and return them. As far as dropouts, I got a whole bunch while using the optical transceivers so it actually made the problem worse. I'm still trying to dial in the settings to avoid them... I wish I knew why I get 15ms latency spikes in DVS since I think those are when the dropouts happen.


 

 Which supply did you use to power the FMC connected to the Rednet? As I mentioned earlier, a dirty supply has the potential to make the sound worse. The ones it comes with are horrid.


----------



## cursto

Hi all,
Great thread. I have a Rednet 3 using Dante Virtual Soundcard. I cannot get 192 kHz to play via Foobar using Sox resampler. I get random clicks. 96 kHz works fine and sounds good. I am using an i7 quad core processor with 12GB ram. Is my network traffic a bottleneck? I am using a router with 4 gigabit switch ports. I have tried direct connection to my computer's Ethernet port with same results. I hate to spend $$$ for Rednet Pci card to get 192 kHz. 
Any suggestions?


----------



## Kelowna

rb2013 said:


> Well I don't know if that would make much of a difference - but will try it.  I'll grab one of the LPS's from my office system and reset the voltage to 9VDC.
> 
> I did try swapping the BJC Cat6 and RN Red CAT6 - no difference I could tell.  Also took out the AR (Best Buy) digital spdif running from the RN to the Mutec, and replaced with a BJC 1.5M BNC to BNC.  A very tiny, almost imperceptible improvement.  But the BJC was only $27 or something like that.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Did you try without the reclocker in the chain? The reclocking after the Rednet is likely why you don't hear a difference. Your DAC isn't even physically connected to the Rednet. The clock is being regenerated as well.


----------



## somestranger26

kelowna said:


> Which supply did you use to power the FMC connected to the Rednet? As I mentioned earlier, a dirty supply has the potential to make the sound worse. The ones it comes with are horrid.


 

 Teradak DC30W LPS running off a Power Plant P5. I didn't think it made the sound worse either.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> Teradak DC30W LPS running off a Power Plant P5. I didn't think it made the sound worse either.


 

 Do you have the Rednet connected straight to your DAC?


----------



## somestranger26

My full chain was this:
  
 PC w/ Intel NIC > Rednet Cat6a > Optical converter (w/ SMPS) > Single-mode fiber > Optical converter (w/ LPS) > 1ft BJC Cat6a > RN3 > AS Statement SE Digital RCA > DAC
  
 I'm not using a reclocker like Mutec. I need to take a break from audio spending for a while.


----------



## somestranger26

cursto said:


> Hi all,
> Great thread. I have a Rednet 3 using Dante Virtual Soundcard. I cannot get 192 kHz to play via Foobar using Sox resampler. I get random clicks. 96 kHz works fine and sounds good. I am using an i7 quad core processor with 12GB ram. Is my network traffic a bottleneck? I am using a router with 4 gigabit switch ports. I have tried direct connection to my computer's Ethernet port with same results. I hate to spend $$$ for Rednet Pci card to get 192 kHz.
> Any suggestions?


 

 Go into the Dante Controller and double click the Rednet under the Device Info tab. Look at the latency tab and see what that looks like. My dropouts seem to be from latency spikes, so maybe similar to your clicking. I am still trying to figure out how to fix mine.


----------



## Kelowna

somestranger26 said:


> My full chain was this:
> 
> PC w/ Intel NIC > Rednet Cat6a > Optical converter (w/ SMPS) > Single-mode fiber > Optical converter (w/ LPS) > 1ft BJC Cat6a > RN3 > AS Statement SE Digital RCA > DAC
> 
> I'm not using a reclocker like Mutec. I need to take a break from audio spending for a while.


 

 Hmmm, maybe the noise from the Ethernet doesn't pass through SPDIF as much as USB or when the endpoint is in the DAC connected via I2S direct.


----------



## thisisvv

anyone use this.
  
  
 http://www.hdtvsupply.com/sandtodiauto.html#_ga=1.144445680.453177744.1466821631
  
 V


----------



## Kelowna

thisisvv said:


> anyone use this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think that's an audiophile grade product. If you want to send digital audio over RJ-45 this is the best way:

http://www.msbtech.com/products/pro.php?Page=platinumHome


----------



## johnjen

cursto said:


> Hi all,
> Great thread. I have a Rednet 3 using Dante Virtual Soundcard. I cannot get 192 kHz to play via Foobar using Sox resampler. I get random clicks. 96 kHz works fine and sounds good. I am using an i7 quad core processor with 12GB ram. Is my network traffic a bottleneck? I am using a router with 4 gigabit switch ports. I have tried direct connection to my computer's Ethernet port with same results. I hate to spend $$$ for Rednet Pci card to get 192 kHz.
> Any suggestions?


 
 Reading between the lines here…
 Is your RN3 on a separate network?
 IOW are you running Danté on it's own NIC as a separate dedicated network?
  
 If not that would be something to look into.
 And since you are using DVS you don't need to get the $1K PCIe card.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

If you read back a bit, others who were having this issue solved the 192kHz problem by setting the latency to 4 ms in Dante Controler or in DVS ASIO buffer. ( forgot which one exactly)


----------



## Danutz

Hi,
  
 Just received my D16... where can I find the TOKEN to activate my DVS????
  
 Thanx


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just received my D16... where can I find the TOKEN to activate my DVS????
> 
> Thanx


 

 Inside the box is a postcard with a bundled code. When you log in to register your product (https://global.focusrite.com/register) you can use the code to get miscellaneous software for your product (check country tab top left if it makes any difference). But - whereas DVS got bundled free at one time I'm not sure that it is free now. It is "only" $29 or so if not. You get a *free* 14-day temporary DVS license anyway here: https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard? which you convert after the 14 days. On the same page, you can log in to Dante where you see your license no. under My Products - and if you are lucky a permanent code. Hope that gets you going even if it is a little cursory and off the top of my head.


----------



## Danutz

Yes, really confusing, all this activation procedures... but it worked!
  
 Now, I have been asked to update firmware.... seems to take a long time... the green line seems staying at the same place during last minutes... normal???
  
 Thank you very much!!!


----------



## Iving

Apparently some people have had firmware hanging issues. I did. Until I realised that RedNet does not support wireless. So hard-wire to router and it was done in no time. The D16 has two ethernet ports.


----------



## Danutz

I have it wired up with the two ethernets... and have now unblocked firewall... but still stuck.... and it's telling me not  to interruppt the process.... what should I do???


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> I have it wired up with the two ethernets... and have now unblocked firewall... but still stuck.... and it's telling me not  to interruppt the process.... what should I do???


 

 I can relay info only re what worked for me. I didn't need to do anything with Firewall or setting Private vs. Public Networks etc. But others may have different experiences. Perhaps you will get some other answers later when the USA gets out of bed  Good luck with it. Perhaps in a little while you will be on your way. If you can't get anywhere after the weekend; well, I have found Focusrite support beyond excellent.


----------



## Danutz

should I interrupt it by powering off the D16 or better restarting PC??? Or any other solution... because it's still hanging at the beginning


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> should I interrupt it by powering off the D16 or better restarting PC??? Or any other solution... because it's still hanging at the beginning


 

 I had to make that decision myself and I cannot make it on your behalf.


----------



## Danutz

....ans what was your decision?


----------



## Danutz

perhaps restarting PC and say "NO" to update question???


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> perhaps restarting PC and say "NO" to update question???


 

 I restarted my PC without problems but I am not advising you to breach a "do not interrupt". Declining the firmware update only lets you try playing music without it, but I got success only after update. Then I had all sorts of other problems with DAC responding to D16 via spdif Phono/RCA vs. AES (see earlier in thread) - so I don't have my D16 back with me till next week (it wasn't faulty but everything went away for checking). You will be enjoying your music system before I do with luck on your side.


----------



## Danutz

It works!!!! I have sound finally....ufff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Thankx lving


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> It works!!!! I have sound finally....ufff
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Very pleased for you!
  
 Give it a minute or two (as if wearing a new pair of spectacles) ... and then report to thread!
  
 btw - What DAC are you using and how is it connected?


----------



## Danutz

powerfilter --> PC (skylake) --> D16 spdif out --> Nad M51 spdif in with 6db attenuator --> Topping TP60 --> Tannoy DC10T


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> powerfilter --> PC (skylake) --> D16 spdif out --> Nad M51 spdif in with 6db attenuator --> Topping TP60 --> Tannoy DC10T


 
  

 Thanks Danutz
  
 We can chalk up NAD M51 as a DAC that works via spdif [!assumes coax not AES input!] with the D16 AES which, unlike e.g. RME Fireface UC (and several other devices according to @atomicbob), has the SCMS Professional Bit on [probably applies to all RedNet boxes] - i.e., Consumer mode in which "Copyright not asserted" may be flagged is absent. RedNet boxes may be elusive to "finicky" DACs which obey the SCMS flag "Copy prohibited" whether connected via RCA or BNC [does not apply to AES which is unhindered]. This chalking up of the NAD M51 assumes that the D16 and NAD M51 are connected *direct*; i.e., there are no devices in between (for these can re-facilitate the blocked copyright path).
  
 Referring to this earlier post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/645#post_12672226, it could be helpful all round - *especially to prospective purchasers who wish to avoid disappointment* - if RedNet users could post assertions on this thread about DACs that work or do not work when linked *directly* to RedNet boxes immediately upstream. We assume that Pro Audio DACs (e.g. Dangerous Music Convert-2) are unlikely to be affected.
  
 Focusrite are aware of the SCMS issue and will follow up; however, the scope for re-calibrating RedNet boxes and, if at all, on what timescale remains to be seen.


----------



## cursto

I wasn't able to play 192kHz files on my Rednet 3 no matter which combination of settings I tried. I figured it out by reading a post on another forum. I simply changed the latency to 4 on Dante Virtual Soundcard. Bingo! It works beautifully.
 I guess I was just tired and frustrated from futzing with my system all day. I hope this can help someone else who is having the same problem.
 Now I'm just waiting for custom cables to be built so I can connect my Lynx Aurora 8. Then I will really be able to see what this baby can do!
 Have fun.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

My slow 1.7ghz i7 won't keep up with the 24/192khz but the 24/96khz sounds great and sox doesn't have to do anything half the time (music are mostly 24/96). 

Until I get that 3-4ghz i5/i7 it'll have to do. Turning the latency to 4ms doesn't work for me.


----------



## gldgate

It's been a little over a week since I've received the D16. I've been listening almost exclusively with the Rednet-Mutec-Yggy combo (AES) and really enjoying it. To test my preference, I went back and listened to my dual PC config with Jplay. The reason I did so is that AO 2.0 became available in non-beta form for Windows 10. I had purchased an AO license late last year but never installed it as I was waiting for 2.0.  The upgrade license (from 1.4 to 2.0) was pretty reasonable (approx. $30) so I was curious and decided to give it a shot. 
  
 End result - no change from what I heard last weekend. Cleary prefer the Rednet to dual config. If anything, I think the disparity has grown. I listened to more audiophile type recordings for this test and the RedNet revealed much more of the recordings. It also continued to be more emotionally involving. The dual PC config (CAPS Pipeline) has  dedicated USB card (SOTM), Battery powered OS, Wyred Recovery,HD Plex Power Supply, Curious cables and Optical Isolation. The D16 system in contrast  is using $20 blue jeans cat 6 ethernet cable, $35 Benchmark AES cables  and $5 power cord.
  
 Needless to say, the RedNet remains in my main system. I can tell by reading some posts that the RedNets may not be "plug and play" for everyone. All I can say is IMO the sound quality and rock solid operation (once set up) is worth it.


----------



## jabbr

cursto said:


> I wasn't able to play 192kHz files on my Rednet 3 no matter which combination of settings I tried. I figured it out by reading a post on another forum. I simply changed the latency to 4 on Dante Virtual Soundcard. Bingo! It works beautifully.
> I guess I was just tired and frustrated from futzing with my system all day. I hope this can help someone else who is having the same problem.
> Now I'm just waiting for custom cables to be built so I can connect my Lynx Aurora 8. Then I will really be able to see what this baby can do!
> Have fun.


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/720#post_12677270


----------



## motberg

gldgate said:


> It's been a little over a week since I've received the D16. I've been listening almost exclusively with the Rednet-Mutec-Yggy combo (AES) and really enjoying it. To test my preference, I went back and listened to my dual PC config with Jplay. The reason I did so is that AO 2.0 became available in non-beta form for Windows 10. I had purchased an AO license late last year but never installed it as I was waiting for 2.0.  The upgrade license (from 1.4 to 2.0) was pretty reasonable (approx. $30) so I was curious and decided to give it a shot.
> 
> End result - no change from what I heard last weekend. Cleary prefer the Rednet to dual config. If anything, I think the disparity has grown. I listened to more audiophile type recordings for this test and the RedNet revealed much more of the recordings. It also continued to be more emotionally involving. The dual PC config (CAPS Pipeline) has  dedicated USB card (SOTM), Battery powered OS, Wyred Recovery,HD Plex Power Supply, Curious cables and Optical Isolation. The D16 system in contrast  is using $20 blue jeans cat 6 ethernet cable, $35 Benchmark AES cables  and $5 power cord.
> 
> Needless to say, the RedNet remains in my main system. I can tell by reading some posts that the RedNets may not be "plug and play" for everyone. All I can say is IMO the sound quality and rock solid operation (once set up) is worth it.


 

 Quick question, you are comparing the USB input of the Yggy to the AES input?


----------



## gldgate

Comparison was AES for both using Mutec.  I have listened to 3 systems (Dual PC, uRendu and RedNet) with and without Mutec and prefer the Mutec in the chain in every case. ​


----------



## hugoboss

leter15 said:


> Hi rw35
> you can PM me
> i am sorry.it is no  quite appropriate to talk about our products here.
> Here is the night.
> ...


 

 Finally the man behind F-1 your product f1 have become legend here
 dont stop to produce another high end device like f1 keep more and more DONT STOP!


----------



## Danutz

Hi lving,
  
 I can confirm that Nad M51 works with direct spdif connection, as I took out the 6db attenuator...! On the other hand, changing it to an 15db attenuator, there would be no sound (signal getting too weak!?). I even tried 2 different spdif cables (one from sommer and an apogee wyde-eye) with bnc-connectors (using rca-adapters).
  
 Voilà


----------



## mtoc

Folks, have you seen the internal photos of rednet D16? Don't know where to find...


----------



## ccschua

the D16 + Mutec 3 combination probably costs USD 1600+ which is way above the dual pc setup. I wonder if anyone can compare using the top end dual pc with the same price range ? perhaps jabbr can shed some light.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Huh? Where are you finding them that cheap? The mutec is the USB version or older mc3+ non usb





ccschua said:


> the D16 + Mutec 3 combination probably costs USD 1600+ which is way above the dual pc setup. I wonder if anyone can compare using the top end dual pc with the same price range ? perhaps jabbr can shed some light.


?


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> Hi lving,
> 
> I can confirm that Nad M51 works with direct spdif connection, as I took out the 6db attenuator...! On the other hand, changing it to an 15db attenuator, there would be no sound (signal getting too weak!?). I even tried 2 different spdif cables (one from sommer and an apogee wyde-eye) with bnc-connectors (using rca-adapters).
> 
> Voilà


 
  
 Thanks
  
 The spdif SCMS dynamic is a work / doesn't work thing. Yours works! RCA vs. BNC shouldn't make any difference - unless there is some other issue in play.
  
 Hope the music is good


----------



## ccschua

soundsgoodtome said:


> Huh? Where are you finding them that cheap? The mutec is the USB version or older mc3+ non usb
> ?


 
 My mistake. was thinking of R3 + mutec (non USB).


----------



## gldgate

ccschua said:


> the D16 + Mutec 3 combination probably costs USD 1600+ which is way above the dual pc setup. I wonder if anyone can compare using the top end dual pc with the same price range ? perhaps jabbr can shed some light.


 
 A CAPS Pipeline is $2800 from SGC . Add in Bakoon Battery PSU (for SSD O/S), Optical Isolation, Wyred Recovery, Curious Cables,  Jplay and AO 2.0 and we are talking about  $4K for a pretty loaded Audio PC set-up.  The RedNet D16 at 1500 is less than half the cost and was a clear step above.  The RedNet D16 plus Mutec MC-3+ USB at approx. $2600 is still less than a base level CAPS Pipeline.


----------



## Danutz

Is there possibly an ethernet configuration, that could be benefical for our Rednet's? I have the Realtek driver, and 150ms latency is greyed out... Someone played with the Ethernet-settings??? 
  
 Thanx


----------



## jabbr

Just read that Kelowna has been banned from the thread:

"And BTW I've been blocked from the AOIP thread on Headfi".

A shame and unjust iMHO, a victim of a troll.

I guess this is also the reason that Rob rb2013 has been absent for that last two days?!.


----------



## ciphercomplete

gldgate said:


> A CAPS Pipeline is $2800 from SGC . Add in Bakoon Battery PSU (for SSD O/S), Optical Isolation, Wyred Recovery, Curious Cables,  Jplay and AO 2.0 and we are talking about  $4K for a pretty loaded Audio PC set-up.  The RedNet D16 at 1500 is less than half the cost and was a clear step above.  The RedNet D16 plus Mutec MC-3+ USB at approx. $2600 is still less than a base level CAPS Pipeline.


 
 The CAPS Pipeline is a complete over-overkill though.  Its a music server lol so I'm not sure why he stuffed a Intel Xeon in there.  An intel pentium  G4400 would do the job without ever going above 3% cpu utilization and save you over $200 voer the Xeon.
  
 Man the more I read about the pipeline the more of a waste of money it looks like.  Plus youve got all those huge noisy harddrives right next to your system.  Build one of these (~$1500) running Freenas  http://blog.brianmoses.net/2015/01/diy-nas-2015-edition.html and keep it far away from your system.  Then build a small micro Itx front end pc and save about $500~$600 over the pipeline.  Heck even Freenas is a overkill if all you are doing is serving music (b/c you dont need ECC ram).  I'm running a cheap Amahi server with 6TB of space in RAID with a cheap AMD server cpu and motherboard (~$600) my front end pc could be built for less than $500 or even less if you go with Ubuntu over WIndows.


----------



## joelha

I've just done several back and forth comparisons between a simple stock ethernet cable going to the primary connection of my D16 vs. an optical connection with linear power supplies on each of the optical devices (HDPlex and Uptone JS-2) finally culminating in a Paul Pang black ethernet cable going directly into the D16.
  
 The result?
  
 If there's an obvious difference, I can't tell what it is.
  
 It might be that more time and more switching back and forth will reveal something, but right now I just can't say that one is better than the other.
  
 Anyone completely surprised? 
  
 Joel


----------



## Muziqboy

There are some folks here that tried the Fiber Media Converters between the PC and the RedNet's and they too did not discern any improvements in the SQ.
I really doubt there will be any that's why I was just in the sidelines concerning the FMC's. The RedNet's are really designed and built that good. IMO.

Instead of buying the FMC's, just add a 2nd Mutec to the chain. Now that, I can swear added another improvement to the SQ.


----------



## somestranger26

joelha said:


> I've just done several back and forth comparisons between a simple stock ethernet cable going to the primary connection of my D16 vs. an optical connection with linear power supplies on each of the optical devices (HDPlex and Uptone JS-2) finally culminating in a Paul Pang black ethernet cable going directly into the D16.


 
 I was somewhat surprised that there was no difference, since the electricity my computer runs off is so horrible and I was doing a direct connection. I'm happy though since it probably means that none of the ethernet tweaks like isolators and the like are going to make a difference, unlike USB. My MC210CS optical transceivers go back to Amazon tomorrow, and I just sold my linear power supply as well.
  


muziqboy said:


> There are some folks here that tried the Fiber Media Converters between the PC and the RedNet's and they too did not discern any improvements in the SQ.
> I really doubt there will be any that's why I was just in the sidelines concerning the FMC's. The RedNet's are really designed and built that good. IMO.
> 
> Instead of buying the FMC's, just add a 2nd Mutec to the chain. Now that, I can swear added another improvement to the SQ.


 
 How much of an improvement was the second one compared to the first?


----------



## Muziqboy

The 2nd Mutec in the chain was about. a 50% improvement compared to the 1st but to me it was a step-up in SQ none the less.

The law of diminishing returns does apply here though so YMMV.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> It's been a little over a week since I've received the D16. I've been listening almost exclusively with the Rednet-Mutec-Yggy combo (AES) and really enjoying it. To test my preference, I went back and listened to my dual PC config with Jplay. The reason I did so is that AO 2.0 became available in non-beta form for Windows 10. I had purchased an AO license late last year but never installed it as I was waiting for 2.0.  The upgrade license (from 1.4 to 2.0) was pretty reasonable (approx. $30) so I was curious and decided to give it a shot.
> 
> End result - no change from what I heard last weekend. Cleary prefer the Rednet to dual config. If anything, I think the disparity has grown. I listened to more audiophile type recordings for this test and the RedNet revealed much more of the recordings. It also continued to be more emotionally involving. The dual PC config (CAPS Pipeline) has  dedicated USB card (SOTM), Battery powered OS, Wyred Recovery,HD Plex Power Supply, Curious cables and Optical Isolation. The D16 system in contrast  is using $20 blue jeans cat 6 ethernet cable, $35 Benchmark AES cables  and $5 power cord.
> 
> Needless to say, the RedNet remains in my main system. I can tell by reading some posts that the RedNets may not be "plug and play" for everyone. All I can say is IMO the sound quality and rock solid operation (once set up) is worth it.


 
  
 I concur. I the D16/Mutec combo far surpassed my USB setup and on my system seems to make AO unnecessary. I also bought the AO 2.0 update for testing but my guess is that it will be moot.


----------



## mhamel

somestranger26 said:


> I was somewhat surprised that there was no difference, since the electricity my computer runs off is so horrible and I was doing a direct connection. I'm happy though since it probably means that none of the ethernet tweaks like isolators and the like are going to make a difference, unlike USB. My MC210CS optical transceivers go back to Amazon tomorrow, and I just sold my linear power supply as well.


 
  
 Even direct-connected, it is isolated... the NIC at the PC end has a transformer as does the port at the D3/D16, so you're still getting the benefit of that.


----------



## Muziqboy

Deleted


----------



## rb2013

Hi Guys  - Just back from a 20 mile three day backpacking trip in the Olympic mountains - give me a little time to catch up


----------



## rb2013

kelowna said:


> Which supply did you use to power the FMC connected to the Rednet? As I mentioned earlier, a dirty supply has the potential to make the sound worse. The ones it comes with are horrid.


 
 Mine is much better then the SMPS iPower - LPS TeraDak with DC iPur.
  


kelowna said:


> Did you try without the reclocker in the chain? The reclocking after the Rednet is likely why you don't hear a difference. Your DAC isn't even physically connected to the Rednet. The clock is being regenerated as well.


 
 Why would I do that?  And what would the spdif reclocking have to do with the supposed non-galvanic isolation (as proposed by you and others - for UTP ethernet.  I find that hard to believe) of the UTP ethernet connection or the SQ effects of 'noise' on the ethernet line?
  
 One has nothing to do with the other.  And as you say the clocking ONLY happens at the RN3 - so what difference does a spdif reclocker make to that? 

 Something is not adding up.
  
 My advice is ignore what others are saying regarding non-AES67 ethernet audio solutions and what works and what doesn't.  Stay with the simple PC>RN>Mutec>DAC solution and focus on spending on a better spdif (and I guess AES) cable.
  
 My ethernet optical boxs are going back to Amazon too.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> I also tried the optical isolation solution like @rb2013 and any improvement could be chalked up to placebo so I'll save the money and return them. As far as dropouts, I got a whole bunch while using the optical transceivers so it actually made the problem worse. I'm still trying to dial in the settings to avoid them... I wish I knew why I get 15ms latency spikes in DVS since I think those are when the dropouts happen.
> 
> @Soundsgoodtome


 

 Mine are going back as well.
  
 What version board chip are you using  - Haswell?


----------



## Lord Raven

Hi Guys,
  
 I am new to the thread, read the first page, and the given links, there is a lot of information here. All I know is, I need DVS to transport the audio to the LAN port. DACs mentioned in the first posts were 8900$ and 11,000$. I am never going to go that far in computer audiophilia, I guess. What is a reasonably priced DAC that can do AES67? Or should I just wait for another year or two for the Chinese to copy the technology? 
  
 Right now, I am more inclined towards completely getting rid of the PC form my audio chain. I would like to know what my options are if I want to try the AOIP. I am a telecom engineer, and know about IP Networks, I believe in the power of IP 
  
 Thanks
 LR


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> Mine are going back as well.
> 
> What version board chip are you using  - Haswell?


 

 Haswell-E. I'm using this PCI-E card though, not the one on my motherboard, for connecting to the RN3. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B001CY0P7G/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  


lord raven said:


> I am new to the thread, read the first page, and the given links, there is a lot of information here. All I know is, I need DVS to transport the audio to the LAN port. DACs mentioned in the first posts were 8900$ and 11,000$. I am never going to go that far in computer audiophilia, I guess. *What is a reasonably priced DAC that can do AES67?* Or should I just wait for another year or two for the Chinese to copy the technology?


 

 There aren't any. That's why everyone talking about it is buying the Rednet 3 and D16 devices.


----------



## Lord Raven

somestranger26 said:


> There aren't any. That's why everyone talking about it is buying the Rednet 3 and D16 devices.


 
  
 Thanks for your response, what is Rednet 3 and D16, where to source them from and how to set them up?  Sorry I am a noob in AOIP.
  
 Just ran some google on these names, these require a 19 inch rack to mount them  Besides, what to do with all those input ports? GOD!


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Haswell-E. I'm using this PCI-E card though, not the one on my motherboard, for connecting to the RN3. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B001CY0P7G/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> 
> There aren't any. That's why everyone talking about it is buying the Rednet 3 and D16 devices.


 

 Have you tried the board Ethernet?


----------



## rb2013

cursto said:


> I wasn't able to play 192kHz files on my Rednet 3 no matter which combination of settings I tried. I figured it out by reading a post on another forum. I simply changed the latency to 4 on Dante Virtual Soundcard. Bingo! It works beautifully.
> I guess I was just tired and frustrated from futzing with my system all day. I hope this can help someone else who is having the same problem.
> Now I'm just waiting for custom cables to be built so I can connect my Lynx Aurora 8. Then I will really be able to see what this baby can do!
> Have fun.


 

 I've posted here maybe 4-5 times the latency setting for DVS, as have a few others..


----------



## rb2013

rb2013 said:


> Playing with the settings in REDNET last night - discovered an interesting SQ change.
> 
> Trying different Device Latency settings in DC for the REDNET 3, I found the SQ best at the min setting of 150us, trying the rest up to the 5ms.  The SQ became noticibly thicker and sluggish sounding, with the 150us having a zesty dynamic quality - very nice :
> 
> ...


 

 Look familiar?


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/720#post_12677270


 
 When in doubt read the thread!


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> A CAPS Pipeline is $2800 from SGC . Add in Bakoon Battery PSU (for SSD O/S), Optical Isolation, Wyred Recovery, Curious Cables,  Jplay and AO 2.0 and we are talking about  $4K for a pretty loaded Audio PC set-up.  The RedNet D16 at 1500 is less than half the cost and was a clear step above.  The RedNet D16 plus Mutec MC-3+ USB at approx. $2600 is still less than a base level CAPS Pipeline.


 

 Thank for the post - your results speaks volumes.


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> I've just done several back and forth comparisons between a simple stock ethernet cable going to the primary connection of my D16 vs. an optical connection with linear power supplies on each of the optical devices (HDPlex and Uptone JS-2) finally culminating in a Paul Pang black ethernet cable going directly into the D16.
> 
> The result?
> 
> ...


 

 NOT at all - but thanks for testing that.  We have to wrap our minds around this form of audio ethernet - AOIP AES67 is really a sea change (I've said this a few dozen times and keep repeating it) - now the SPDIF/AES is old school and needs help.  But with some attention can be world class. 
  
 Highly recommended - Mutec MC-3+ USB as spdif reclocker
 Audience au24se SPDIF cable
  
 Very recommended - Audio Sensibility Silver Statement Digital cable.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> There are some folks here that tried the Fiber Media Converters between the PC and the RedNet's and they too did not discern any improvements in the SQ.
> I really doubt there will be any that's why I was just in the sidelines concerning the FMC's. The RedNet's are really designed and built that good. IMO.
> 
> Instead of buying the FMC's, just add a 2nd Mutec to the chain. Now that, I can swear added another improvement to the SQ.


 

 To the chain as spdif reclocker or word clock input?  I believe you mean spdif reclocker - 2 in a row.
  
 Now the Mutec MC-3+ USB has been compared to be as good as three non-USB versions daisy chained.  This is do to the upgraded clocking in the USB version.


----------



## rb2013

Ok reading the CA Rednet 3 thread, what a borefeast. The last post is so CA classic, 'I don't trust sight comparisons, yata, yata, yata'

What do you trust test bench measurements? Give me a break! 

Last I check test bench equipment have no ears, only us humans do.

And this 'sighted' human sure hears a difference...now back to the micro-rendu infomercial...


----------



## Muziqboy

rb2013 said:


> To the chain as spdif reclocker or word clock input?  I believe you mean spdif reclocker - 2 in a row.
> 
> Now the Mutec MC-3+ USB has been compared to be as good as three non-USB versions daisy chained.  This is do to the upgraded clocking in the USB version.


 
  
 Yes, as a daisy chained SPDIF re-clocker. I only have 2 of the non-USB version but even that, the SQ took another leap up.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Yes, as a daisy chained SPDIF re-clocker. I only have 2 of the non-USB version but even that, the SQ took another leap up.


 

 Nice!  What digital cable are you using?


----------



## prot

soundsgoodtome said:


> My slow 1.7ghz i7 won't keep up with the 24/192khz but the 24/96khz sounds great and sox doesn't have to do anything half the time (music are mostly 24/96).
> 
> Until I get that 3-4ghz i5/i7 it'll have to do. Turning the latency to 4ms doesn't work for me.




Your issues have nothing to do with the CPU. Music playback consumes less than 1% of any modern intel proc. Even the small 4-500mhz CPUs used in portable players can easily play 24/192 .. your i7 can play 20+ HD music streams without a blink. 
You should look for issues somewhere else in your system. The usual bet is bad drivers and/or OS config.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I don't know.. maybe there's a setting I'm not getting somewhere. Strange is getting the same problem with a 3ghz i7 so I think you're correct.

I'm guessing it's a network setting of some sort since I've exhausted dante/rednet/dvs setting combinations. 



prot said:


> Your issues have nothing to do with the CPU. Music playback consumes less than 1% of any modern intel proc. Even the small 4-500mhz CPUs used in portable players can easily play 24/192 .. your i7 can play 20+ HD music streams without a blink.
> You should look for issues somewhere else in your system. The usual bet is bad drivers and/or OS config.


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Your issues have nothing to do with the CPU. Music playback consumes less than 1% of any modern intel proc. Even the small 4-500mhz CPUs used in portable players can easily play 24/192 .. your i7 can play 20+ HD music streams without a blink.
> You should look for issues somewhere else in your system. The usual bet is bad drivers and/or OS config.


 

 Are their ethernet BIOS setting he could look for?


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I don't know.. maybe there's a setting I'm not getting somewhere. Strange is getting the same problem with a 3ghz i7 so I think you're correct.
> 
> I'm guessing it's a network setting of some sort since I've exhausted dante/rednet/dvs setting combinations.


 

 Speaking of when was the last BIOS update you have done? 
  
 Is your 3ghz i7 a Haswell or Skylake chipset?  WIN 7 or 8.1 or 10?
  
 Try a REDNET firmware rollback to 3.4 and see if that doesn't help.


----------



## jabbr

A new AOIP thread has popped up by a former fellow: AOIP


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> A new AOIP thread has popped up by a former fellow: AOIP


 

 Interesting...Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Danutz

danutz said:


> Is there possibly an ethernet configuration, that could be benefical for our Rednet's? I have the Realtek driver, and 150ms latency is greyed out... Someone played with the Ethernet-settings???
> 
> Thanx


 
 Nobody??


----------



## mhamel

danutz said:


> Nobody??


 
  
 I don't see where there would be.
  
 If it's working, the data is getting from point a to point b fully intact. There is no tweaking needed to change that fact if it's already getting there with no packet drops or errors. People have reported cable changes having little to no effect even when trying optical conversion. It's already isolated at both ends. Checksums ensure the integrity of the data. What else would you be expecting to happen with changing network settings?


----------



## Danutz

Hi mhamel,
  
 I would like to change the fact, that I cannot check the 150ms latency-setting ...
  
 i would also remind, that audiophile optimizer AO mentionned a few tuning tips, perhaps they could also be benefical for our purpose...
  
 Thank you


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Nobody??


 

 It seems the RN3 can do 150us and not the RNd16.  I found with some experimentation that the 150us SQ is best that 5ms the worst.  So this does make a difference.  But I was able to get 192k on all RN3 latency settings.
  
 I'll post again:

  
 I'm also getting close to 1ms with DVS set for 1ms (but showing 4ms in grey):


----------



## rb2013

Those setting are running the DAC60 which can only accept 96k - here are the screen shots on the APL DAC set for 192k:


----------



## Danutz

Thank you rb2013, but I was thinking about the realtek/gigabyte ethernet driver setting in "device manager" or are these overgone completely by the Rednetsoftware? I don't think so but I am not an expert, only beginner


----------



## Muziqboy

rb2013 said:


> Nice!  What digital cable are you using?


 
  
 I got 3 of the Audio Sensibility cables.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> Are their ethernet BIOS setting he could look for?







rb2013 said:


> Speaking of when was the last BIOS update you have done?
> 
> Is your 3ghz i7 a Haswell or Skylake chipset?  WIN 7 or 8.1 or 10?
> 
> Try a REDNET firmware rollback to 3.4 and see if that doesn't help.




I've looked in the bios, there's only an enabling and disabling of the internal ethernet card. Cpu throttling is disabled, it's on full-on run mode. There is the cpu virtualization setting but i don't think that's anything for latency, which goes to 15ms in the red for Dante control for the Rednet. I've also disabled the flow control in the Ethernet settings (w10) but still no 192khz joy. 

The 3ghz I speak of is Strange's computer who is also getting skips/pops on his 3ghz i7. I'll need to call focusrite and see if i can trouble shoot.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> It seems the RN3 can do 150us and not the RNd16.  I found with some experimentation that the 150us SQ is best that 5ms the worst.  So this does make a difference.  But I was able to get 192k on all RN3 latency settings.
> 
> I'm also getting close to 1ms with DVS set for 1ms (but showing 4ms in grey):


 
  
 ASIO Latency is not the same setting as Dante Latency. The Dante latency is the latency that shows up under "Device Info" in Dante Controller. You can only change it between 4-6-10ms.


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Thank you rb2013, but I was thinking about the realtek/gigabyte ethernet driver setting in "device manager" or are these overgone completely by the Rednetsoftware? I don't think so but I am not an expert, only beginner


 

 Good question - my machine is a fairly new WIN10 iCore7 - I did not touch the settings.  I assume they are all set for 1GB as std


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> I got 3 of the Audio Sensibility cables.


 

 Good cable


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I've looked in the bios, there's only an enabling and disabling of the internal ethernet card. Cpu throttling is disabled, it's on full-on run mode. There is the cpu virtualization setting but i don't think that's anything for latency, which goes to 15ms in the red for Dante control for the Rednet. I've also disabled the flow control in the Ethernet settings (w10) but still no 192khz joy.
> 
> The 3ghz I speak of is Strange's computer who is also getting skips/pops on his 3ghz i7. I'll need to call focusrite and see if i can trouble shoot.


 

 Weird - I feel lucky to have no issues


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> ASIO Latency is not the same setting as Dante Latency. The Dante latency is the latency that shows up under "Device Info" in Dante Controller. You can only change it between 4-6-10ms.


 

 Yes that is showing 4ms - but I'm getting much better then that - peak 1.1ms and ave 1.1ms
  
 Do you have the DVS set for 2X2?  Large ASIO buffer size?


----------



## rb2013

Also be sure the RN is set for Master in the clocking:


----------



## Danutz

rb2013 said:


> Good question - my machine is a fairly new WIN10 iCore7 - I did not touch the settings.  I assume they are all set for 1GB as std


 
  
 Do you also have realtek ethernet driver? which version? mine is 10.8.311.2016
  
 In device manager -> network adapters -> properties -> advanced.... there are so many settings, as I'm wondering if these could not be configured in order to get lower latency etc.


----------



## rb2013

danutz said:


> Do you also have realtek ethernet driver? which version? mine is 10.8.311.2016
> 
> In device manager -> network adapters -> properties -> advanced.... there are so many settings, as I'm wondering if these could not be configured in order to get lower latency etc.


 

 Mine is 10.1.55.2015
  
 One note my music servers are not connected to the internet - and never will be unless absolutely required.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> Yes that is showing 4ms - but I'm getting much better then that - peak 1.1ms and ave 1.1ms
> 
> Do you have the DVS set for 2X2?  Large ASIO buffer size?


 

 Yes I have all those settings and the Dante latency still spikes from 900us to 15ms and induces dropouts.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Yes I have all those settings and the Dante latency still spikes from 900us to 15ms and induces dropouts.


 

 Well I hope Focusrite can get to the bottom of this.

 Good luck


----------



## rb2013

I tried the TeraDak LPS on the Sender optical Ethernet - that did improve things a bit.  One last try before sending back to Amazon.
  
 Then tried taking the whole loop out of the Ethernet chain - I did notice a diminished bass depth.  So I guess it'll be staying in.  Not a night and day difference  - but I had the two LPS's already and for $100 worth keeping it.
  
 Just bought this beauty to give a try - Synergistic Research Element Copper Digital Active tunable RCA.  Great price. New $890 - Audiogon $389.
 I have heard and read a lot about this cable so worth trying at this price.
 https://www.audiogon.com/listings/digital-synergistic-research-element-copper-digital-active-tunable-rca-dig-2016-06-19-cables-90077-los-angeles-ca?show_listing=true
  
 I have an extra Audio Sensibilities 1.5M Silver Statement available (RCA to RCA).  If anybody is interested before it goes up on Ebay - PM me:
 http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/digital-cables-occ-copper-and-occ-silver/#!/Statement-SE-Silver-S-PDIF-RCA-BNC-Digital-Cable/p/46391588/category=4059160

 Cheers


----------



## prot

rb2013 said:


> Are their ethernet BIOS setting he could look for?




Normally not but you should check Soundsgoodtome. Also check the props of the network adapter: fullduplex & gigabit should be enabled .. also full performance (power setting) for both the CPU and the network adapter. 
Check the router too, it may also have some sort of low power mode enabled. 
And it could also be that the Dante and/or focurite drivers arent very well written. 

without looking at the pc & whole network directly it's almost impossible to say where the issues lie .. but it is surely not the CPU!

Try this tool
http://www.resplendence.com/latencymon
Pretty much the best for investigating audio latency/driver issues. It should be selfexplanatory. With numbers under 500 and no funny spikes your PC can play HD audio .. under 100 is very good. And under 50 you're golden


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

prot said:


> Normally not but you should check @Soundsgoodtome. Also check the props of the network adapter: fullduplex & gigabit should be enabled .. also full performance (power setting) for both the CPU and the network adapter.
> Check the router too, it may also have some sort of low power mode enabled.
> And it could also be that the Dante and/or focurite drivers arent very well written.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the latency tester!!
 - the full duplex & gigabit was set to auto in the network card settings -- I will try to force gigabit full duplex when I get home later.
   I want to say there may be more to investigate in network throttling, when DVS or Rednet first installed it asked to control "flow control" of the networking and I hit yes
 - high performance power settings are on, minimum cpu state is 100% (speedstep is disabled in bios as well)
 - no router or switch, it's a direct connect between PC and Rednet 3 (although some suggest I try a switch between the two... with better management?)
 - my PC however is an older i7 from 2009 (1.7GHz quad core) but when I pop open the task manager to look at cpu usage, it's way below 50% while music is playing.
 - could it be I only have 4GB of RAM? but music playing shouldn't be that intensive here.. I'll try an 8GB I suppose


----------



## prot

I still have a >10 years old pre-core intel laptop with 2gb ram and it plays 24/192 with no glitches. So no, it's not a ram issue and most probably not hardware (such issues are very rare nowadays). Just run the latency checker and you'll see where/if you have Pc issues.


----------



## atomicbob

soundsgoodtome said:


> Thanks for the latency tester!!
> - the full duplex & gigabit was set to auto in the network card settings -- I will try to force gigabit full duplex when I get home later.
> I want to say there may be more to investigate in network throttling, when DVS or Rednet first installed it asked to control "flow control" of the networking and I hit yes
> - high performance power settings are on, minimum cpu state is 100% (speedstep is disabled in bios as well)
> ...


 
@Soundsgoodtome - go here:
 https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs
 look at
 https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs#collapse34 on dropouts and distortion
 https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs#collapse88 tune windows PC for audio
 Particularly note the recommended DPC Checker (a different latency checker that has been in use by audio pros for quite some time) from Thesycon
 http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
  
 Focusrite also has a FAQ page referencing tuning windows PC for audio.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

atomicbob said:


> @Soundsgoodtome - go here:
> https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs
> look at
> https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs#collapse34 on dropouts and distortion
> ...


 

 Great links Bob! There are a few tricks in the Windows PC tuning section of Focusrite's FAQ page that I have not tried yet, including disabling flow control and setting "interrupt moderation" for best performance. Both I've never had to touch before going into ethernet as a transport.

 A lot of these tweaks I've done from previous readings into tweaking Windows 7 to be as audio-friendly as possible from a several years back but this is an excellent resource nonetheless. I may also turn off indexing as suggested, this particular pc is used for one use only. Performance is already in background services and virtual mem is set to 6500 currently but will try to max it at 10,000. I've also tried setting thread priorities manually in services (not in this focusrite guide) but no joy there as well. It's a head scratcher but my first guess would be the network settings above.

 https://www.audinate.com/resources/faqs#collapse87


Spoiler: Copy of Focusrites "How Do I tune a Windows PC for best audio performance?"



The suggestions below can be used to improve Windows PC performance for audio recording and processing in some (most) situations. However, all systems are different, and there are no guarantees. We recommend that you create a system restore point before making fundamental changes to your PC. The suggestions below assume you are using Windows 7 (Windows feature paths may differ for other operating systems).
*Warning*:  Audinate accepts no responsibility for negative consequences as a result of following these recommendations.

Defragment the hard drive regularly. This will improve data access times and reduce the load on the hard drive.
Disable any screen savers, antivirus software, Windows Firewall, and Windows Defender. Background tasks that kick in unexpectedly can interrupt audio. Also disable system sounds to prevent them creeping into recordings. (Note: Disabling all firewall and antivirus software is not recommended for computers with active Internet connections.)
If you need a paging file, increase the virtual memory (swap space). A rule of thumb is to set your virtual memory to twice the size of your RAM, but there are other considerations. If you're sure you do not need a paging file, switch it off entirely for all drives. Search for a good resource on swap space / virtual memory / paging file optimization for more information.
Ensure your computer's power profile (Control Panel > Power Options) is set to High Performance (or 'Adjust for best performance'), and disable theme effects, and window animations. This will ensure your CPU speed is not restricted, and processing power is not wasted on moving unnecessary pixels around.
Configure the power profile to prevent sleep / hibernation and hard drive shut-down due to inactivity. Surprise shut-downs cause catastrophic interruptions to recordings.
Make sure DMA (Direct Memory Access) is enabled on each IDE channel. DMA is the recommended (fastest) disk access method for audio. To enable DMA, open the device manager (right-click My Computer and select Manage > Device Manager). Then expand the IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers, open the properties (right-click) for each channel, and ensure DMA is enabled in the Advanced settings.
Remove all unnecessary fonts. Loading fonts uses resources.
Ensure all hard drives related to audio work are formatted as NTFS.
Ensure your BIOS and chipset drivers are up to date. Go to your chipset manufacturer's website for more information.
Set processor scheduling to 'Background Services' (Control Panel > System > Advanced System Settings > Advanced > Performance). This should improve audio driver performance.
Switch off automatic indexing (go to Start and type in 'indexing options' > press Enter > Modify). Indexing requires processor power, which you require for audio.
Disable Wi-Fi. Computers that are trying to connect to unstable Wi-Fi networks are prone to CPU spikes, which can interrupt audio.
Ensure your OS and all drivers are updated to the latest versions.
If you know what you're doing, use services.msc to set any unnecessary startup services to 'manual'. If you aren't sure about which services to change, skip this step, or check out Black Viper's service configurations pages.
DPC Latency Checker is a free application that can be used to analyse your computer's processing performance. Any significant number of DPC spikes above 100µsec have the potential to interrupt audio when running with low buffer settings. As a rule of thumb, a PC can be considered to be well-configured when the average DPC latency is below 100µsec. There should be minimal spikes beyond that level. Unfortunately, other hardware device drivers are normally responsible for these spikes. The process for identifying and removing the offending drivers is simply trial and error. As always, make sure you start off with the most up-to-date device drivers for all of your hardware.
'Flow Control' and 'Interrupt Moderation' can reduce the performance of your Ethernet interface and cause packets to be delayed. This is often the cause of late audio measurements on the Latency graph in Dante Controller for connections in and out of DVS. To configure Flow Control and Interrupt Moderation:
Go to Control Panel > Network and Internet > Network Connections
Right-click the network adaptor you use for Dante traffic, and select ‘Properties’
Click ‘Configure’
Select the ‘Advanced’ tab
Click ‘Flow Control’ and set the value to ‘Disabled’
Click ‘Interrupt Moderation’ and adjust for best performance (reduced latency vs. CPU usage)
Click OK

 Advanced Configuration Many motherboards provide additional configuration options. To achieve reliable performance at very low buffer settings, the following may also be required:

Set CStates to OFF
Disable Intel SpeedStep
Enable TurboBoost
 Surprisingly, hardware RAID can be problematic for low-latency performance. This might sound counter-intuitive, but the device drivers required to run hardware RAID controllers (in particular, Intel RAID controllers that may be built into your motherboard) can result in excessive DPC spikes in the system. This prevents the audio hardware and DAW from timely access to memory, which will limit your ability to reduce ASIO buffers to the minimum possible value. Your system running a driver called IASTOR.SYS is indicative of hardware RAID being enabled.
 Many motherboards provide an option to disable this, however, it will require the hard disk to be re-formatted and the OS re-installed. If you really know what you are doing, it is certainly possible to install a second disk and selectively boot between the two as you toggle RAID on or off. Remember that a disk formatted for a hardware Raid system will not be readable if raid is disabled, and vice versa.
Very Advanced Configuration Microsoft provide a Windows Performance Toolkit as part of the development SDK. This includes a tool called “xperf”. This is a very advanced tool that can help you to identify which drivers are responsible for any DPC or Interrupt latency in your system. If you have access to this tool, you can use it to identify components in your system that may be causing DPC or other forms of system latency. Search http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/ for *xperf* for more information.


----------



## rb2013

Great stuff guys!  Why I love this thread.


----------



## Clemmaster

Dante Latency The Dante Latency drop-down menu allows you to set the device latency (time before playout).

 A Dante device receiving audio from Dante Virtual Soundcard will use this value (unless the receiving device only supports higher latencies). The latency compensates primarily for computer scheduling jitter, as well as delay variations encountered in the network.

 Supported values are:


4ms (low)
6ms (medium)*
10ms (high)*

_* Not supported at sample rates of 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz when transmitting to hardware devices running Dante firmware v3.7.x or earlier. In order to enable these latency settings for the higher sample rates, upgrade your Dante device firmware to v3.8.x or above. Please contact your device manufacturer for information about Dante firmware upgrades._

 As a rule of thumb, 4ms can be used where Dante Virtual Soundcard is running on a high-spec computer with low scheduling jitter. Computers with poor scheduling performance may need to use the 10ms Dante Latency setting.

*Note:  *If the Dante Latency setting is set too low to compensate for network delay variation and computer scheduling jitter, there is a risk of intermittent loss of audio.


----------



## Luckbad

Thanks, Clem.

My Rednet 3 is waiting for me at work. Got a stomach bug and couldn't go in to get it.


----------



## rb2013

clemmaster said:


> Dante Latency The Dante Latency drop-down menu allows you to set the device latency (time before playout).
> 
> A Dante device receiving audio from Dante Virtual Soundcard will use this value (unless the receiving device only supports higher latencies). The latency compensates primarily for computer scheduling jitter, as well as delay variations encountered in the network.
> 
> ...


 

 Good info - so my newer iCore 7 Haswell WIN10 worked with the 4ms and 192k with both the old and the new firmware versions.
  
 PC $450 at costco - Aspire TC-705, iCore 4790 3.6GHz, 12GB DDR3, WIN 10 Home 64 bit, Haswell chipset.
  
 I understand that Haswell and Skylake had significant performance improvements for GB Ethernet.
  
 So may be that's why the REDNET stuff launched in 2013 never took off, but now is a sota AOIP solution.


----------



## somestranger26

soundsgoodtome said:


> Great links Bob! There are a few tricks in the Windows PC tuning section of Focusrite's FAQ page that I have not tried yet, including disabling flow control and setting "interrupt moderation" for best performance. Both I've never had to touch before going into ethernet as a transport.
> 
> A lot of these tweaks I've done from previous readings into tweaking Windows 7 to be as audio-friendly as possible from a several years back but this is an excellent resource nonetheless. I may also turn off indexing as suggested, this particular pc is used for one use only. Performance is already in background services and virtual mem is set to 6500 currently but will try to max it at 10,000. I've also tried setting thread priorities manually in services (not in this focusrite guide) but no joy there as well. It's a head scratcher but my first guess would be the network settings above.


 
  
 I disabled the flow control and interrupt moderation, and am using the built-in Intel I210 on my motherboard. Those didn't help. I've used these latency checkers before and never had any issues shown with them.
  
 I used to have frequent and much longer USB dropouts when I had the original Audio-GD Digital Interface which was still using a crappy isochronous chip. That was when I was living in the dorms at college and the power quality was trash; when I moved off campus the mysterious dropouts disappeared. This makes me wonder if it's a similar issue in my current apartment, which has some of the worst power PS Audio's engineers have ever seen (it was constructed in 2014!!!). I've never had any dropouts with async USB, but who knows.
  
 I'm going to wait and see if the problem resolves itself when I move to a brand new condo in August, which should have much better power and I also had them run a dedicated circuit for audio.
  
 If that doesn't work, I'm going to reinstall W10 because I have no idea what drivers or software could  be causing it. The Thesycon download page recommended watching the DPC checker while disabling devices, but that isn't helpful when it's green 99.999% of the time and then 10ms every 15 minutes it has a huge latency spike. Very hard to diagnose. Increasing ASIO latency, buffer, etc. doesn't make a difference.
  
 I'm also going to be replacing my RAID SSDs with a single M2 NVMe SSD so I can then disable the RAID controller, SATA controller, and get four drives worth of noise out of the system.
  
 Here is my computer giving me the middle finger every 20 minutes:

  


rb2013 said:


> I tried the TeraDak LPS on the Sender optical Ethernet - that did improve things a bit.  One last try before sending back to Amazon.
> 
> Then tried taking the whole loop out of the Ethernet chain - I did notice a diminished bass depth.  So I guess it'll be staying in.  Not a night and day difference  - but I had the two LPS's already and for $100 worth keeping it.


 
  
 So no difference with LPS on receiver, and a small difference with LPS on both ends? Mine are on the way back. The $200 I gain returning the optical boxes and selling my LPS is better put toward an MC-3+ USB. Maybe I'll revisit these sort of tweaks once I upgrade my speakers and buy a better DAC for the speaker system. Currently looking at either a Dangerous Convert-2, Yggdrasil, or used PS Audio DirectStream. Speakers will be upgraded from Magnepan MMG to 3.7i.


----------



## jabbr

@SomeStranger
I seem to recall that one of the latency checkers is able to show which driver/software is causing the latency spikes.
You could let it run for some time and than check a table which shows which drivers/software cause how much maximum latency.

Don't know which one, but since there are only two around, it shouldn't be difficult to find the proper one.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

My pc passed the two latency tests, but still got skip. 

I did a bunch of stuff under the network card configuration and got it working proper with 24/192khz - something I've not been able to do before. Problem is now I've enabled everything I disabled but can't make 24/192khz not work anymore. 

More importantly, somestranger26, the high latency in my rednet control is now down to the green zone of 1-1.2 ms average whereas before it was 11-14 averaging in the red when sending 192khz.


----------



## Clemmaster

My Rednet 3 stills screws up my router's wifi, no matter what I do.
  
 Basically, when audio is streaming, the Wifi connection becomes extremely slow after one or two minutes (the devices are still connect, but the bars go down to 1 and report "no network connection").
 I'm wondering if the Rednet is using multi-cast and saturates the router?
  
 I upgraded to am Asus RT-AC56U with dual cores and 256MB ram, to no avail.
  
 In the end, I resorted to a direct connection from my laptop to the Rednet (no switch, straight cable. Thanks APIPA).
  
 Still, it's an annoying issue. I contacted Focusrite's support.


----------



## johnjen

SGTM, I don't remember if you are running your RN3 on it's own NIC, and network, or not.
  
 If not, this alone is (or can be) a major source of 'problems'.
  
 Just a thought.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

clemmaster said:


> My Rednet 3 stills screws up my router's wifi, no matter what I do.
> 
> Basically, when audio is streaming, the Wifi connection becomes extremely slow after one or two minutes (the devices are still connect, but the bars go down to 1 and report "no network connection").
> I'm wondering if the Rednet is using multi-cast and saturates the router?
> ...




If you run a Rednet over a switch or router into the rest of the local network, it can indeed lead to network congestion.
Audinate explicitly warns about this risk and gives clear instructions on how to setup your network switches.
Check out the Audinate website faq and support and also check out the Audinate channel on Youtube where they give very clear instructions and demo's.

Mind you, this is a Professional audio device and not a consumer level device, so they (rightfully) expect a certain level of knowledge and understanding of audio-over-ip networking. They do help you very much with their support documentation and videos though.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

It's a direct connect from pc to rednet 3, no networks to pass through or multi task (internet connection). Essentially an isolated pc connected directly to the Rednet 3.





johnjen said:


> SGTM, I don't remember if you are running your RN3 on it's own NIC, and network, or not.
> 
> If not, this alone is (or can be) a major source of 'problems'.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnjen

Yeah that’s about as 'clean' as it gets.
  
 As an added thought, have you made sure your registry is clean and is not fragmented?
  
 JJ


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> I disabled the flow control and interrupt moderation, and am using the built-in Intel I210 on my motherboard. Those didn't help. I've used these latency checkers before and never had any issues shown with them.
> 
> I used to have frequent and much longer USB dropouts when I had the original Audio-GD Digital Interface which was still using a crappy isochronous chip. That was when I was living in the dorms at college and the power quality was trash; when I moved off campus the mysterious dropouts disappeared. This makes me wonder if it's a similar issue in my current apartment, which has some of the worst power PS Audio's engineers have ever seen (it was constructed in 2014!!!). I've never had any dropouts with async USB, but who knows.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree the money is better spent on a MC-3+ USB.
  
 I'd checkout the Maggie 1.7qr or 1.6qr.  They fit most rooms better, are easier (Maggies are finicky) to cleanly drive, and have a very big sound compared to the MMG.  They're much cheaper then the 3.7i.
  
 The Absolute Sound had the 1.6qr's rated as one of their reference speakers.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> My pc passed the two latency tests, but still got skip.
> 
> I did a bunch of stuff under the network card configuration and got it working proper with 24/192khz - something I've not been able to do before. Problem is now I've enabled everything I disabled but can't make 24/192khz not work anymore.
> 
> More importantly, @somestranger26, the high latency in my rednet control is now down to the green zone of 1-1.2 ms average whereas before it was 11-14 averaging in the red when sending 192khz.


 
 Progress!
  


clemmaster said:


> My Rednet 3 stills screws up my router's wifi, no matter what I do.
> 
> Basically, when audio is streaming, the Wifi connection becomes extremely slow after one or two minutes (the devices are still connect, but the bars go down to 1 and report "no network connection").
> I'm wondering if the Rednet is using multi-cast and saturates the router?
> ...


 
 Dante is not compatible with Wifi I believe - nor Ravenna.


----------



## rb2013

As a cheaper alternative to the TeraDak LPS - to power the Sender (and maybe the receiver too) of the optical Ethernet LAN I will try with this Li Ion Battery:
  
Original XIAOMI 16000mAh Power Bank
  
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/151679157835?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true
  
 $19 
  
 Using one right now to power the LEX end of the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB entender - I think in this use it sounds better then the stock TeraDak X1.

  
 Worth a try.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Progress!
> 
> Dante is not compatible with Wifi I believe - nor Ravenna.




Dante devices cannot run over Wifi, but I believe the poster meant that his Wifi is slowing when his Dante is connected by CAT to the LAN. This is a situation that Audinate warns about and requires proper configuration of network switches.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Dante devices cannot run over Wifi, but I believe the poster meant that his Wifi is slowing when his Dante is connected by CAT to the LAN. This is a situation that Audinate warns about and requires proper configuration of network switches.


 

 I see - thanks


----------



## Clemmaster

jabbr said:


> Dante devices cannot run over Wifi, but I believe the poster meant that his Wifi is slowing when his Dante is connected by CAT to the LAN. This is a situation that Audinate warns about and requires proper configuration of network switches.


 
  
 This.
  
 I turns out I had a multicast flow enabled on my Rednet 3 that was hidden in the Dante controller I used to set it up. I might have tried to enable multi-cast to force the RN3 to show in the Rednet Controller (which didn't work) and left it there.
 Not really a problem anymore, since I isolated the RN3 from the main router.
  
 Focusrite answered few hours later and pointed me to the router's configuration. Great support!


----------



## jabbr

@Clemmaster: good work to find the multicast setting, which you surmised might be the cause.


@all:
Seeing the modular build of the Aqua La Scala DAC (and also Voce and Formula DACs), I dropped them a mail if they ever considered offering a Dante input using the Brooklyn II board. I think it should be relatively easy for them to incorporate. If they do, it will be the first audiophile DAC with direct Dante support, I believe.

Will relay their response.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> @Clemmaster: good work to find the multicast setting, which you surmised might be the cause.
> 
> 
> @all:
> ...


 

 And a mighty fine DAC to boot!  The La Scala Mk2 on my watch list for the used market.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> And a mighty fine DAC to boot!  The La Scala Mk2 on my watch list for the used market.




Did you already read about their new Formula DAC? http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/next-level-aqua-hifi-formula-la-scala-mkii-w-telefunken/

This might cause a few Scala MKII to come onto the market. We'll both be fighting over the same bone


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Did you already read about their new Formula DAC? http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/next-level-aqua-hifi-formula-la-scala-mkii-w-telefunken/
> 
> This might cause a few Scala MKII to come onto the market. We'll both be fighting over the same bone


 

 No let me check that out.  I love the La Scala is tubed and R2R PCM1704 DACs


----------



## rb2013

> Sossa had done just that. He’d rolled the stock tubes – either JJ or Genalex according to Aqua’s sales manager Stefano Jelo – for a pair of NOS Telefunken.
> And boy was Sossa excited about what he’d heard. So much so that he wanted yours truly to hear it for himself. And by Christmas I had the Telefunkens ready to roll.
> The schedule intrusion of CES 2016 meant I’d have to wait until February to plug the NOS tubes into their Aqua sockets for the first time and then again wait out CanJam SoCal until I could be be confident that burn-in doubts had fully dissolved. That was late March. Listening proper then took place, on and off, A and B, throughout April.
> These NOS (new old stock) tubes applied to this NOS (non-oversampling, filterless) decoder brought small but noticeable upticks in tonal colour saturation, soundstage depth and, most palpable of all, an even greater sense of ease – a defining characteristic (for this commentator) of digital done well.
> The best was now even better.


 
 He should here what the Russian HGs can do!
  
 I'd be interested in comparing the La Scala MK2 against my modded DAC60/HG combo.


----------



## rb2013

> That’s a proof-of-life diversion on Jelo’s other project. Back to Aqua. Back to the new flagship DAC. Back to basics – where tubes have gone bye-bye and where in-house built resistor ladders supplant the Burr Brown chips of the La Scala. Formula remains filterless with two R2R boards used per channel, one for each half of the waveform – four in total.
> 
> 
> 
> The Formula’s resistor ladder ‘branches’ deliver twice the sample-rate support of the *outgoing (and long discontinued) PCM1704 chips whose dwindling supply points to one reason why these Milanese have gone with a bespoke multibit solution. *The front panel sports eight LEDs indicating incoming PCM sample rates from 44.1kHz to 382kHz. They also make explicit Aqua’s ongoing red carding of DSD.


 
 $13k+ and no tubes!  Not my cup of tea.
  
 The only issue on the La Scala MK2 and AOIP with the RN3 - it does only up to 178k and the RN3 192k, but no 178k.  So a SR mismatch there.  Could run at 96k but that's not optimal for the LSMK2 filters.  But ideal for the DAC60.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> $13k+ and no tubes!  Not my cup of tea.
> 
> The only issue on the La Scala MK2 and AOIP with the RN3 - it does only up to 178k and the RN3 192k, but no 178k.  So a SR mismatch there.  Could run at 96k but that's not optimal for the LSMK2 filters.  But ideal for the DAC60.




No worries, it does 192 kHz


> - etherCON RJ45 AQlink (I2S serial bus) - 24 bit / 384 KHz
> - AES/EBU balanced 110 ohm - 24 bit / 192 KHz
> - BNC coax (S/PDIF) 75 ohm - 24 bit / 192 KHz
> - RCA coax (S/PDIF) 75 ohm - 24 bit / 192 KH
> ...




http://www.aquahifi.com/file/LaScala_datasheet_rev2_eng.pdf


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> No worries, it does 192 kHz
> http://www.aquahifi.com/file/LaScala_datasheet_rev2_eng.pdf


 

 I see I had misread the 6Moons review.  Excellent!
  
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/aqua/1.html
  


> If such an opinion seems quasi heretical—anti posh Mullard that is—I have another one to add to the mix. Performing PureMusic A/Bs between native 44.1kHz streaming and 4 x upsampling to 176.4kHz with 64-bit DSP in 'NOS mode', the latter sounded rounder and smoother without undermining exactitude. As Norbert Lindemann of German Lindemann Audio agrees, performing upsampling with free computer power rather than lower on-chip math is always superior. Whilst the La Scala II is a 'zero-sampling' deck, applying some upshifting to the signal before it ever hits the BB1704K chips can make for a small free bonus. And it's quickly defeated should you disagree or not hear any difference.


 
  
 But now noticed the final part:


> With that settled, I'd continue my comparisons with Aqua's stock glass, bolt the lid back on and use PureMusic's power-of-two math to this converter's max as set by its 192kHz ceiling.


 
 That's on the SPDIF coax input which is how he tested it.
  
 Must sound sweet with these Mullards or Tele 801s


> "My friend has a pair of his Brimar 12AX7 running for already 14'000 hours still testing strong. His
> tubes have been in my amp and preamp for a few thousand hours and perform beautifully. He travels
> the globe in search of all varieties of tubes.  Bar none he is _the_ most knowledgeably guy on tubes
> I've ever met. He has thousands in stock. Yes, thousands!" To be sure I'd leave no performance under
> ...


 
  
 Now feed this baby the RN/Mutec combo!  That would be something to hear.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> I see I had misread the 6Moons review.  Excellent!
> 
> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/aqua/1.html
> 
> ...




Read on to see his verdict about the Mullards



> As it turned out, sonic alienation was the verdict. With the Mullards at work, the sonic bandwidth narrowed to more midrange centric. The two octaves below middle C lost pluck and spunk. Gnarly bass lines working this range missed some impact and incisiveness. The two top octaves as the usual home of cymbal and triangle finesse fogged over and foreshortened decays. On a heavily reverberant recording like Sœur Marie Keyrouz's Psalms for the 3rd Millennium which sports church-recorded orchestra, chorus and solo vocals in a farfield perspective, the Mullards' thickness seemingly increased the venue's RT60 figure. This undermined separation and individuated distinctiveness for a bit of a Mists of Avalon effect. Vigorous Flamenco guitar arpeggios and chordal tremolos lost flash and brio to move away from on-string details. Like certain cat litter, I had clumps, not fine granules.
> 
> 
> Sonic alienation in this context means a strong personal suspicion. Aqua Hifi's very specific circuit tuning with their chosen and matched stock tubes got compromised when the Mullards mulled over the situation. Being very familiar with Aqua's La Voce II in my headfi nightstand system, I'm 100% sure that if the Mullards came stock, the circuit would have been revoiced to compensate. Without said compensation, the Mullards really did alienate what I thought was the design's original intention.


----------



## Danutz

Could I use Dante Via instead of DVS?
  
 Anybody tried with our Rednet's?
  
 Thanks


----------



## Muziqboy

I feel sorry for those folks who are trying all they can to dismiss the improvement in SQ that a lot of people here are hearing who already tried Dante RedNet AOIP compared to USB.
  
 I for one was glad that I took the risk in trying the RedNet AOIP without even knowing what I was getting myself into and now am very happy with the results.
  
 A big plus is also knowing that I will never ever have to buy any of the latest and greatest USB decrapifier device out there.
  
 We will probably hear a lot more bashing and trashing of this new found (to audiophiles) technology but all I'll say is the fuse have already been lit on AOIP and from here on it will only spread like wildfire!
  
  
  
 I'll say it again.
 USB AIN'T GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!


----------



## somestranger26

Did anyone replace the fuse in their RN3? I thought someone said they did, so I ordered a Padis fuse to try.
  
 I got it today and am trying to figure out where to install it; well, the manual says "there are no user-replaceable fuses in RedNet 3" and I don't see a way to access the fuse. I'm assuming it is in the IEC socket but there's no opening or anything. Either that, or it's in the switch in front which is on lockdown. They filled in the gaps in the screws that hold it to the chassis so that it can't be removed.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

somestranger26 said:


> Did anyone replace the fuse in their RN3? I thought someone said they did, so I ordered a Padis fuse to try.
> 
> I got it today and am trying to figure out where to install it; well, the manual says "there are no user-replaceable fuses in RedNet 3" and I don't see a way to access the fuse. I'm assuming it is in the IEC socket but there's no opening or anything. Either that, or it's in the switch in front which is on lockdown. They filled in the gaps in the screws that hold it to the chassis so that it can't be removed.


 
 This would be @johnjen  -- maybe this is the way to get the R3 to respond to different power cables? The fuse could be blocking and advantage power cables are having to it or maybe it's the SMPS.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Screen grabs of my latency tests (top 2), both software say PC is capable of streaming realtime audio.
  
 Second screen grab shows latency at to be under 4ms which is considered good by Dante software, you can also see the settings for everything Rednet/Dante in that 3rd screen.
  
 The last screen was the last step to achieve 24/192khz to work with my R3 and my slower 1.7ghz i7 over gigabit lan direct pc to R3 connect. First with the NiC enabled I unchecked everything and hit ok. Naturally the network card can not connect to anything without those services enabled. Then I turned them all on -- this was when 24/192khz became available to the Rednet. Then I started clicking things off one at a time to see which minimum set I need to run Rednet 3 and the last screenshot shows 3 items checked. I don't know what setting your setup this way will do to a computer hooked up over LAN that relies on other things besides feeding a Rednet with music so change this at your own risk.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Read on to see his verdict about the Mullards


 

 Good point!  So the Tele 801s it is!


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> I feel sorry for those folks who are trying all they can to dismiss the improvement in SQ that a lot of people here are hearing who already tried Dante RedNet AOIP compared to USB.
> 
> I for one was glad that I took the risk in trying the RedNet AOIP without even knowing what I was getting myself into and now am very happy with the results.
> 
> ...


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Screen grabs of my latency tests (top 2), both software say PC is capable of streaming realtime audio.
> 
> Second screen grab shows latency at to be under 4ms which is considered good by Dante software, you can also see the settings for everything Rednet/Dante in that 3rd screen.
> 
> The last screen was the last step to achieve 24/192khz to work with my R3 and my slower 1.7ghz i7 over gigabit lan direct pc to R3 connect. First with the NiC enabled I unchecked everything and hit ok. Naturally the network card can not connect to anything without those services enabled. Then I turned them all on -- this was when 24/192khz became available to the Rednet. Then I started clicking things off one at a time to see which minimum set I need to run Rednet 3 and the last screenshot shows 3 items checked. I don't know what setting your setup this way will do to a computer hooked up over LAN that relies on other things besides feeding a Rednet with music so change this at your own risk.


 
 So you got 192k to work with your laptop.  Perseverance pays off!


----------



## Luckbad

soundsgoodtome said:


> Screen grabs of my latency tests (top 2), both software say PC is capable of streaming realtime audio.
> 
> Second screen grab shows latency at to be under 4ms which is considered good by Dante software, you can also see the settings for everything Rednet/Dante in that 3rd screen.
> 
> The last screen was the last step to achieve 24/192khz to work with my R3 and my slower 1.7ghz i7 over gigabit lan direct pc to R3 connect. First with the NiC enabled I unchecked everything and hit ok. Naturally the network card can not connect to anything without those services enabled. Then I turned them all on -- this was when 24/192khz became available to the Rednet. Then I started clicking things off one at a time to see which minimum set I need to run Rednet 3 and the last screenshot shows 3 items checked. I don't know what setting your setup this way will do to a computer hooked up over LAN that relies on other things besides feeding a Rednet with music so change this at your own risk.


 
  
 Do not use Thesycon DPC Latency Checker on Windows 8 or Windows 10 systems.
  
 It's been bested since after Windows 7 and they don't seem keen on updating it. From their page:
  
*Windows 8 Compatibility:* The DPC latency utility runs on Windows 8 but does not show correct values. The output suggests that the Windows 8 kernel performs badly and introduces a constant latency of one millisecond, which is not the case in practice. DPCs in the Windows 8 kernel behave identical to Windows 7. The utility produces incorrect results because the implementation of kernel timers has changed in Windows 8, which causes a side effect with the measuring algorithm used by the utility. Thesycon is working on a new version of the DPC latency utility and will make it available on this site as soon as it is finished.


----------



## Luckbad

Okay, first impressions of the Rednet 3:
  

Holy crap, this is twice as big as my mind's eye told me it would be.
Why the hell did they give me a brand new device with firmware so old it won't be recognized by what they tell me to download?
Ugh, what a pain in the butt, this is taking forever, give me my music.
Wait, after my manual firmware update you're updating the firmware again? Amateur hour.
I regret my purchase. This is gigantic and a sloppy user experience.
Okay, finally, it looks like I've made progress and just need to click a couple of channels to get things working.
God damnit it sounds great.
  
 Currently I'm just pumping 192kHz to my MHDT Labs Canary of all things because that's what I had hooked up. It may very well sound better than the Mutec MC-3+USB. I'm honestly afraid to chain that after the Rednet 3 now.
  
 Now to find the settings @rb2013 experimented and landed on.


----------



## Luckbad

Dayum.

I technically built my machine for gaming, but that translates to great audio performance as well.

Sample Rate: 192kHz
Dante Latency: 4ms
Buffer: 128 samples
Enconding: 24 bits / sample
Asio Latency: 1 ms
Rednet Latency: 150 microseconds

My machine's relevant specs:

CPU: Intel i7-4790K
Motherboard: Gigabyte Z97X Gaming GT
RAM: 16GB G.Skill TridentX DDR3 2400
Ethernet: Killer E2200 (Qualcomm Atheros)


----------



## somestranger26

luckbad said:


> Okay, first impressions of the Rednet 3:
> 
> 
> Holy crap, this is twice as big as my mind's eye told me it would be.
> ...


 

 Pretty much my thoughts, except I knew that it was basically the size of my Master 11.
  
@rb2013 has 1024 ASIO buffer, 1ms ASIO latency, 4ms Dante Latency, 150us Rednet latency (set in dante controller). He said the Rednet latency affected the sound in his experience.
  
 Check out the ASIO Bridge (Hifi Audio Cable) here if you want to play games etc. without switching DVS from ASIO to WDM. http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> Okay, first impressions of the Rednet 3:
> 
> 
> Holy crap, this is twice as big as my mind's eye told me it would be.
> ...


Patience grasshopper, patience...Lol! 
Wait until you tweek it a bit and a lot some burn - then drop in the Mutec explosion...good things await ye!

Steely Aja never, ever, I mean LP, SACD, as what I just heard from a good old 44k Redbook shot through the loop.

Ok this is insane SQ.


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> Dayum.
> 
> I technically built my machine for gaming, but that translates to great audio performance as well.
> 
> ...


Damn son, sub 1ms..bravo!


----------



## Muziqboy

luckbad said:


> Okay, first impressions of the Rednet 3:
> 
> 
> Holy crap, this is twice as big as my mind's eye told me it would be.
> ...




Another satisfied customer.
Congrats and Welcome to the club!

Yes! Spreading like Wildfire.


----------



## Luckbad

somestranger26 said:


> Pretty much my thoughts, except I knew that it was basically the size of my Master 11.
> 
> @rb2013
> has 1024 ASIO buffer, 1ms ASIO latency, 4ms Dante Latency, 150us Rednet latency (set in dante controller). He said the Rednet latency affected the sound in his experience.
> ...




Ah right. Yeah, I'm using 150 microsecond Rednet latency also.


----------



## joelha

So tonight I tried the optical option again and started getting ticks in the sound.

I switched back and still had the same issue.

Even adjusting latency and rebooting my server didn't help.

Strangely, after I don't know what, the issue went away.

Anyone else have this type of issue?

Joel


----------



## Currawong

muziqboy said:


> I feel sorry for those folks who are trying all they can to dismiss the improvement in SQ that a lot of people here are hearing who already tried Dante RedNet AOIP compared to USB.
> 
> I for one was glad that I took the risk in trying the RedNet AOIP without even knowing what I was getting myself into and now am very happy with the results.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
  
 Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.


----------



## rb2013

currawong said:


> I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> 
> Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.


Well I have 10yr+ experience with Pro Audio gear, going back pre async USB, to FF to get 192k tp. Nothing sounded even close to this.

I call the Third Gen of computer audio. Unlike anything USB or Upnp/DNLP...a Sea Change not just in computer audio...but Audio itself.

Mark my words...you heard it here first.


----------



## rb2013

Truth does not hide in a cave, cower in the face of a challenge. No, truth is a lion roaring to be heard! 


We have left a mark, at the cutting edge of audio. And like a large rock dropped into a big pond, have been privy to the first wave rippling out.

The shore bites back, but to no avail, ultimately the truth wins...what side are you on?


----------



## rb2013

If closed we will move elsewhere, to Headfi's demise. Go ahead and shut us down if you choose...but the Truth will pevail.

Time for us to leave the sponsor confines of Headfi, I see they do not value the immense traffic we generate.

This my LAST post here...I will not be censored by paid sponor pressure...this is too important.

So Goodbye Headfi..will reemerge elsewhere.

The Truth must prevail!!!


----------



## joelha

Obviously I missed something.

What the heck happened?

Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Obviously I missed something.
> 
> What the heck happened?
> 
> Joel


Before @currawonga's post, I recieved a mod PM a admonishment. Done here. **** these guys.


----------



## joelha

Nevermind. I saw the related post.

I hope nothing happens to this thread.

It's been great.

Joel


----------



## hugoboss

wait guys i think this statement is very right *"us versus them" mentality*
  
*as long as we dont attack other brand or other people that's fine nothing wrong so just dont attack other brand/people*
*keep going!*


----------



## Clemmaster

Going back to my Wifi issue: disabling the multi-cast transmit from the RN3 did solve the issue. The bisterd was flooding my Wifi with digital silence from the unplugged SPDIF input 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 Now, the Asus RT-AC56U seemed to have lost the ability to disable Multicast forwarding to Wifi with firmware updates (it's in the manual, but not in the GUI), which could be annoying.


----------



## Muziqboy

currawong said:


> *I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically*, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> 
> Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.


 
  
 My suggestion is try to get a hold of either a RedNet 3 or D16 if you can and perform your own experimentation and comparison between it and your current usb transport.


----------



## johnjen

Yeah I'll be experimenting with an 'Audio' grade fuse.
  
 It's located on the power supply board inside the case.
  
 It's a 2amp slow blow rated fuse.
  
 I will also be adapting an Audio Sensibility AES 110Ω cable to the AES DB-25 breakout connector, along with some Mogami and Canare 110Ω wire to compare against.
 It may not be a fair comparison, for several reasons…
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

currawong said:


> I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> 
> Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.


 
  
 Well this has become just sad.
  
 First I agree that we should not bash others or specific brands... or exercise the passive form which is aggressive defensiveness. I also appreciate some degree of moderator intervention. I have probably reported more low tone posts this year than in the past 14 years I have been on HF and CA but I also believe in free speech. When this thread was shut down previously I started a new thread which I hoped would be less contentious. When this thread was "cleansed" and reopened my thread was closed without asking me first. I would have agreed however I felt slighted in the process.
  
 I am concerned that new ideas may be lost in the struggle here. That would be extremely sad as AOIP is probably the biggest thing I have encountered since I began my audio exploration 35 years ago.
  
 On a side note. I would not dismiss the benefits of AOIP so easily to Pro Audio "high standards". You can spend a lot more money on audiophile USB band-aides or USB based streaming devices and not come close to this kind of improvement and most of these devices are built to a high standard, examples being Uptone, Mutec, and Berkeley Labs. I sincerely hope you will give it a try to find out why there seems to be enthusiasm in this thread.
  
 Let's all keep an open mind even as we express our opinions and offer differing or contrary personal experiences.
  
 Best,
  
 Paul


----------



## jabbr

currawong said:


> I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> 
> Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.




It is unfortunate to see a biased moderator.
I hope this will not lead to 'giving one side more leeway' than the other. Something I fear I already notice.


----------



## Currawong

jabbr said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> ...


 

 It is sad to see someone who doesn't seem to understand what I just said. It isn't about "sides".
  
 Yes, I hope eventually I might be able to give one of these things a try, especially as the best results I've had with digital transports has been my iPad streaming high-res (that is audio over IP!). I reckon that, compared with expensive USB converters, one of which I own, the reason these AOIP devices give better results is that you're paying for the tech, and subsequent performance, rather than paying a regular audiophile component mark-up, where manufacturers _must_ put a high price on things for people to take notice.


----------



## jabbr

currawong said:


> It is sad to see someone who doesn't seem to understand what I just said. It isn't about "sides".
> 
> ...




No need to be sad , I got your message. And I agree it is not *about* sides, but I think it is an illusion this will not lead to forming of sides. There are always proponents and opponents and you see people vehemently defending their 'right' choices. However you also see (the same) people bursting in everywhere (even across fora) to 'pick a fight' or at least 'telling people they're wrong'.

Call me a sceptic, but I see it happening everywhere and everytime, except on some small, non-commercial fora.

I will ly low and see how things develop, but freedom of speech, even with fierce arguments from different sides, is worthwhile to be allowed, and a moderator should be mindful to *who* is actually derailing a thread when this happens.


----------



## Luckbad

Just to confirm, the Rednet 3 doesn't come with the DB25 AES breakout cable, correct? Mine didn't have one and I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing a component.


----------



## mhamel

luckbad said:


> Just to confirm, the Rednet 3 doesn't come with the DB25 AES breakout cable, correct? Mine didn't have one and I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing a component.


 
  
 It does not - you need to either buy or make one.


----------



## Iving

currawong said:


> I don't believe it has to do with AOIP specifically, but the quality of the design of the devices you have all bought, which will have been designed to extremely high standards, given they are intended for pro-audio users.
> 
> Something you will need to avoid is the "us versus them" mentality. If this thread is going to turn into what is effectively an "appreciation" thread (which we don't allow any longer) where balanced discussion is put down and people are attacked, it's going to end up closed, which would be unfortunate.


 
  
 On the first point: it is certainly true that Pro Audio devices possess a more robust or less prissy feel. If they do the job of generating rock 'n' roll / musical mojo well enough (for aren't we all victims of a certain kind of disease of perception), then that is an advantage in my books. Most of the discussion, of course tho', is audiophile= or SQ-hinged. I would like to set a small example by saying just that I have tried both, and have a clear preference - *on these grounds too* - for AOIP in its Dante/Rednet guise. I don't have an axe to grind: if you prefer something else that is fine. I don't mind. I hope you don't mind me. If you do, I am not in.
  
 On the second point: as far as I have seen, rb2013 simply injects a mountain of enthusiastic and catching energy into a pioneering thread - even if we private users join the Pro Audio party late by a couple of years. If I have seen "us versus them"; If I have seen "people being put down and attacked"; If I have seen a thread closed; well I have not seen any of this emanating from rb2013 as a proximate cause - but rather from a very small minority who possibly already have their own "appreciation" environments online - and simply come in as marauders to rub people up the wrong way. Comments like the one posted above are broadly aimed, but the implication is clear enough. Assessments are too cursory. Or you've got the wrong man.


----------



## Clemmaster

currawong said:


> It is sad to see someone who doesn't seem to understand what I just said. It isn't about "sides".
> 
> Yes, I hope eventually I might be able to give one of these things a try, especially as the best results I've had with digital transports has been my iPad streaming high-res (that is audio over IP!). I reckon that, compared with expensive USB converters, one of which I own, the reason these AOIP devices give better results is that you're paying for the tech, and subsequent performance, rather than paying a regular audiophile component mark-up, where manufacturers _must_ put a high price on things for people to take notice.


 
 I don't think Schiit needs to put a high price for people to take notice. Performance and clever marketing do the trick.
  
 And no, your iPad streaming hi-res is NOT what this thread is about.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_over_Ethernet


----------



## Danutz

danutz said:


> Could I use Dante Via instead of DVS?
> 
> Anybody tried with our Rednet's?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Luckbad

danutz said:


>


 
  
 Do you have a Rednet yet? You could download the trial if so. If not, one of us can probably try it. I haven't seen a need yet, though.


----------



## somestranger26

> I reckon that, compared with expensive USB converters, one of which I own, the reason these AOIP devices give better results is that you're paying for the tech, and subsequent performance, rather than paying a regular audiophile component mark-up, where manufacturers _must_ put a high price on things for people to take notice.


 
  
 $1000 for the RN3 and $1600 for the D16 is a pretty significant chunk of change. You can get the most ridiculously overpriced USB converters like Offramp or Berkeley Audio for that much. There is plenty of markup in these units... the box may be large but the board barely takes up any space and has few components. Other than the Dante module, it's probably $<100 worth of parts. It's not like there aren't good and bad pro audio devices or that they don't have plenty large markups as well.


----------



## Clemmaster

You're not just paying for the product.
 You're paying for support as well. From experience, Focusrite's support is top notch.
  
 People seem to forget that engineering cost a lot of money -> "There's $0 part cost in most software engineering, yet softwares cost money. What gives!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 You're paying for Dante's technology. Not just the Brooklyn board, but the license Focusrite had to pay to use their Intellectual Property.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

The one thing about focusrite that I'm really impressed by (their rednet dept) is their knowledge of systems like the back of their hand. These guys aren't going through some step by step instructions but actually figuring things like an actual technician, and our simple single unit woes are probably easy peasy compared to dealing with a studio trouble shoot with multiple focusrite units. 

Focusrite paid 10k for their sdk is what I read, not major but there's that. I'm sure Dante is marking up their board units as well before it gets to focusrite.

What I appreciate about pro audio is their non voodoo oil approach of marketing. Make an engineer happy and you'll sell stuff vs mark up so the upper echelon audiophiles push the stuff but can't abx their own when asked. *sneeze

Luckbad - no breakout cable included but you'll want a Tascam configuration breakout not Yamaha (two common premade breakout cables).


----------



## mourip

danutz said:


>


 
 Have not tried it but have been poking it a bit online. I am not sure that it will work for the SQ we probably want but could be useful for routing sound from other PCs to your main system or playing something like Pandora via your DVS.
  
 Here is a pretty good Youtube video that gives some ideas about how it can be used.
  
 https://youtu.be/zrBK94KwBLM


----------



## jabbr

danutz said:


>




Why would you want to use a piece of software maxed at 48kHz???


----------



## Danutz

Ah ok, did only notice that it is limited to two channels, as I don't need more, I thought that it could be appropriated for "our" uses.... perhaps lower latencys could be possible -> better SQ!?
  
 I did not dare to try it for myself, as I was lucky getting my system to play and would not like to mess it up, as I would have to desactivate DVS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Another reason: there's a Windows 10 version


----------



## ciphercomplete

Danutz said:
			
		

> .Ah ok, did only notice that it is limited to two channels, as I don't need more, I thought that it could be appropriated for "our" uses.... perhaps lower latencys could be possible -> better SQ!?




Not in my experience. Now if you are pumping sounds through all channels at once then yeah there could be limitations on sample rate size and higher latency. 

I really think those latency controls only matter when you are daisy chaining 4,5 or 6 or more rednet devices where each adds a bit of latency. But if you are only using one it really should be a non issue.


----------



## debjitg

Chris over at CA reported an issue with wireless networking when using Revena based device. Did anyone had this issue with Rednet ? If so, how did you solve it ?
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index7.html#post557912


----------



## somestranger26

johnjen said:


> Yeah I'll be experimenting with an 'Audio' grade fuse.
> 
> It's located on the power supply board inside the case.
> 
> ...


 

 Ah found it. Swapped it out easily enough and I think it made a difference. I don't feel like swapping them out to A/B.


----------



## johnjen

In the past it seemed to take an hour or so before the full effect of an 'audio grade' fuse became evident.
  
 Also if the SQ doesn't appreciably improve or change after that initial 1-2 hrs, you might consider reversing it in it's holder.
  
 Sometimes there is a marked difference in SQ based upon 'directionality' of the fuse.
  
 JJ


----------



## somestranger26

@johnjen The fuses I bought are supposed to be directional according to the writing orientation on the side. I'm assuming the flow of electricity is from where the power wires connect to the PCB to the right so that's how I installed it. I also just moved one of my Pangea AC9 power cables from a power amp to the RN3. I definitely think there's an increase in detail and a more black background.


----------



## gldgate

I agree that with outfits like RedNet you are not just paying for product - you are also paying for support. I was having a problem finding my "token" to get free Audinate s/w. I called RedNet and within 15 minutes was talking to a real, live human. Pro Audio is a different beast. If equipment is not up and running people lose $$. Compare this to many consumer audio firms where the only life-line you have is via e-mail. I've heard horror stories over at CA where folks don't get support response for weeks.


----------



## jabbr

debjitg said:


> Chris over at CA reported an issue with wireless networking when using Revena based device. Did anyone had this issue with Rednet ? If so, how did you solve it ?
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index7.html#post557912



Hi dibjitg

1. It is not an issue when you connect your computer directly to the Rednet
2. If you connect via a switch, It only happens when you have turned on Multicast on your Rednet devices (which includes also the DVS).
By default it is turned off, So, just leave it off.
3. If you feel you still need Multicasting, and really you don't, you can configure your switch to route Multicast packages to specific devices only, when you have a managed switch.

But really you should never have to come to option 3. in a home setting.

And Chris at CA either doesn't understand Multicasting, or his Ravenna device doesn't allow to switch it off.
Usually it is a lack of knowledge.

Cheers


----------



## Luckbad

I am honestly trying to convince myself that I don't need this Rednet 3. It sounds excellent, but I really wasn't expecting a full rack size device. I'm trying to make myself return or sell this thing and get back into AOIP after a more basic device exists.
  
 If someone wants a discount on a day old unit, feel free to try to push me over the edge via PM.  I'm still using the free trial of Dante so you'd still get the code.


----------



## mtoc

luckbad said:


> I am honestly trying to convince myself that I don't need this Rednet 3


 
  
 Is that so, so why you post on here


----------



## motberg

It seems to me the post was to help find a quick buyer as an accelerant to his decision making... no ?
  
 I would like to try this, but since I currently do not have a home wired network, and am not in the USA for support, and AES/SPDIF is not my DAC's best input, and I would like to try higher resolutions (maybe upsampled PCM or DSD)... I will also hang out a while and hope all the noise here generates some interest in the manufacturers..
  
 Many thanks to all those posting, I hope we will see more DAC's with this or similar input shortly...


----------



## mtoc

motberg said:


> I currently do not have a home wired network


 
  
 Lord it has nothing to do with what wired network.....just an interface


----------



## mourip

luckbad said:


> I am honestly trying to convince myself that I don't need this Rednet 3. It sounds excellent, but I really wasn't expecting a full rack size device. I'm trying to make myself return or sell this thing and get back into AOIP after a more basic device exists.
> 
> If someone wants a discount on a day old unit, feel free to try to push me over the edge via PM.  I'm still using the free trial of Dante so you'd still get the code.


 
  
 The form factor is not great but the sound is magic. It could be a year before someone makes a solid audiophile two channel device that equals the RN3 or RN D16.
  
 I would just return it rather than try to sell it because it looks like the warranty is not transferable so unless you really drop the price substantially it will not be a good deal for someone else. Also you can get refurbs with a full warranty from Sweetwater at a $100 to $150 discount depending on the model.
  
_"In every case it will be necessary to provide a copy of the original invoice or store receipt to the distributor. In the event that you are unable to provide proof of purchase directly then you should contact the reseller from whom you purchased the product and attempt to obtain proof of purchase from them."_
  
 This probably means that only the original seller can get warranty work for the one year warranty. This seems to be most common among audio manufacturers. One exception is Pass Labs who will even repair for free after the warranty runs out because they get so few returns for defects.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I would suggest for the simple users who are not tech savvy or don't have a computer savvy friend to help to maybe wait for the 2ch version (if that's even coming). This is the only down side along with the physical size.





mtoc said:


> Lord it has nothing to do with what wired network.....just an interface






luckbad said:


> I am honestly trying to convince myself that I don't need this Rednet 3. It sounds excellent, but I really wasn't expecting a full rack size device. I'm trying to make myself return or sell this thing and get back into AOIP after a more basic device exists.
> 
> If someone wants a discount on a day old unit, feel free to try to push me over the edge via PM.  I'm still using the free trial of Dante so you'd still get the code.



I wouldn't hesitate buying from Luckbad, good prices and excellent to mint condition gear. Super fast shipping too.


----------



## Luckbad

mourip said:


> The form factor is not great but the sound is magic. It could be a year before someone makes a solid audiophile two channel device that equals the RN3 or RN D16.


 
  
 That really is true. I listened to it on the Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 MKII going into an ampsandsound Mogwai for hours last night. I planned on going to sleep a couple hours early and ended up staying up really late.
  
 I'm starting to go through my "holy **** I have too much audio gear I better keep my wife happy and my toddler en route to college one day" phase right now.
  
 That means I'm downsizing both monetarily and physically in my audio gear investment.
  
 My Sonic Frontiers DAC already sold before I got to listing it, so that gorgeous (buy large) puppy is on its way out the door tomorrow. I've even thought about selling my Mogwai, but I don't think that's going to happen.
  
 If the Rednet gets returned or sold, it won't be because of the sound. I'm trying to figure out a good way to keep it tucked out of sight right now.
  
 The main reason I was thinking of selling it instead of returning it is because I used a gift card at Sweetwater, so I'd just be getting that back (they had a "get 10% extra on your gift card for Father's Day" promo going).
  
 But man... after making a couple adjustments to my ethernet settings, I had zero dropouts (as opposed to one the first day) and the sound is simply outstanding.
  
 I'm looking into small desktop racks like this that might fit. The Rednet 3 is 2U in size, right?
  
 https://www.etsy.com/listing/385003274/cedar-desktop-studio-rack-2-x-2u


----------



## wushuliu

luckbad said:


> I am honestly trying to convince myself that I don't need this Rednet 3. It sounds excellent, but I really wasn't expecting a full rack size device. I'm trying to make myself return or sell this thing and get back into AOIP after a more basic device exists.
> 
> If someone wants a discount on a day old unit, feel free to try to push me over the edge via PM.  I'm still using the free trial of Dante so you'd still get the code.


 

 Well you could get the smaller Atterotech Un-DAES and compare it to the RedNet. Cheaper too


----------



## Iving

luckbad said:


> It sounds excellent, but I really wasn't expecting a full rack size device. I'm trying to make myself return or sell this thing and get back into AOIP after a more basic device exists.


 
  


luckbad said:


> If the Rednet gets returned or sold, it won't be because of the sound.
> 
> ... the sound is simply outstanding.
> I'm looking into small desktop racks like this that might fit. The Rednet 3 is 2U in size, right?
> ...


 
  
 I have the D16 AES which looks even less "domestic" than the R3.
 I agree about the sound!
 Mine's such a "keeper" that I fettled my own furniture for it.
 Shabby chic buttercup doesn't look too shabby to me!


----------



## somestranger26

mourip said:


> _"In every case it will be necessary to provide a copy of the original invoice or store receipt to the distributor. In the event that you are unable to provide proof of purchase directly then you should contact the reseller from whom you purchased the product and attempt to obtain proof of purchase from them."_
> 
> This probably means that only the original seller can get warranty work for the one year warranty. This seems to be most common among audio manufacturers. One exception is Pass Labs who will even repair for free after the warranty runs out because they get so few returns for defects.


 
 While I agree that returning it is the smartest choice, I do not at all think that having to provide proof of purchase means the warranty is non-transferable. That is standard for pretty much any warranty ever. The proof of purchase has the date you bought it on. How else would they know when the warranty period started?


----------



## prot

soundsgoodtome said:


> Screen grabs of my latency tests (top 2), both software say PC is capable of streaming realtime audio.
> 
> Second screen grab shows latency at to be under 4ms which is considered good by Dante software, you can also see the settings for everything Rednet/Dante in that 3rd screen.
> 
> The last screen was the last step to achieve 24/192khz to work with my R3 and my slower 1.7ghz i7 over gigabit lan direct pc to R3 connect. First with the NiC enabled I unchecked everything and hit ok. Naturally the network card can not connect to anything without those services enabled. Then I turned them all on -- this was when 24/192khz became available to the Rednet. Then I started clicking things off one at a time to see which minimum set I need to run Rednet 3 and the last screenshot shows 3 items checked. I don't know what setting your setup this way will do to a computer hooked up over LAN that relies on other things besides feeding a Rednet with music so change this at your own risk.




As someone else already mentioned, that thesycon app is useless for win8/10. And your DPC numbers dont look good at all, the ~300 median is pretty bad and you have spikes over 500. Judging by the screenshots, the nvidia card is the biggest issue (check the drivers tab in LatencyMon to see all). I guess you have an nvidia optimus laptop. Nvidia drivers are quite often mentioned in Dpc threads and optimus is the worse possible config. You should disable the extra nvidia card in the bios. And it's always a good idea to disable all unused devices in DeviceManager: e.g. webcam, usb devices, internal soundcard, etc..


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I bought this "Whalen Audio Video Tower" on Amazon for $100 to hold my dac, amp, rednet, power conditioner, speaker amp, PlayStation, and blu-ray . I'm thinking of painting the Rednet with black plastidip to keep the black scheme of the rack. And if I ever want to go back to red I'd just peel the plastidip off.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I will run it again later and check the drivers. Although the only nvidia device in device mgr is the gt425 video card..





prot said:


> As someone else already mentioned, that thesycon app is useless for win8/10. And your DPC numbers dont look good at all, the ~300 median is pretty bad and you have spikes over 500. Judging by the screenshots, the nvidia card is the biggest issue (check the drivers tab in LatencyMon to see all). I guess you have an nvidia optimus laptop. Nvidia drivers are quite often mentioned in Dpc threads and optimus is the worse possible config. You should disable the extra nvidia card in the bios. And it's always a good idea to disable all unused devices in DeviceManager: e.g. webcam, usb devices, internal soundcard, etc..


----------



## mourip

iving said:


> I have the D16 AES which looks even less "domestic" than the R3.
> I agree about the sound!
> Mine's such a "keeper" that I fettled my own furniture for it.
> Shabby chic buttercup doesn't look too shabby to me!


 
  Nice. What kind of speakers are those?


----------



## Luckbad

Testing the Rednet 3 out as a gaudy monitor stand. It really does sound incredible. Gonna roll with it like this for a week. If I swap back to the Mutec and feel like I'm missing something after that, it stays.


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> Nice. What kind of speakers are those?


 

 Snell Type A III (designed by Peter Qvortrup, here vertically bi-amped courtesy of 2 x DADA-modified Quad 909s)


----------



## Iving

luckbad said:


> it stays


----------



## johnjen

So I have ≈300 hrs on my RN3 and it just keeps getting 'better'.
 Right now the SQ is starting to blossom (on the upswing) and the individual 'voices' are increasing in focus and differentiation.
  
 I'll be testing a variety of fuses here in the near future and today I just added the ether–>fibre–>ether system between my Mac and the RN3.
  
 So far it seems 'better' but right now the difference is on the threshold of perceptibility at this point.
  
 I did measure the noise' from the cheap SMPS that comes with the TP-LINK devices
  

  
 That's 34.6mv peak to peak or ≈24mv rms of noise from that wall wart, not to mention the waveform shape, not being a sine wave, is adding even more hi-freq harmonics…
 I even added a .22mfd bypass cap to see if it would help but alas it made no difference.
 I can see why a cleaner PS would be 'better'.
  
 Also my AES parts and cables are on their way, so next week I should have even MOAR to fuss with.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

I'm going to just give in and order a RN3 this weekend. I highly, highly doubt a 2-channel version will be coming any time soon and once it does I don't think it will be much cheaper - if the AM2 is $400, Atterotech with Ultimo 24/96 $599, then a Brooklyn based card will be at least $100 more is my guess. If it gets ‘audiophile’ treatment, it’ll be even more – maybe even more than the RN 3! Also, another question is what are the chances the tech will improve within the next few years in terms of sound quality? What would that entail?
  
 I still have a diy sd card player project going, so there will be an opportunity to compare, which should be interesting.


----------



## gefski

soundsgoodtome said:


> I bought this "Whalen Audio Video Tower" on Amazon for $100 to hold my dac, amp, rednet, power conditioner, speaker amp, PlayStation, and blu-ray . I'm thinking of painting the Rednet with black plastidip to keep the black scheme of the rack. And if I ever want to go back to red I'd just peel the plastidip off.





I'm glad (and hoping) your'e kidding.

KEFs huh?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

gefski said:


> I'm glad (and hoping) your'e kidding.
> 
> KEFs huh?




The thought crossed my mind and I do have a fresh can in the garage. It's an easy 2 way ticket if you get 6 coats of plastidip and the red looks good as new. Maybe I'll keep it red or maybe The Rolling Stones planted a sublimibug.

Yes yes, some old school gems of speakers. RB2013 gave me a good deal on em.


----------



## Luckbad

If Plastidip works, it'd make me more likely to keep the Rednet. It's distracting how red it is since it sits right under my monitor.


----------



## mhamel

Another source for those of you looking to rack up the Rednet boxes.... http://nice-racks.com/
  
 I've got two racks from him and they're very nice. I don't think he's been in the best of health, so he's only taking orders by request. His prices are very good considering it's all custom work.


----------



## mourip

luckbad said:


> If Plastidip works, it'd make me more likely to keep the Rednet. It's distracting how red it is since it sits right under my monitor.


 
  
 Since there is nothing to really monitor on that front panel how about just making a strip of black thick construction paper and let it mask the front. No fuss, no muss....
  
 That is my plan if I get a second one for the headphone system in my office.


----------



## markus94103

Good news, I just heard back from Focusrite's director of marketing and she said she'd be happy to loan me a Rednet AM2 for a review. I'll make sure to bring it to the Seattle Redhook meet on July 30th if it arrives in time. Looking forward to seeing @Soundsgoodtome @Muziqboy and others there if you guys are able to make it.
  
 I'll post initial impressions here as soon as the AM2 arrives. If anyone in Seattle would like to meet up to audition the unit, just let me know.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Very nice! I'd be interested. Have a Audeze Sine incoming too.

Also alpha421 had direct interest on an Am2 as well. 





markus94103 said:


> Good news, I just heard back from Focusrite's director of marketing and she said she'd be happy to loan me a Rednet AM2 for a review. I'll make sure to bring it to the Seattle Redhook meet on July 30th if it arrives in time. Looking forward to seeing @Soundsgoodtome
> @Muziqboy
> and others there if you guys are able to make it.
> 
> I'll post initial impressions here as soon as the AM2 arrives. If anyone in Seattle would like to meet up to audition the unit, just let me know.


----------



## alpha421

I'll be at the meet, so I'll be looking forward to hearing the AM2.


----------



## Iving

At last my new system, with RedNet at its heart instead of USB, is up and running - although having had still only about 36-48 hours of settling-in.
  
 Because of one thing and another, so much of the system has changed, that now I can't with great certainty attribute SQ aspects to exactly or only one component.
  
 Before:
 PC(s) > Corning Optical USB 3.Optical™ Cable > SBooster Vbus2 Isolator > Hard Adapter > REGEN (stock PS) > Hard Adapter > Gustard U12 > Linn AV 5103 pre-amp with built-in DAC
  
 Now:
 PC(s) > Unremarkable Cat 6 cable > D16 AES > van den Hul AES/EBU 110 ohm Professional cable > Dangerous Convert-2 > bespoke Pure Silver Shielded XLR/RCA interconnects with Pin 3 floating courtesy Achtung Audio > Linn AV 5103 pre-amp
 with settings:
 fb2k:
        W7 Server - Sox @ 192000/Best
        W10 Player [UPnP Browser] - min buffer 50ms OK but 2000ms needed for gapless
 DVS:
        Dante Latency: 4ms (Windows 10 tablet peaking at 1.9ms)
        ASIO Buffer: 128 (tried 1024 as recommended by rb2013 but went back to 128)
        ASIO Encoding: 32 bits
        ASIO Latency: 1ms
 RedNet Control:
        SR 192000
        ASIO Buffer 128
 Dante Controller:
        SP3 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Encoding: PCM 32
        D16 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Latency - 250us (150us is greyed out)
  
 An intermezzo in which an Yggdrasil was willing to pas de deux with my D16 via AES even if sulking via RCA/Phono* was sufficient to assert RedNet credentials (using only a microphone cable as AES conduit). My first impression was that some space and detail in the USB set up had been sacrificed for solidity and depth, but it was difficult to gain firm impressions because I was too distracted with equipment problems. I suppose I was vindicated in my doubts about the integrity of the Yggdrasil and it went back as a return. Somewhat sensitised, and leaning towards a Pro Audio replacement (both to avoid fussy spdif pathways and also to exploit the AES output of the D16) I ordered a Dangerous Convert-2 based on open and PM recommendations from @mhamel. There are only AES analog outputs on this DAC and they are active-balanced; accordingly, I ordered some good interconnects with Pin 3 floating (having been told that 99% of standard XLR/Phono interconnects have Pin 3 tied to Pin 1 and there is commensurate risk of damage to amplifiers downstream).
  
 *btw - I have been told that my Yggdrasil was, after all, faulty at the RCA/Phono input; moreover, Focusrite are quite sure that a D16 AES worked correctly with a "demo" Yggy. Our account of "finicky" consumer DACs which take the Pro-only RedNet boxes at their (copyright control) word must, then, remain provisional pending more abundant reports of RedNet > DAC success/failure or corroboration of a firmware or other adjustment which eliminates identified transmission problems.
  
 I admit I didn't venture as far as a microrendu USB upgrade and can't know how for comparison purposes my system might sound had I done so. Going the RedNet way was an important decision point, and I am absolutely glad I took the plunge (even if it has left me somewhat debt-ridden). My reasons were many but included a very strong preference for fb2k and its interface/operability (I would have had to sacrifice Library Viewer and UPnP Browser for UPnP Controller had I purchased a microrendu).
  
 Quite some years ago in pre-USB times I would use a Presonus Inspire 1394 with considerable satisfaction. RedNet is like Firewire with bollocks. The two main aspects of SQ for me are:
 1) the layers upon layers after layers of depth which create a (Phil) Spector-like "wall of sound": now I consider that everything transparent in USB was like contrast (especially in upper registers) created with an EQ: hissy, fussy, artificial.
 2) the quality of the bottom end: my Snell Type A III are more than capable of stunning bass, and USB was capable of delivering it - now, however, there is something about the lower registers that isn't just "tighter" or "more refined"  - but somehow causes me to experience my music in a qualitatively different way.
  
 To me it is no coincidence that (non-classical) music began and ended with vinyl - i.e. was spawned in 1956 or thereabouts and dissolved almost totally and permanently with punk. In the 1980s and afterwards I avoided CDs like the plague - and have never considered digital music any kind of rival to analogue till now. About fifteen years ago, I lost everything and had to start over. Now I am fortunate to be trading online and have more music - both records and CDs - than I could ever listen to.
  
 There is *nothing* I miss about USB. AOIP has it all - with knobs on. If, in just a brief review, one finds oneself spontaneously mentioning bollocks and knobs within just a few sentences, you just know there has to be something impressive in play.
  
 You know also what I was saying about losing everything _then_ and hearing music in a different way _now_? Well - my new horizons are personal as well as musical if you can see what I mean. I don't just hear more of the bass player and the snares and the backing vocals - I reinterpret my past. I get over it. I move on. Everything changes.
  
 I don't think I would have heard about Dante/RedNet but for this thread and, so, hats off to @rb2013. I wouldn't have known about the Convert-2 nor had the confidence to commit to it but for @mhamel - so much respect there too (and may I say that whereas you declared a mild preference for the Convert-2 over the Yggdrasil - I am far less equivocal - I am so glad you own one and posted about it). I've enjoyed the conversations both on the thread(s) and behind the scenes with others of you guys. The last few weeks have been a most enjoyable episode of my life - and thanks to you all.


----------



## johnjen

And another interim report on RN3 with a Furutec fuse just added today.
  
 And I too have to admit I don't know which change is responsible for what sonic attributes, but…
 At this point I don't really care…
  
 The SQ is starting to kick/blossom/come into much sharper focus etc, big time.
 Leo Kottke's guitar has never sounded better.
 His fingering technique is much more apparent, along with hearing ALL of the squeeks as his fingers slide on the strings, and to be able to hear his fingernails as they pluck the strings…
 I could go on, and on…
  
 The RN3 has 325+hrs, the fibre ethernet system has 32hrs and the fuse has 10hrs.
  
 And I have 2-3 more fuses to try out, (thanks Big Poppa for the loan).
  
 I'm having some fun now…!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> And another interim report on RN3 with a Furutec fuse just added today.
> 
> And I too have to admit I don't know which change is responsible for what sonic attributes, but…
> At this point I don't really care…
> ...


 
  
 I am noticing burn-in also. I was surprised by that. It was better than USB right away but now is remarkable... a combination of tonal correctness and detail which really make it more real. The growl of string bass makes goose bumps. Also remarkable layering in the sound stage.


----------



## johnjen

I figure that as one's system becomes all the more refined (removal of *CP's* etc.) that the effects of burn in become all the more noticeable, along with an increase in being able to perceive more of the gains that are made.
  
 Which is another way of perceiving why some don't hear changes after adding or trying different pieces of gear, because the veiling or obscuring of this level of detail is sufficient to not be noticeable.
 That the threshold of perceptibility, by the removal of CP's, needs to be crossed first, seems all the more apparent.
  
 My next change will be to replace the Furutec with an Isoclean fuse.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

iving said:


> snip Quite some years ago in pre-USB times I would use a Presonus Inspire 1394 with considerable satisfaction. RedNet is like Firewire with bollocks. The two main aspects of SQ for me are:
> 1) the layers upon layers after layers of depth which create a (Phil) Spector-like "wall of sound": now I consider that everything transparent in USB was like contrast (especially in upper registers) created with an EQ: hissy, fussy, artificial.
> 2) the quality of the bottom end: my Snell Type A III are more than capable of stunning bass, and USB was capable of delivering it - now, however, there is something about the lower registers that isn't just "tighter" or "more refined"  - but somehow causes me to experience my music in a qualitatively different way.
> 
> ...


 
 I see several snipits of insight in your post, among them are…
  
_"RedNet is like Firewire with bollocks."_
 That is as succinct a description as I could ever come up with.
 And I'd include USB, and previous iterations of ethernet as well.
  
_"…the quality of the bottom end:…"_
_"…there is something about the lower registers that isn't just "tighter" or "more refined"  - but somehow causes me to experience my music in a qualitatively different way."_
 I agree with this as well.
 It's like ALL of the bass harmonics and tonality have become cohesive and coherent to itself, aka PRaT.
  
_"I don't just hear more of the bass player and the snares and the backing vocals - I reinterpret my past."_
 I liken it to hearing ones music as if anew, again.
  
 JJ


----------



## Luckbad

@rb2013
  
 Which device are you using to output word clock, Rednet 3 or Mutec MC-3+USB?
  
 I've tried both directions now but haven't put time into comparison as yet.
  
 Note that you need to turn on Word Clock Termination in the Rednet control if you use the Mutec as the master clock.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I want to say people are using the Rednet as master clock, output via spdif rca to spdif input of mutec 3 for reclock then to the DAC. 

Muziqboy, want to chime in how yours is hooked up?


----------



## Muziqboy

soundsgoodtome said:


> I want to say people are using the Rednet as master clock, output via spdif rca to spdif input of mutec 3 for reclock then to the DAC.
> 
> @Muziqboy, want to chime in how yours is hooked up?


 
  
 ...
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



(image missing)


----------



## Muziqboy

OK spoiler alert did not work for me. Let's do this again.
  
 To me, RedNet 3 clock sounds better as master compared to Mutec's. Utilizing 2 Mutec's as a daisy chained Spdif reclocker sounds even more awesome!
  
 BLACKNET 3 anyone?


----------



## Luckbad

Seems the logical choice is Rednet as master, then Mutec set to External/Reclock.


----------



## Luckbad

Did you paint the Rednet?


----------



## Muziqboy

luckbad said:


> Did you paint the Rednet?


 
  
 Sure did with a black acrylic paint. Not the best of paint jobs but it works and now it blends in with the rest of the gear.
 And it's not an eyesore anymore.


----------



## Luckbad

I've gotta figure something out like Plastidip.

I have a Lynx E22 right now as well. The Rednet 3 is indeed a little better, but only just, with both going into my Mutec.

Size, color, and inability to follow sample rate keep making me consider offloading the Rednet, but the sound...


----------



## grizzlybeast

wow this thread just the other day was at like page 20 or so. 
  
 Sliced bread?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

That looks slick!! I may follow up on the plastidip -- trick is waiting enough time between coats and getting 6-7 costs so peeling is easier (if you want to go back to red).





muziqboy said:


> OK spoiler alert did not work for me. Let's do this again.
> 
> To me, RedNet 3 clock sounds better as master compared to Mutec's. Utilizing 2 Mutec's as a daisy chained Spdif reclocker sounds even more awesome!
> 
> BLACKNET 3 anyone?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

How does the lynx work driver wise? Does it have asio support or does it show up as a sound device? 

If it's close in SQ, that's half the cost it seems. A good alternative for desktop users... but the drivers. 



luckbad said:


> I've gotta figure something out like Plastidip.
> 
> I have a Lynx E22 right now as well. The Rednet 3 is indeed a little better, but only just, with both going into my Mutec.
> 
> Size, color, and inability to follow sample rate keep making me consider offloading the Rednet, but the sound...







grizzlybeast said:


> wow this thread just the other day was at like page 20 or so.
> 
> Sliced bread?



You'll hear it at the end of the month when you come up! If you come early enough you can set up next to my rig and I can send you over a signal. The pavane has aes/ebu input? If so you can daisy chain off mine to hear what it does for your setup.


----------



## grizzlybeast

soundsgoodtome said:


> How does the lynx work driver wise? Does it have asio support or does it show up as a sound device?
> 
> If it's close in SQ, that's half the cost it seems. A good alternative for desktop users... but the drivers.
> 
> ...


 
 Yessir!!! I wonder if it is the same red as my tH2


----------



## Luckbad

soundsgoodtome said:


> How does the lynx work driver wise? Does it have asio support or does it show up as a sound device?
> 
> If it's close in SQ, that's half the cost it seems. A good alternative for desktop users... but the drivers.
> 
> You'll hear it at the end of the month when you come up! If you come early enough you can set up next to my rig and I can send you over a signal. The pavane has aes/ebu input? If so you can daisy chain off mine to hear what it does for your setup.


 
  
 The Lynx driver is rock solid so far. It supports ASIO and shows up as both a digital and analogue sound device.
  
 With the Rednet, I'm still trying to track down why I randomly get a dropout about once an hour for a moment. It's super annoying.
  
 Hasn't ever happened with the Lynx, but the Rednet sounds better.


----------



## jabbr

luckbad said:


> ...., and inability to follow sample rate ....




Should be just a matter of time.
I have been told by Focusrite it is in the next release of their firmware (.. August they said).


----------



## grizzlybeast

jabbr said:


> luckbad said:
> 
> 
> > ...., and inability to follow sample rate ....
> ...


 
 good to know.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Excellent news!


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> Excellent news!


 
 To give you the actual statement from Focusrite on this issue:


> At present, DVS cannot be used to change the sample rate of RedNet devices on the network, however this is something we're looking to alter with the next release of RedNet Control, which we are aiming to have available towards the end of August (version 1.10).
> 
> Please note that, for this to work in the way you desire, the playback program you are using would need to be able to change the sample rate of the playback driver (in this case, DVS). Typically, this is only possible from playback software that utilises ASIO drivers (pretty much all DAW software + some media players such as Foobar).
> 
> With the next release of RedNet Control, once the playback software changes the sample rate DVS is working at this can be configured to also change the sample rate of other RedNet devices on your network.


 
  
 cheers


----------



## johnjen

Progress report.
 Last night I gotta double dose of *SuperGlue*, the *tLFF* dropped to new all time lows, which led *Moar is Less* to new degrees heretofore never heard before.
  
 Translated that means I was captivated such that I couldn't take my headphones off, the *DRC* (Dynamic Range Control, aka Moar Knob), reached new heights such that the dynamic range allowed more of the subtle inner detail to be heard as the acoustic energy was more aligned to where it should be.
  
 Some of the attacks and impacts were really Really, REALLY fast, and over with, and then I reacted.
 Bass articulation, midrange bloom, top end meat, aplenty (meat, as in where's the beef, the substance that makes the hi-end 'real' instead of just sizzle).
 And all of it was seamlessly integrated from top to bottom, from simple to complex, from WAY back in the sound field to in your face;
  
 And I've only just scatched the surface with tweaking, i.e. the isoclean fuse is 'better' than the furutec, but I suspect the SR Quantum will wipe the floor with both of them.
 And there is plenty more lined up just waiting for the parts to show up…
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

I realize that this is new stuff for most of us but I am wondering if one could use one PC to send L/R channel audio to two different D16's or RN3's in two different systems. That would allow one to save the cost of a second PC when they had a main speaker system and a second speaker system or a separate headphone system.
  
 I sent an email to Audinate but they suggested Dante Via which seems to be limited to 48K for now. Not a good solution. I did download Via just to try but found out that it will not even list a Dante device like my D16 if it is not set to 48K.
  
 Any thoughts?


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> I realize that this is new stuff for most of us but I am wondering if one could use one PC to send L/R channel audio to two different D16's or RN3's in two different systems. That would allow one to save the cost of a second PC when they had a main speaker system and a second speaker system or a separate headphone system.
> 
> I sent an email to Audinate but they suggested Dante Via which seems to be limited to 48K for now. Not a good solution. I did download Via just to try but found out that it will not even list a Dante device like my D16 if it is not set to 48K.
> 
> Any thoughts?




I would say that should not be a problem at all.
That's what a Dante system on AOIp is meant for.

I would expect that in Dante Control you would see the second D16 alongside the first D16.
You would map the channels of your DVS to both of the D16 devices as receiving devices.
That would require both D16 devices attached to the network though (so it may be you have to do proper network configuration). I am not sure if you can daisy-chain D16 devices, but maybe you can because the two ports are operating in switch mode.


----------



## somestranger26

jabbr said:


> I would say that should not be a problem at all.
> That's what a Dante system on AOIp is meant for.


 
 Exactly... just map the 2 channels from DVS to both Rednet devices. Although since DVS can't be the master clock I wonder how that would work since Dante probably requires the clocks to by synced. Maybe that is one of the reasons for the $1000 Dante PCI-E card?


----------



## jabbr

somestranger26 said:


> .... Although since DVS can't be the master clock I wonder how that would work since Dante probably requires the clocks to by synced. Maybe that is one of the reasons for the $1000 Dante PCI-E card?




Nope, the Dante protocol appoints one of the D16s as Master clock and the real time timing protocol (called Precision Time Protocol (PTP - IEEE 1588) which defines the precise distribution of time over a network.) will distribute the clock timing packages to all the devices which will create an internal clock reference signal.

That's the strength of this AOIP protocol, it can sync all device clocks over the network by using this real time timing protocol.
Cheers


----------



## wushuliu

luckbad said:


> I have a Lynx E22 right now as well. The Rednet 3 is indeed a little better, but only just, with both going into my Mutec.
> 
> Size, color, and inability to follow sample rate keep making me consider offloading the Rednet, but the sound...




How would you describe the difference in sound quality between the lynx and the Rednet


----------



## Luckbad

wushuliu said:


> How would you describe the difference in sound quality between the lynx and the Rednet


 
  
 The Rednet has more authority. More impact and weight to the sound overall. The Lynx has a good deal of detail and is a bit more airy in its sound.
  
 Note that neither unit is fully burned in.
  
 I prefer the overall sound of the Rednet, but the Lynx requires only a PCIe slot, takes up virtually zero space, sounds almost as good, costs way less, and is a lot easier to get functioning without any dropouts.
  
 I wiped my entire drive and I'm running as little as possible right now. My dropouts have gone from one an hour to about one every two hours.
  
 I'm increasing my buffer size now to see how long that gives me.
  
 Basically, if I get a dropout when playing music overnight on Rednet after the latest optimizations, I'm not keeping it. The Lynx hasn't dropped out once.


----------



## atomicbob

Dropouts here only occur during infuriating Win10 phone-home-to-check-for-downgrades, usually limited on my machine to Tuesdays. Otherwise nothing. Have metered internet option enabled, but W10 still checks and hogs system.
  
 Having made so many changes recently I am going to get off the money-go-round, pause, and catch my breath. Listening fatigue is so low as to be non-existent at the moment. Sense of space, dimension, timing, transient event snap has improved enormously. It is time to enjoy the library. Many old musical favorites that weren't the best technical recordings are demonstrating a huge improvement. My current source system:
  
 JRMC with both Sonarworks compensation, Waves NX 3-D spatialization, some custom tweaks, and phase reverse
  
 VSC ASIO -> Ethernet -> RN J16 -> AES/EBU -> MC-3+ -> AES/EBU -> Yggdrasil
 VSC ASIO -> Ethernet -> RN J16 -> AES/EBU -> MC-3+ -> SPDIF -> Gungnir MB
  
 Silver Sonic Air Matrix for unbalanced RCA to Zana Deux or Liquid Crimson
 Balanced XLR to V200
  
 Norne Draug 2 cables from amps to 4 pin XLR phase reverse to 4 pin XLR to HD650 or HD800.
  
 Some will disagree with my analogy, but to me the auditory improvement is similar to upgrading from a
 Nikon NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G kit lens - which is already very good at 55mm - to a
 Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus Distagon T* Lens - Stunning visual improvement.
  
 It has been warm here lately so I have not been running the Zana Deux or Liquid Crimson but keeping the heat down with a Violectric V200 run balanced from the Yggdrasil. I don't remember the V200 sounding this good. Source chain matters. Still prefer ZD or LC over it, but the V200 is sounding very good indeed.
  
 Back to rediscovering more CDs in the library.


----------



## somestranger26

> Originally Posted by *atomicbob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> JRMC with both Sonarworks compensation, Waves NX 3-D spatialization, some custom tweaks, and phase reverse
> 
> Norne Draug 2 cables from amps to 4 pin XLR phase reverse to 4 pin XLR to HD650 or HD800.


 
 Why the phase reverse in software, and then you're undoing it with the XLR?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Power supply and tube magic happens; Bob and JJ can explain it better and probably already have in JJ's DIY thread.

I'm thinking of trying it with my speakers...





somestranger26 said:


> Why the phase reverse in software, and then you're undoing it with the XLR?


----------



## somestranger26

soundsgoodtome said:


> Power supply and tube magic happens; Bob and JJ can explain it better and probably already have in JJ's DIY thread.
> 
> I'm thinking of trying it with my speakers...


 

 Never heard of this before... speakers certainly seems like the easiest way to try it since speaker wires are already individual phases for each channel. If I made an adapter for my headphones to try it, it might affect the sound quality and impact the comparison since my HE6 are using a 6N OCC silver cable with 4% gold added... that would be one pricey adapter to match the materials.
  
 By the way, I have not noticed any dropouts for several days. Coincidentally, the THD on my power has been around 5.5% (people are on vacation?) instead of the usual 6.5% reinforcing my thoughts that the two are related.


----------



## johnjen

somestranger26 said:


> Why the phase reverse in software, and then you're undoing it with the XLR?


 
 This is what I call *PRT* (Phase Reversal Tweak) where the L & R channels are run out of phase WRT each other.
 Then the load (headphones, speakers) are again phase reversed so that the music is heard normally.
  
 This imparts significant sonic improvements, just ask SGTM or Atomic Bob or Big Poppa or Musiqboy etc.
  
 For more read this post, http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/210#post_12300653
  
 JJ


----------



## Luckbad

Decided to try foobar2000 instead of JRiver. Several hours of music playing without the latency spike--about twice as long as JRiver has ever gone.
  
 Might be zeroing in on the problem.
  
 Update: Still going strong without a single dropout/latency spike in foobar2000. Definitely related to JRiver.


----------



## johnjen

luckbad said:


> Decided to try foobar2000 instead of JRiver. Several hours of music playing without the latency spike--about twice as long as JRiver has ever gone.
> 
> Might be zeroing in on the problem.
> 
> Update: Still going strong without a single dropout/latency spike in foobar2000. Definitely related to JRiver.


 
 Have you run the "Benchmark" tests within Jriver to see if your hardware is 'robust' enough?
  
 JJ


----------



## Luckbad

johnjen said:


> Have you run the "Benchmark" tests within Jriver to see if your hardware is 'robust' enough?
> 
> JJ




Nope. I'll check that out tonight. That said, my hardware is pretty bonkers fast.


----------



## jabbr

luckbad said:


> Nope. I'll check that out tonight. That said, my hardware is pretty bonkers fast.




Do you have NAS and let JRiver do Library Management on the NAS? That might cause periodic bursts of network activity by JRiver.
Do you have the RN3 connected to a switch or do you connect directly to the RN3 from the PC?


----------



## Luckbad

jabbr said:


> Do you have NAS and let JRiver do Library Management on the NAS? That might cause periodic bursts of network activity by JRiver.
> Do you have the RN3 connected to a switch or do you connect directly to the RN3 from the PC?


 
  
 I technically have a NAS hard drive, but it's in this machine and isn't actually serving anything else at night. The RN3 is directly connected from the PC.
  
 It's always a 14.x ms burst of latency, and it's always a while after I sit down and stop messing around on the computer. My best guess is that JRiver likes to do background operations if you aren't using the PC even if you have music playing through it, and when it kicks in, it gives me a momentary dropout.


----------



## mourip

luckbad said:


> I technically have a NAS hard drive, but it's in this machine and isn't actually serving anything else at night. The RN3 is directly connected from the PC.
> 
> It's always a 14.x ms burst of latency, and it's always a while after I sit down and stop messing around on the computer. My best guess is that JRiver likes to do background operations if you aren't using the PC even if you have music playing through it, and when it kicks in, it gives me a momentary dropout.


 
  
 Try going into Tools/Options/Library and Folders/ and under Auto Import uncheck "Run Auto Import in Background"
  
 You can then just run auto-import manually when you add music to your drive.


----------



## wushuliu

RN3 arriving this weekend. Hopefully it plays well with the simple coax spdif input I have set up for the soekris dac.


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> RN3 arriving this weekend. Hopefully it plays well with the simple coax spdif input I have set up for the soekris dac.


 
  
 I am pretty sure you will love it. I find myself listening to an entire album now instead of jumping from track to track. The noise floor is much lower and I am getting many more spacial cues. Instrument position is also more solid so on big orchestral pieces I "see" movement of the music as it is passed between instrument groups.  
  
 I bought a second D16 and it comes tomorrow. It will go into my headphone system. Plan A is to remove one of my two music servers and let the remaining one use DVS to send music to both D16's. This will simplify my system and allow me to sell one music server and it's associated LPS. I already sold both of my REGEN Ambers. The only gotcha will be if my LAN has too much latency.
  
 BTW. For those contemplating getting an RN 3 or RN D16 Sweetwater is great to deal with. They have demo units and if you ask them for their "best price" will sell for even less that their web price.


----------



## Luckbad

Going to go ahead and let go of the Rednet 3. It does sound better than the Lynx E22 and Mutec MC-3+USB, but it's big and I can't fully solve my JRiver hourly or so dropouts (though foobar2000 never has them). I'll get back on the AOIP train later.


----------



## ccschua

what is the limit of RN3 as compared to D16 ?


----------



## motberg

Is anyone using DAW software for 2 channel casual playback? Any comments on SQ vs. stuff like Foobar ?


----------



## johnjen

Progress report.
  
 I just finished cooking the Mogami and Canare AES rated (110Ω) commercial grade cables and made up a 2 channel break out cable.
  
 Uh, er, um…
 If you have the ability to run with an AES3 connection I HIGHLY recommend you do so to compare it to SPDIF.
  
 I can easily switch the inputs on my dac from spdif to AES and even after barely 1hr the differences are obvious, compelling, and emotionally involving.
 My setup allows me to compare between an Oyaide DR-510 'Tweako' SPDIF cable that is well broken in and sounds wonderful and the AES3 input (that had 0 hrs on it).
  
 Even before I got my 800's on my head I was hearing nuances from my $40 speakers.
  
 It's like yet another veil has been removed, the focus has become significantly tighter, and I'm hearing details I've never heard before, again…
  
 I can hear why Mike Moffet prefers the AES3 data path on his dacs.
  
 And this is just commercial grade 110Ω cable, not the Statement Silver 'Audio' grade cable that is still being cooked and will go into service either later tonight or 1st thing tomorrow.
  
 And yes these cables will get further tweaks as they settle in and I refine their implementation.
  
 This situation reminds me of the truism, where you don't even know you have a veil, until it's removed.
  
 And I still don't have a 'tweako' fuse installed yet.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

mourip said:


> I am pretty sure you will love it. I find myself listening to an entire album now instead of jumping from track to track. The noise floor is much lower and I am getting many more spacial cues. Instrument position is also more solid so on big orchestral pieces I "see" movement of the music as it is passed between instrument groups.
> 
> I bought a second D16 and it comes tomorrow. It will go into my headphone system. Plan A is to remove one of my two music servers and let the remaining one use DVS to send music to both D16's. This will simplify my system and allow me to sell one music server and it's associated LPS. I already sold both of my REGEN Ambers. The only gotcha will be if my LAN has too much latency.
> 
> BTW. For those contemplating getting an RN 3 or RN D16 Sweetwater is great to deal with. They have demo units and if you ask them for their "best price" will sell for even less that their web price.


 
  
 It will be interesting to compare my sd card player with its modded mess of wires and battery power. The sd player sounds amazing but kind of a pain to use. As long as the RN3 sounds as good I will be happy.
  
 Especially if I'm able to use it with Hysolid streaming via ASIO...


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> I bought a second D16 and it comes tomorrow.


 
  
 Much kudos and respect for being the first "Double D16 Owner" (doubting that you have a rival ...)


----------



## RKML0007

Rednet D16 in the house!

Here's my chain:

Early 2012 MBP > Amarra for Tidal > DVS > Cat6 > D16 > BNC > 2Qute > ZDS > HD800S

Setup went smooth - no issues. Enjoying the music deeply. It's going to take some time to get a handle on what I'm experiencing. At first I was switching back and forth between USB but after awhile I wanted to just relax and slip away with the Rednet flow. I was worried that my old laptop wouldn't cut it, but so far so good! Getting 250usec latency on the D16, 150usec is grayed out. 10msec on DVS.

Anxiously waiting to receive the @MisterRogers uber USB source kit so I can finally hear the Mutec Magic for myself and let 'em battle along with a microrendu for good measure. Also waiting for yggy to come home and make things even more interesting!


----------



## somestranger26

I posted before that I wasn't totally blown away by the sound quality from the Rednet 3, like some are posting. Since then I've made several incremental improvements to my system including replacing the fuse, adding "magic hexa" vibration footers underneath, upgrading the power cable to a Cerious Graphene Extreme, and of course it has more break in time so it should be finally settled in. I also upgraded the power cable on my DAC with a graphene extreme at the same time as I upgraded the RN power cable.
  
 Now the sound quality is just incredible and yes I am blown away. The bass extends so far, so impactfully, and yet with incredible finesse. The soundstage is so immersive I finally feel like "I'm there" instead of just listening to music. I can hear the most subtle details like the artist playing the instrument (plucking the strings, hitting the drums, etc.) instead of just hearing the notes play as the end result of that action.
  
 The graphene extreme power cables that @rb2013 has talked up are truly incredible. I was using Pangea AC9 on RN3 and Cabledyne Silver on my DAC before, so I wasn't upgrading from cheapos, and the improvements were immediately audible. I don't think I've ever heard such a significant difference with a cable before.
  
 I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC scheduled for arrival tomorrow which I hope elevates things to the next level. It also has an AES input unlike my Audio-GD Master-11 so I may have to try making a breakout cable like @johnjen has done.


----------



## johnjen

I just re-terminated the Silver Statement AES3 cable with a 'tweako' DB-25.
 As soon as I put on the 800's, it was immediately obvious it was superior to the best of the 2 commercial grade cables.
  
 But man it was a handful in getting it connected to those little DB-25 pins, and deal with the strain relief, while dealing with a rather stiff cable and even stiffer silver wires, without over heating them (melting the insulation).
 Not a job for those who get frustrated easily, nor those who have little experience with such things.
  
 But worth it all the way around.
  
 It's just now got ≈ 1hr on it and it has already surpassed the other cables that had 3hrs on them.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

ccschua said:


> what is the limit of RN3 as compared to D16 ?


 
  
 What do you have in mind by "limit"?


----------



## mourip

somestranger26 said:


> I posted before that I wasn't totally blown away by the sound quality from the Rednet 3, like some are posting. Since then I've made several incremental improvements to my system including replacing the fuse, adding "magic hexa" vibration footers underneath, upgrading the power cable to a Cerious Graphene Extreme, and of course it has more break in time so it should be finally settled in. I also upgraded the power cable on my DAC with a graphene extreme at the same time as I upgraded the RN power cable.
> 
> Now the sound quality is just incredible and yes I am blown away. The bass extends so far, so impactfully, and yet with incredible finesse. The soundstage is so immersive I finally feel like "I'm there" instead of just listening to music. I can hear the most subtle details like the artist playing the instrument (plucking the strings, hitting the drums, etc.) instead of just hearing the notes play as the end result of that action.


 
  
 I found that I underestimated break-in on my D16. It sounded better than my USB chain right out of the box but has now moved from merely better to "jaw dropping".


----------



## mourip

iving said:


> Much kudos and respect for being the first "Double D16 Owner" (doubting that you have a rival ...)


 
  
 Being an audiophile and having a background in IT is a curse. I really want to see how these devices work networked across a LAN. I also like the idea of simplifying by dropping my hardware count!


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Being an audiophile and having a background in IT is a curse. I really want to see how these devices work networked across a LAN. I also like the idea of simplifying by dropping my hardware count!


 
  
  
 Some nice reads:
  
 https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3329.pdf
 http://www.ravenna-network.com/app/download/12307524023/AES67+and+RAVENNA+in+a+nutshell.pdf?t=1448374458
  
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/DanteP1AXFeb2014.pdf
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/DanteP2AXMar2014.pdf
  
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/RavennaPart1AXMay2014.pdf
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/RavennaPart2AXJune2014.pdf
  
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/StandardsReview_AES67.pdf
 http://www.audioxpress.com/article/AES67-2015-Revision-Confirms-Stability-of-the-Audio-Network-Interoperability-Standard
  
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/DanteDevelopmentAXFeb2016.pdf
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/AXApr2016RavennaDev.pdf
 http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/AXMay2016AES67dev.pdf


----------



## mourip

luckbad said:


> Going to go ahead and let go of the Rednet 3. It does sound better than the Lynx E22 and Mutec MC-3+USB, but it's big and I can't fully solve my JRiver hourly or so dropouts (though foobar2000 never has them). I'll get back on the AOIP train later.


 
  
 Did you ever try turning off the JRMC automated library scan? Also are you using the Dante ASIO driver in JRMC?


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> That looks slick!! I may follow up on the plastidip -- trick is waiting enough time between coats and getting 6-7 costs so peeling is easier (if you want to go back to red).


 
  
 Dear Focusrite,
  
 If you are lurking here PLEASE consider dropping Red as the chassis color for the new audiophile two channel device that we are all hoping you will make. Also while you are listening please drop most of the front panel lights in favor of just keeping the virtual ones in the Control Panel or at least make them mutable.
  
 There are serious Wife (Husband, Significant Other) Acceptance Factor (WAF) issues here and we all know that a happy spouse (Wife, Husband, Significant Other) allows new equipment purchases to proceed.
  
 Thanks!
  
 AOIP Lovers


----------



## Luckbad

mourip said:


> Did you ever try turning off the JRMC automated library scan? Also are you using the Dante ASIO driver in JRMC?


 
  
 I did. Helped, didn't solve.


----------



## jabbr

luckbad said:


> I did. Helped, didn't solve.




I also saw some strange latency peaks (up to 14-15 msec).
I solved them by changing properties of my network adapter:

Advanced:
- Energy Efficient Ethernet : off
- Flow Control : disabled

Power Management:
- Allow Computer to turn off this device to save power: unchecked

Now it is rock solid at avarage 849 usec and peak 911 usec
And this is with library scans running in the background.


----------



## wushuliu

Ok, just installed RN3 apps. Control does not show a virtual panel. Is this where it's supposed to automatically update? Is that why the panel isn't showing?


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> Ok, just installed RN3 apps. Control does not show a virtual panel. Is this where it's supposed to automatically update? Is that why the panel isn't showing?


 
 how is your PC connected to RN3?


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> how is your PC connected to RN3?


 
 Mobo LAN direct to RN3


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> Mobo LAN direct to RN3




Ok.

You did select the Network Interface at the top of the screen ? Should be OK, by default if only one Network present.

Link lights showing on the ethernet ports on both sides?

The IP-addressing on the PC side is just default DHCP, so no fixed IP-address?

While RN3 is switched on, reboot the PC.


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> Ok.
> 
> You did select the Network Interface at the top of the screen ? Should be OK, by default if only one Network present.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes default DHCP
  
 Rebooted, no change. Link lights seem okay. Though on the RN3 side, left ethernet led is green, right is orange.
  
 Here's what I see from the Controller.


----------



## Luckbad

wushuliu said:


> Yes default DHCP
> 
> Rebooted, no change. Link lights seem okay. Though on the RN3 side, left ethernet led is green, right is orange.
> 
> Here's what I see from the Controller.


 
  
 You have to update the firmware before you can ever see it in Rednet Control because they're stupid and ship it with incompatible firmware/software.
  
 https://us.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-3/downloads
  
 Grab the firmware update/instructions there.


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> Yes default DHCP
> 
> Rebooted, no change. Link lights seem okay. Though on the RN3 side, left ethernet led is green, right is orange.
> 
> Here's what I see from the Controller.




OK, it is discovered from Dante Control, so no issues with discovery and operating it then.

Might try to see it wirking first (which I did) and than upgrade the device's firmware.
Then you'll be shure it should work again because settings are retained.


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> OK, it is discovered from Dante Control, so no issues with discovery and operating it then.
> 
> Might try to see it wirking first (which I did) and than upgrade the device's firmware.
> Then you'll be shure it should work again because settings are retained.


 
 So you're saying it should be able to pass audio signal even if it does not show up in the RN Control panel? Shouldn't at least one of the output indicator lights be showing on the front of the unit itself?


----------



## somestranger26

wushuliu said:


> So you're saying it should be able to pass audio signal even if it does not show up in the RN Control panel? Shouldn't at least one of the output indicator lights be showing on the front of the unit itself?


 

 You have to update the firmware for it to show up... twice. See luckbad's post above. But of course it's pro audio gear so this is normal and we should just accept it /s.


----------



## wushuliu

somestranger26 said:


> You have to update the firmware for it to show up... twice. See luckbad's post above. But of course it's pro audio gear so this is normal and we should just accept it /s.




I use wireless so does that mean I need a Ethernet card for a second port to my router since firmware update can't be used with wireless?


----------



## wushuliu

somestranger26 said:


> You have to update the firmware for it to show up... twice. See luckbad's post above. But of course it's pro audio gear so this is normal and we should just accept it /s.


 
  
 Well then this is all going on hold cause I gotta order a 100ft ethernet cable to connect to my router upstairs...


----------



## johnjen

wushuliu said:


> I use wireless so does that mean I need a Ethernet card for a second port to my router since firmware update can't be used with wireless?


 
 Not knowing your setup etc. but the Danté network s/w does not operate on wireless, at all.
  
 You must use a cat 5-6 cable from the rednet box to the router/ethernet port that feeds it.
  
 It is also a 'good' idea to setup a separate network just for the audio stream and not try to use an existing network, that is if you want optimal results.
  
 And you must also 'patch' in the source of the data stream into the RedNet box using the Danté controller s/w.
 Otherwise the Danté network has no way of knowing where to send the digital stream(s).
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

johnjen said:


> Not knowing your setup etc. but the Danté network s/w does not operate on wireless, at all.
> 
> You must use a cat 5-6 cable from the rednet box to the router/ethernet port that feeds it.
> 
> ...




 So are you saying that even after I update the firmware that the router has to be permanently connected to the Dante?


----------



## johnjen

wushuliu said:


> So are you saying that even after I update the firmware that the router has to be permanently connected to the Dante?


 
 Danté is the dedicated ethernet s/w that controls and passes the digital audio data streams over ethernet.
 The RedNet box HAS to be directly wired via cat 5e-6a cable in order to receive the data stream(s) and function.
  
 So yes, it has to be directly wired to the source (player, computer, streamer, etc.) in order for the Danté s/w to function and control the RedNet box.
  
 There is no wireless functionality with the Danté s/w.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

johnjen said:


> Danté is the dedicated ethernet s/w that controls and passes the digital audio data streams over ethernet.
> The RedNet box HAS to be directly wired via cat 5e-6a cable in order to receive the data stream(s) and function.
> 
> So yes, it has to be directly wired to the source (player, computer, streamer, etc.) in order for the Danté s/w to function and control the RedNet box.
> ...




Sorry what I mean is does my ethernet with only one port need to also be connected permanently to the internet router in order for the Dante to work I understand that the Dante needs to be connected permanently to the rednet 3.


----------



## johnjen

wushuliu said:


> Sorry what I mean is does my ethernet with only one port need to also be connected permanently to the internet router in order for the Dante to work I understand that the Dante needs to be connected permanently to the rednet 3.


 
 If I understand correctly, no.
 My setup consists of 1 ethernet port that is connected to my internet modem and router and the rest of the computer network, while my 2nd ethernet port is used exclusively for the Danté network.
 There is no inter-connectivity between them.
  
 And there is a way of manually performing that 2nd firmware upgrade without having to directly connect the Danté network to the internet.
  
 I'd suggest you contact Focusrite directly as they can walk you thru the process or they can remote in and complete the upgrade for you.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

johnjen said:


> If I understand correctly, no.
> My setup consists of 1 ethernet port that is connected to my internet modem and router and the rest of the computer network, while my 2nd ethernet port is used exclusively for the Danté network.
> There is no inter-connectivity between them.
> 
> ...




Okay then I will just wait for the hundred foot Ethernet cable so that I can upgrade the firmware and then when that's done with I can remove it and go back to my wireless as usual and just have the direct connection to the rednet 3 unit.


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> Sorry what I mean is does my ethernet with only one port need to also be connected permanently to the internet router in order for the Dante to work I understand that the Dante needs to be connected permanently to the rednet 3.


 
  
 The actual Dante connection has to run over a wired connection but can pass through switches etc. if they meet the right standards. I think that it needs to get an IP from a DHCP source so that would mean a LAN connection.
  
 You could get a wireless USB dongle and use that for your LAN connection and let Dante use your wired ethernet port. You could also get a two port ethernet card and use one port for Dante and the other for your wired LAN connection. The nice thing about the Wi-fi dongle is that you could remove it when you did not need LAN/Internet access. As an aside I remember posts on CA where folks thought that it was best to not have wifi too near to audio equipment for reasons of RF interference.
  
 My audio PC just has one ethernet port but my D16 has two. I run one cable to my first D16 port and the second port goes to my LAN. So Dante must be capable of sharing bandwidth with other ethernet traffic since my PC can get to my LAN and the Internet with this setup.
  
 Let us know how it goes once your firmware is updated.


----------



## wushuliu

mourip said:


> The actual Dante connection has to run over a wired connection but can pass through switches etc. if they meet the right standards. I think that it needs to get an IP from a DHCP source so that would mean a LAN connection.
> 
> You could get a wireless USB dongle and use that for your LAN connection and let Dante use your wired ethernet port.




I already use a wireless dongle so that's covered. I think I may not be asking my questions clearly so I'll just wait for the cat cable for the next step. Gotta say the Rednet manuals aren't super helpful in this regard.


----------



## wushuliu

There are like 4 different manuals to use this thing. I found the confirmation I was looking for in the 'System Guide':


----------



## jabbr

Is see no reason that the Rednet firmware update can not be run over a wireless *ROUTER.*
 The firmware file either downloads or it does not. The PC running the firmware updater should have a CAT-connection to the RedNet, but that you already have in place.
  
 The ''donot-use-wifi" area is with regard to the connection between PC and Rednet when doing playback.
  
 The issue is, how do you get hold of the firmware file, when the Rednet Controller doesn't see your RN3?
 I have found an offline Firmware Updater from Dante, but see no way to get hold of the actual firmware files outside of the Rednet Controller.
  
 Best to give Focusrite a call about the firmware update files.
  
 I see no reason to get a 100ft CAT cable just to connect to your router.


----------



## johnjen

Yes the 'helpful' step by step instructions don't really exist.
  
 But after you become familiar with the way 3 different functions that need to be implemented and the proper sequence etc.,
 it makes a certain amount of sense.
  
 But it is a rather 'steep' learning curve at first.
  
 I'd still suggest that you contact them by phone, it was very helpful when my RN-3 wouldn't complete the 2nd firmware update…
 I figure this s/w bug and a few other upgrades are included with the next update due out 'soon'.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

jabbr said:


> Is see no reason that the Rednet firmware update can not be run over a wireless *ROUTER.*
> The firmware file either downloads or it does not. The PC running the firmware updater should have a CAT-connection to the RedNet, but that you already have in place.
> 
> The ''donot-use-wifi" area is with regard to the connection between PC and Rednet when doing playback.
> ...


 
 There is also the Danté controller s/w as well.
 This was how the help desk guy 'fixed' my firmware issue.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

johnjen said:


> There is also the Danté controller s/w as well.
> This was how the help desk guy 'fixed' my firmware issue.
> 
> JJ



Hmm, I could not find an "Upgrade Firmware" option in Dante Controller, but only in RedNet Controller and this offline "Dante Firmware Update Manager".
Nice to know of this feature. But the Dante Controller from WUSHULIU does see the RN3, so he should be able to run a firmware updater then?!
Would be nice if they put all the information in the User Guide though 
 
But I recommend WUSHULIU to call Focusrite on Monday, they are very supportive when I contacted them pre-purchase with all kinds of technicallities.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

You need to make it simple and update the focusrite plugged directly to your pc rather than over a switch and such. Dante software installed, Dante virtual driver installed, and rednet control software installed. 

To update, I needed to turn on my Dante virtual driver to finish/complete the update otherwise it hung up at every update. And once a fail or hang up happened it helped to reboot the pc along with a power down of the rednet. (I'm sure on the pc reboot but have a rednet power cycle wasn't necessary).

Fwiw it took me several hours to figure it out and help via text from another user - and I'm around PCs for a living.


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> You need to make it simple and update the focusrite plugged directly to your pc rather than over a switch and such. Dante software installed, Dante virtual driver installed, and rednet control software installed.
> 
> To update, I needed to turn on my Dante virtual driver to finish/complete the update otherwise it hung up at every update. And once a fail or hang up happened it helped to reboot the pc along with a power down of the rednet. (I'm sure on the pc reboot but have a rednet power cycle wasn't necessary).
> 
> Fwiw it took me several hours to figure it out and help via text from another user - and I'm around PCs for a living.


 
 IIUC he has done all that, but the RN3 doesn't show up in his Rednet Control (only his VSC is shown), so he hasn't access to the "Update Firmware"-option for the RN3  in the Rednet Control software.
 I did not have such an issue using my D16 which did show immediately in the Rednet Control, but apparently it is different with the RN3.


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> Fwiw it took me several hours to figure it out and help via text from another user - and I'm around PCs for a living.


 
  
 +1
  
 I have supported a large network for a couple of decades and still found this to be tricky. The payoff in SQ is very worth it however. I hope that eventually either Focusrite or another enterprising vendor will make a simplified system with the same SQ but specifically targeted for home users.
  
 Right now I am trying to get two D16 based audio systems to run from one PC with DVS across my LAN and boy has it been frustrating. I will try to write up this adventure once I can claim success. It is more or less working but not quite as I had envisioned it. I also want to make sure that I have not traded off any SQ in the process of gaining simplicity and convenience.
  
 As others have mentioned Sweetwater, Focusrite(Rednet), and Audinate(Dante) have all been great to work with but I might add that we are now asking them for help setting up something that is a bit out of their usual box...


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> +1
> 
> I have supported a large network for a couple of decades and still found this to be tricky. The payoff in SQ is very worth it however. I hope that eventually either Focusrite or another enterprising vendor will make a simplified system with the same SQ but specifically targeted for home users.
> 
> ...




Hi mourip

I'm very much interested in your experiences and esp. where you think you might be sacrificing sound quality with this solution.

I also work in IT albeit in consultancy and design of large scale financial applications.
At home I run my LAN over 3 Cisco managed switches and find the instructions by Audinate up till now quite clear and with some knowledge about how their concepts works, still manageable at home.

I'm very interested in your experiences with multiple devices, as I can see this AOIP developing further in my home as well, to multiple devices in different rooms/floors.

See please, do make your write-up.

Cheers


----------



## wushuliu

Okay, here is the scoop:
  
 FOR REDNET 3 USERS ONLY
  
 On the focusrite download section after you've registered there is a specific file 'RedNet 3.4 to 3.7 Firmware Update - Rednet 1-5 Only'
  


> *Important information:* RedNet 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 devices which are currently running Dante software version 3.4.x are not discovered in RedNet Control 1.8 or 1.9. These devices must be updated to Dante software version 3.7 first.
> 
> 
> 
> Your devices will be running Dante software 3.4.x if you have not updated beyond RedNet Control 1.4 (released Q1 2015), or if you have recently purchased devices. To verify this, open Dante Controller, double click on a device to open device view, then select “Status”. In the Dante Information box there will be a number beside “Software Version”. If this reads 3.4.x you will need to proceed with the update procedure below.


 
 This file needs to be downloaded along with the Update Manager software and the instructions followed to upgrade and flash firmware.
  
 I missed this file beforehand because I was too focused on all the other software and instructions to figure out.
  
 The virtual panel is now visible.
  
 After a few minutes I am now prompted to upload new firmware a second time...
  
 Second firmware upgrade complete.
  
 Thank the good lord and his merry band of pranksters.


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> Okay, here is the scoop:
> 
> FOR REDNET 3 USERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Good to hear you cracked it, and now enjoy!!


----------



## kazsud

I have to current mbp that is w/o ethernet. Would I just need the thunderbolt to ethernet adapter to get the most out of the rednet 3?


----------



## mourip

I you are connecting the laptop directly to the 


kazsud said:


> I have to current mbp that is w/o ethernet. Would I just need the thunderbolt to ethernet adapter to get the most out of the rednet 3?


 
  
 Yes. You would need it to get anything at all out of it. The connection between the Dante Virtual Soundcard and the Rednet device needs to be wired.


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> Good to hear you cracked it, and now enjoy!!


 
 Lol. Not quite yet. Now my question is do I need to do any kind of routing using the Dante Controller?


----------



## prot

jabbr said:


> I also saw some strange latency peaks (up to 14-15 msec).
> I solved them by changing properties of my network adapter:
> 
> Advanced:
> ...




That's still quite a lot of latency. And most probably it has nothing to do with the library updates. Latency is a pretty complex matter and the CPU and/or CPU activity don't matter much .. if at all. 
It's mostly a matter of MB build, bios, drivers, OS/settings. And if you have a winpc latencymon can help you identify the real cause(s)


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Hi mourip
> 
> I'm very much interested in your experiences and esp. where you think you might be sacrificing sound quality with this solution.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is just an update. I had some success today and was able to get audio from a single PC to both D16's across a challenging LAN setup which included two MOCA adapters that may even be going through my FIOS router. The way I have it setup I get the same signal to both D16's at the same time. No need to toggle who is the "master".
  
 The key was that I needed to have two ethernet ports coming from my server and one needed to be configured as on a different subnet. It took me a couple of hours and a mixture of network understanding and guesswork to get it to work. For now I just have a USB3 Gigabit ethernet dongle handling the Dante route but will have an Intel PCIe card coming tomorrow.
  
 It sounds great but I want to try it for a while before I rush out and claim victory. On another note I had my Mutec USB out of the circuit for a couple of days and now I realize that it really does contribute to the great results.


----------



## johnjen

jabbr said:


> johnjen said:
> 
> 
> > There is also the Danté controller s/w as well.
> ...


 
 Using the Danté controller s/w is a manual operation, as such there is no ""Upgrade Firmware" option" to choose.
  
 Yes, since the Danté s/w does see the device,  it can perform the upgrade…
 At least that is how the Focusrite tech help guy solved my problem.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> Lol. Not quite yet. Now my question is do I need to do any kind of routing using the Dante Controller?


 
  
 Yes. You need to click the box at the intersection of your "Desktop" transmitter where you have DVS installed and the line of your RN3 receiver. Two boxes. One for each channel.


----------



## wushuliu

mourip said:


> Yes. You need to click the box at the intersection of your "Desktop" transmitter where you have DVS installed and the line of your RN3 receiver. Two boxes. One for each channel.


 
  
 Great. Thank you.


----------



## RKML0007

Tried out new latency settings:

DVS - 4msec
D16 - 150usec 

Really opened everything up and sounding even better! Thanks to JJ passing on the info, I'll be trying out FMC isolation shortly. 

One thing I noticed though, my Primary Tx/Rx rate dropped to 4Mbps last night. I restarted both the laptop and D16 several times. The first two days running, I was seeing 9Mbps. Any ideas if this is normal?

I tried both through a switch and direct connect with same outcome.

Edit: lost my 150usec on the D16 after clearing the config and can't seem to restore it.


----------



## jabbr

rkml0007 said:


> ...
> 
> Edit: lost my 150usec on the D16 after clearing the config and can't seem to restore it.


 
  
 I never had it in the first place.
 If you can find a way to get it available again, could you please share?
  
 Cheers


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> That's still quite a lot of latency. And most probably it has nothing to do with the library updates. Latency is a pretty complex matter and the CPU and/or CPU activity don't matter much .. if at all.
> It's mostly a matter of MB build, bios, drivers, OS/settings. And if you have a winpc latencymon can help you identify the real cause(s)


 
  
 I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but the latency shown in Dante Latency Monitor is the latency of the full pathway from Virtual Soundcard to receiving Dante device.
 This includes the complete network routing, which runs over a switch in my case.
  
 The latency monitor you mention (and the one from resplendence.com is better because it is up-to-date with the latest OS-versions) only measures the latency inside the computer.
 This internal latency measures much smaller, around 3-4 usec on avarage with peaks of around 14 usec.
  
 cheers


----------



## prot

jabbr said:


> I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but the latency shown in Dante Latency Monitor is the latency of the full pathway from Virtual Soundcard to receiving Dante device.
> This includes the complete network routing, which runs over a switch in my case.
> 
> The latency monitor you mention (and the one from resplendence.com is better because it is up-to-date with the latest OS-versions) only measures the latency inside the computer.
> ...



Latencymon==respledence. 

Dont know what the Dante monitor measures, maybe it also includes the eth2aes conversion time. Hopefully dante/rednet can clarify exactly what that tool measures and what are good/acceptable results. 

In any case, your numbers are Huge. In a small house network the ethernet latencies (e.g. measured with 'ping') should be around 10-20ms max. Even wireless should be under 100ms.


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> Latencymon==respledence.
> 
> Dont know what the Dante monitor measures, maybe it also includes the eth2aes conversion time. Hopefully dante/rednet can clarify exactly what that tool measures and what are good/acceptable results.
> 
> In any case, your numbers are Huge. In a small house network the ethernet latencies (e.g. measured with 'ping') should be around 10-20ms max. Even wireless should be under 100ms.


 
  
  
 I think you misread the measurement diagram: we are talking *micro*seconds here, not miliseconds. So Latency between my two Dante Devices is *849 micro*seconds (or 0.849 miliseconds).
 So the latency is extremely low and is far below the minimum setting for the DVS that Dante allows for, which is 4 miliseconds.


----------



## mourip

rkml0007 said:


> Edit: lost my 150usec on the D16 after clearing the config and can't seem to restore it.


 
  
 I have always had 150usec greyed out on my D16. I wonder what circumstances allow it to show? Perhaps it tests the link and determines what is possible?


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> I have always had 150usec greyed out on my D16. I wonder what circumstances allow it to show? Perhaps it tests the link and determines what is possible?




I wondered the same thing.

As the Dante documentation says 150 usec option is only possible for chains with "one switch" and they count every NIC and switch as "one switch". So a chain of PC-->switch-->D16 counts for 3 switches and should not be able to get the 150 usec latency option.


----------



## RKML0007

Put in a call to Focusrite and it seems that 150usec isn't documented as a selectable latency option for the D16. At first, his response was it should be available in redundant mode. Then we went through it and he was surprised to see that it wasn't available under that scenario. Further digging into it, he was able to uncover that it wasn't supported. He was very curious and interested in a screen shot if I'm able to restore the setting. I did ask if there's any negative impact on SQ being limited to 250usec latency. His response was no, it merely defines the window to receive packets over the network. He stressed that audio is not affected by this setting. If packets are dropped, this would manifest as sound cutting out and that quality is consistent across all latency settings. 

I tried listening with 250usec and 5ms - not perceiving any degradation between the two in brief testing. I'm not going to obsess over it any longer and leave it be. I'm writing off my 150usec latency D16 experience as a fluke haha. Sorry fellas.


----------



## Danutz

Hi,
  
 new version of Dante controller and DVS (soundcard) available...


----------



## jabbr

danutz said:


> Hi,
> 
> new version of Dante controller and DVS (soundcard) available... :tongue_smile:




The versions of July 6th?
I already had them installed last Saturday, hadn't noticed they were new.
For me personally the "Unicast delay requests" might be the most interesting new feature?


----------



## Danutz

Yes, already one week old, but I only noticed it since yesterday...
  
 What is "Unicast delay requests" usefull for....???


----------



## jabbr

danutz said:


> Yes, already one week old, but I only noticed it since yesterday...
> 
> What is "Unicast delay requests" usefull for....???




Audinate describes it as follows:


> Unicast delay requests: Enabling 'Unicast Delay Requests' forces clock slave devices to send delay requests to the clock master using unicast instead, which reduces multicast traffic.




Since I have my D16 connected over a switch, I want to keep multicast traffic as low as possible in my LAN, which is used for all file serving, streaming and internet traffic.

The function allows a slave device to signal the clock master to slow down the traffic. Apparently 'things' can go to fast for slaved devices.
This new option allows it to do it via unicast traffic instead of the previous multicast traffic.

Not so relevant if using a direct connection, I would guess.


----------



## wushuliu

Having issues either with my soekris diy dac or the rednet so still haven't gotten it playing yet. Ordered a dirt cheap dac from Amazon to test and narrow down the problem.


----------



## jelt2359

Joined this group. Will be comparing it against the microrendu in the Chord Dave dac, whose best input is USB. Will be interesting to see if the RN3 can win. 

Has anyone upgraded the power supply on these?


----------



## gldgate

jelt2359 said:


> Joined this group. Will be comparing it against the microrendu in the Chord Dave dac, whose best input is USB. Will be interesting to see if the RN3 can win.
> 
> Has anyone upgraded the power supply on these?


 
  
 I am using a D16>Mutec MC-3+USB>Yggy with AES connections and greatly prefer the Rednet to the uRendu. One of the advantages of the D16 in my system is that tweaking (cables, power supplies) has very little sq impact. On the flip side I found that with USB almost everything in the chain had a sq impact.  I'll likely still try out different items in the future (like upcoming Mutec Reference Clock) but it's refreshing not having to sweat the smaller stuff. Not sure if my experience is typical but this is my current assessment 3 weeks in.


----------



## jelt2359

gldgate said:


> I am using a D16>Mutec MC-3+USB>Yggy with AES connections and greatly prefer the Rednet to the uRendu. One of the advantages of the D16 in my system is that tweaking (cables, power supplies) has very little sq impact. On the flip side I found that with USB almost everything in the chain had a sq impact.  I'll likely still try out different items in the future (like upcoming Mutec Reference Clock) but it's refreshing not having to sweat the smaller stuff. Not sure if my experience is typical but this is my current assessment 3 weeks in.




I wonder if it may be DAC specific. I have tried the Dave with an Aurender n100h (via AES) > Mutec 3+ USB > AES to Dave and it sounded clearly worse than just microrendu > USB to Dave. 

As I said, Dave's USB input is the superior one among all its inputs- which is not the case with the Yggy, another dac I happen to own as well. 

But good to know I don't have to sweat the power upgrades on the RN3.


----------



## gldgate

jelt2359 said:


> I wonder if it may be DAC specific. I have tried the Dave with an Aurender n100h (via AES) > Mutec 3+ USB > AES to Dave and it sounded clearly worse than just microrendu > USB to Dave.
> 
> As I said, Dave's USB input is the superior one among all its inputs- which is not the case with the Yggy, another dac I happen to own as well.
> 
> But good to know I don't have to sweat the power upgrades on the RN3.


 
  
 I don't think we have had anyone with a Dave DAC on the thread so it will be interesting to hear your impressions. I agree that the Yggy's USB implementation is not a strength. Many Yggy owners have gone the Mutec/RedNet route.


----------



## wushuliu

FINALLY got the RN3 up and running. Part of the problem is my soekris dac won't lock on to the rednet, not sure why, so I've been troubleshooting two components at once. In the meantime I got the $25 FiiO dac hooked up instead, and the rednet does indeed sound impressive - even with this cheap @ss dac...


----------



## RKML0007

I just got uRendu yesterday and it is clearly the best USB source I've used with 2Qute. The two have excellent synergy and holds its own against the Rednet chain into BNC. I can echo that USB is 2Qute's best input. I need more time to flesh out what I'm hearing. 



Grouping roon zones is a slick way to send the signal to both chains and enables quick A/B comparison. 

Optical isolation added to the RN chain today improved the sonic image significantly. Best example so far is that I could better "see" guitar strings being plucked with my mind's eye. I felt vibrationally connected to the guitar player.

Mutec 3+ USB should be showing up soon!


----------



## jelt2359

rkml0007 said:


> I just got uRendu yesterday and it is clearly the best USB source I've used with 2Qute. The two have excellent synergy and holds its own against the Rednet chain into BNC. I can echo that USB is 2Qute's best input. I need more time to flesh out what I'm hearing.
> 
> Grouping roon zones is a slick way to send the signal to both chains and enables quick A/B comparison.
> 
> ...


 
 I hadn't thought of that. I will try it. I was going to use Roon->HQPlayer as the output but indeed Roon direct makes for easier AB comparison.


----------



## joelha

rkml0007 said:


> I just got uRendu yesterday and it is clearly the best USB source I've used with 2Qute. The two have excellent synergy and holds its own against the Rednet chain into BNC. I can echo that USB is 2Qute's best input. I need more time to flesh out what I'm hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 When you mention optical isolation, I'm assuming you're talking about running optical cable between ethernet ports, is that right?
  
 If so, I've done the same and I have to say, I couldn't detect a difference.
  
 If not, I'd be curious to know what optical option you're referring to.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Joel


----------



## RKML0007

Yes, optical isolation referring to the use of FMC between Ethernet. I will conduct further listening tests to verify what I'm hearing. It was pretty simple to notice with my system. The BNC input is how I'm feeding RedNet to 2Qute. It doesn't matter what BNC source I've tried in the past, USB has been it's best input. For the first time, sound through the BNC port with RedNet is better. Introducing the FMC took it up another notch. As I spend time with the system and become more familiar with the sound, I'll bypass certain links in the chain and observe the results.


----------



## Danutz

For what FMC stands for??? What did you buy precisely?


----------



## wushuliu

danutz said:


> For what FMC stands for??? What did you buy precisely?


 

Fiber Media Converter


----------



## wushuliu

What's suprising about the Rednet 3 so far is that you'd think it would highlight the limitations and flaws of a $25 dac. But it does the opposite, it elevates the performance so in some ways, sure, you know you're listening to a cheaper dac - but the RN3 pulls out so many layers in a benign way that I was still totally sucked into the music. It was hard to remain objective and analytical. I loved what I was hearing and just didn't care. Crazy. Like an extreme audio makeover.


----------



## gldgate

My take with the RedNet D16 and Yggy is that the Dante AOIP implementation allows the Yggy to achieve more of its full potential while USB is just  clearly sub optimal. Key question  is whether this is DAC specific or if this has wider computer audio implications. From all I have read there is no "secret sauce'' from Audinate or RedNet that they are claiming that is specifically causing the sq improvement I am experiencing.


----------



## wushuliu

gldgate said:


> My take with the RedNet D16 and Yggy is that the Dante AOIP implementation allows the Yggy to achieve more of its full potential while USB is just  clearly sub optimal. Key question  is whether this is DAC specific or if this has wider computer audio implications. From all I have read there is no "secret sauce'' from Audinate or RedNet that they are claiming that is specifically causing the sq improvement I am experiencing.




which is why I am curious to hear a comparison with the am2 to get a.sense of how much the ethernet contributes vs. the hardware.


----------



## wushuliu

Internal pics for anyone who is interested


----------



## gldgate

wushuliu said:


> which is why I am curious to hear a comparison with the am2 to get a.sense of how much the ethernet contributes vs. the hardware.


 
  
 Yes, I am very interested in this as well. Also curious about comparisons between Ravenna &  Dante AOIP implementations. Not many people have both but I believe the one or two posters on Pro Audio forums that I remember reading about seem to prefer Dante (admittedly very small sample size)  Is this due to hardware or something else?


----------



## prot

gldgate said:


> Yes, I am very interested in this as well. Also curious about comparisons between Ravenna &  Dante AOIP implementations. Not many people have both but I believe the one or two posters on Pro Audio forums that I remember reading about seem to prefer Dante (admittedly very small sample size)  Is this due to hardware or something else?




In theory there should not be any SQ diffs. In practice the HW may make an audible diff, especially the clocks used for the eth2aes conversion. Also, at this stage the drivers for both are probably still in a beta state. 

jabbr
my bad for the usec/msec confusion. It was even worse cause I used the linux and win pings to test my network and didnt realize that the win version only shows msecs. 
Anyway, your latency looks good if it's usec. Should be possible to reach 2-300 usec in a small home network but might not be worth the effort


----------



## wushuliu

So are there any remote/streaming options for the rednet? is it possible through foobar?


----------



## wushuliu

For those shy about spending big bucks on fuses, I recommend swapping the stock for an equivalent ceramic fuse. In the past I've found ceramic fuses to sound more 'natural' than the typical glass ones. YMMV.


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> So are there any remote/streaming options for the rednet? is it possible through foobar?


 
 Has no relation to Rednet IMO.
  
 Your PC with playback software is what should have the remote option. This is what plays the sound into the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS). After that you don't have to do anything.
  
 If you mean if you can configure the Rednet via Rednet / Dante Controller, I'd ask 'why would you'? It is a one time job!
  
 If you mean to stream from a remote device to the PC that is running DVS, you can if you have a server program (on the PC receiving the stream) that is ASIO capable and can play into the DVS.
 But you'd be adding complexity to something that could be very simple and I personally wouldn't consider it worthwhile.
  
 Roon can play into ASIO, I believe MinimServer can too.
 My guess is there are plenty of servers that would be able to play into ASIO.


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> In theory there should not be any SQ diffs. In practice the HW may make an audible diff, especially the clocks used for the eth2aes conversion. Also, at this stage the drivers for both are probably still in a beta state.
> ...


 
  
 Dante has left Beta state a long time ago. The protocol has been developed in 2006 I believe, and the Dante Virtual Soundcard is at least as old.
  
 For Ravenna, it might be another thing though the Merging Horus and Hapi already exist for quite some time as well and they use the Ravenna protocol and are supported with drivers since the conception.

 So I don't think driver development for the cards / protocols is in its infancy anymore.
  
 Cheers


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> Has no relation to Rednet IMO.
> 
> Your PC with playback software is what should have the remote option. This is what plays the sound into the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS). After that you don't have to do anything.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Pardon my vague post - yes, I was referring to the latter, ASIO/DVS.


----------



## johnjen

prot said:


> snip





> …Also, at this stage the drivers for both are probably still in a beta state.
> 
> snip


 
 The Danté s/w seems very mature and well beyond beta…
  
 JJ
 ps dup info but still relevant.


----------



## kazsud

wushuliu said:


> So are there any remote/streaming options for the rednet? is it possible through foobar?


 

 iTunes remote, Ammara remote for tidal, Audrivia remote & Fidelia Remote


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> So are there any remote/streaming options for the rednet? is it possible through foobar?


 
  
  


jabbr said:


> Has no relation to Rednet IMO.
> 
> Your PC with playback software is what should have the remote option. This is what plays the sound into the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS). After that you don't have to do anything.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I am running JRiver with DVS on my music server and use JRemote on my IOS devices to control it. As jabbr said you need a audio program that can use the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS) ASIO driver.
  
 Dante also makes a software product called VIA that can port the output of programs that do use Windows sound and send it to a REDnet device but it is limited to 48K which means that the REDnet device would need to be set(limited) to that also. It also cannot run on the same PC that is already running DVS (I tried it and got that error).
  
 You can run Dante Controller on any PC on your network, even without DVS on it, to remotely configure your REDnet system but as jabbr said that is not too useful unless you are in Pro Audio and need to reconfigure often,


----------



## mourip

mourip said:


> This is just an update. I had some success today and was able to get audio from a single PC to both D16's across a challenging LAN setup which included two MOCA adapters that may even be going through my FIOS router. The way I have it setup I get the same signal to both D16's at the same time. No need to toggle who is the "master".
> 
> The key was that I needed to have two ethernet ports coming from my server and one needed to be configured as on a different subnet. It took me a couple of hours and a mixture of network understanding and guesswork to get it to work. For now I just have a USB3 Gigabit ethernet dongle handling the Dante route but will have an Intel PCIe card coming tomorrow.
> 
> It sounds great but I want to try it for a while before I rush out and claim victory. On another note I had my Mutec USB out of the circuit for a couple of days and now I realize that it really does contribute to the great results.


 
  
 Well I did claim victory too soon but can claim some now.
  
 Plan A was to use one PC running DVS to send music to both my speaker system in the basement and my headphone system in my office. I was hoping to then remove the PC that was serving the DAC in my office. It made sense on paper but in practicality the link between the two systems had too much latency due to using MOCA adapters(ethernet to coax to ethernet again).
  
 Plan B was to still use both PC's but leave both the PC's and the two RN16's connected individually to the LAN. This did not work well either because all Rednet devices on a network that can talk to each other want to only have one master device and that was a problem also due to the bad link to the basement. I thought that I could just keep switch the master in software as needed but the system in the basement which also has the Mutec did not like that.
  
 A call to Audinate got me on the right track. The tech helped me assess the latency of the "bad" link as the culprit. I then asked him if I could isolate the two systems while still being able to remote them. He said that I would only need to isolate one system and could do it by using two NIC cards in one of the PC's. So... one PC has one ethernet port connecting to my switch with a valid IP address for that segment. The second ethernet port connects to my RN16. It is set to DHCP but the trick is that since it sees no DHCP server it eventually gets a self assigned IP address (169.x.x.x) but the RN16 is happy with that and will talk to it. I then went into DVS control panel and chose that second ethernet port as the DVS port. In this scenario Internet and LAN traffic including requests to my NAS where my music lives go through one port and the other port just gets music traffic. The two RN16's do not know about each other so they both are "masters" for their own system. This scenario also just requires one ethernet cable run to a switch with a second very short one between the PC and the RN16.
  
 The only down side is that until I can figure out a way to pull CAT6 into the basement I will need to keep both PC's up.


----------



## wushuliu

mourip said:


> I am running JRiver with DVS on my music server and use JRemote on my IOS devices to control it. As jabbr said you need a audio program that can use the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS) ASIO driver.
> 
> Dante also makes a software product called VIA that can port the output of programs that do use Windows sound and send it to a REDnet device but it is limited to 48K which means that the REDnet device would need to be set(limited) to that also. It also cannot run on the same PC that is already running DVS (I tried it and got that error).
> 
> You can run Dante Controller on any PC on your network, even without DVS on it, to remotely configure your REDnet system but as jabbr said that is not too useful unless you are in Pro Audio and need to reconfigure often,


 
  
 Ah, JRiver. Okay. I'll give that a go. thanks!


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Well I did claim victory too soon but can claim some now.
> 
> Plan A was to use one PC running DVS to send music to both my speaker system in the basement and my headphone system in my office. I was hoping to then remove the PC that was serving the DAC in my office. It made sense on paper but in practicality the link between the two systems had too much latency due to using MOCA adapters(ethernet to coax to ethernet again).
> 
> ...




Hi Mourip

Good feedback story. i appreciate that one. So two subnets has to be the solution for now?

Would it be easier to pull optical fiber cabling from your basement?
I have optical glass fiber cabling for my uplinks and it is much smaller (2 joined threads of 2x2mm) than regular cat and much suppler and easier to handle. Only thing to mind is a minimum bending radius of 4 cm.
I have three Cisco switches with 2 SFP ports which I filled with cheap but 100% compatible optical miniGHIBs.
If your switches don't hase SFP you could use the good, but still cheap TP-Link media converters. I have one in use for isolation purpose and it works very good as well.
Cheers


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Hi Mourip
> 
> Good feedback story. i appreciate that one. So two subnets has to be the solution for now?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the ideas. The biggest issue is finding a good path from my second floor office to the basement. Old east coast house with lots of brick. The MOCA works great for video and solved a lot of dropout issues when streaming movies as compared to the previous wireless solution....


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> Ah, JRiver. Okay. I'll give that a go. thanks!


 
 Yup. Good old JRMC.
  
 I also still use Audiophile Optimizer but as others have commented I am not sure that the standard PC and OS tweaks make much of a difference when using AOIP. It does not seem to need them...


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Thanks for the ideas. The biggest issue is finding a good path from my second floor office to the basement. Old east coast house with lots of brick. The MOCA works great for video and solved a lot of dropout issues when streaming movies as compared to the previous wireless solution....



Go along outside of the wall? Weather doesn't have an impact on the optical signal, and probably you could find some outside reinforced mantle as well if needed.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Yup. Good old JRMC.
> 
> I also still use Audiophile Optimizer but as others have commented I am not sure that the standard PC and OS tweaks make much of a difference when using AOIP. It does not seem to need them...




Optimisation does not have an impact on sound quality anymore with AOIP, is what I notice.

The only thing you could use it for is to improve latency response time. 
The only moments I notice my latency response can increase is when I happen to do something that also uses the network at the same time as the playback software is just loading the next track. If the latency monitor is running I sometimes can see a new measurement with higher latency. But since it is not playing yet, it is of course unnoticable. But I can imagine you would want as little background processes running as possible that might influence latency.
So I followed all instructions by Focusrite/Audinate on optimising Windows for best latency playback and let AO go over it as well to reduce the number of active processes.

Thing I noticed that you should not touch anymore is priority and affinity of processes. That can mess up the priority schedules of the DVS services causing high latencies and drop outs.
When I used to use the USB chain, changing priority and affinity of processes gave big improvements. Not anymore now, but now it can mess up your latency, so keep every priority and affinity on default.

Cheers


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Go along outside of the wall? Weather doesn't have an impact on the optical signal, and probably you could find some outside reinforced mantle as well if needed.


 
  
 Good idea. I have been considering that. We have 100 degree days and 10 degree days here in DC so I would probably want to sheath the cabling...


----------



## prot

mourip said:


> Yup. Good old JRMC.
> 
> I also still use Audiophile Optimizer but as others have commented I am not sure that the standard PC and OS tweaks make much of a difference when using AOIP. It does not seem to need them...




AO and similar tools could actually be quite bad as they do exactly the oposite of what you need for AOIP. They optimize for audio and usb but under Windows the audio and network subsystems share lots of resources. Basically, most audio optimizations will come at the expense of network performance. On their upmost, "extreme performance" levels, such tools actually shutdown/disable the entire network subsystem. 

You should be able to tweak AO for network instead of audio/usb (i.e. prio the network device/interrupts instead of the usb ones) but it's hard to say from the outside whether that will work as expected. Better ask the autor to provide a network-optimized config .. or just forget it.


----------



## prot

Maybe 





jabbr said:


> Dante has left Beta state a long time ago. The protocol has been developed in 2006 I believe, and the Dante Virtual Soundcard is at least as old.
> 
> For Ravenna, it might be another thing though the Merging Horus and Hapi already exist for quite some time as well and they use the Ravenna protocol and are supported with drivers since the conception.
> 
> ...



U may be right. But as someone who works in IT, I have serious doubts. Almost all the software nowadays is in a sort of continuous beta-state. E.g Android is even older than Dante and still looks and feels like a beta .. the first 2-3 versions were so bad, they barely deserved to be called alpha. And android has reached critical mass long ago and is used by a huge number of people & developers. Dante & co arent even there yet. 

Pro devices like Rednet are usually quite solid and maybe audinate did a solid job with Dante. But I wouldnt call their software out-of-beta yet .. not before they at least reach critical mass and become a de-facto standard.


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> ...
> 
> Pro devices like Rednet are usually quite solid and maybe audinate did a solid job with Dante. But I wouldnt call their software out-of-beta yet .. not before they at least reach critical mass and become a de-facto standard.




Dante is the de-facto standard in the pro AOIP world, and is a matter of wait and see if Ravenna is capable of catching up. The other protocols have lost the race already IMHO.

BTW. i work in IT too, nearly 30 years now, Master of Computer Science from a Polytechnic University as educational background. Had nearly every function in software engineering, software design and consultancy except being an operator in a Data Centre. I know a thing or two about IT .


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Optimisation does not have an impact on sound quality anymore with AOIP, is what I notice.
> 
> The only thing you could use it for is to improve latency response time.
> The only moments I notice my latency response can increase is when I happen to do something that also uses the network at the same time as the playback software is just loading the next track. If the latency monitor is running I sometimes can see a new measurement with higher latency. But since it is not playing yet, it is of course unnoticable. But I can imagine you would want as little background processes running as possible that might influence latency.
> ...


 
  
 Luckily with the D16 hooked up directly to the PC ethernet port I have no dropouts. I have AO partially running without having turned off "drivers and services" but in truth I did not hear a difference with it on. Once I moved to AOIP the only real improvement came with connecting up my Mutec. That was big. I would like to try external clocking next...


----------



## prot

jabbr said:


> Dante is the de-facto standard in the pro AOIP world, and is a matter of wait and see if Ravenna is capable of catching up. The other protocols have lost the race already IMHO.
> 
> BTW. i work in IT too, nearly 30 years now, Master of Computer Science from a Polytechnic University as educational background. Had nearly every function in software engineering, software design and consultancy except being an operator in a Data Centre. I know a thing or two about IT .




Figured out already that you're not just another audiophile . 
We share a very similar background. Judging by your Poly-talk we may even share the same world region. 

I just dont share your optimism about their software quality. I prefer the safe assumption that it's same as almost all other software/drivers nowadays. Also I dont think Dante is out of the woods already. Biggest for sure .. best positioned by far clearly. But Aoip itself is a still in inception. Anything might happen anyday .. which is not that bad 
E.g. I still want my cheap, small eth2iis board and as long as it works and sounds great I wouldnt care a bit about the aoip standard.


----------



## wushuliu

Well this has been fun but the RN3 is as far as it goes for me. Last thing I expected to end up buying when all I was interested in was an inexpensive usb solution for my budget dacs!
  
 Thanks to everyone and especially rob for these illuminating threads.


----------



## gldgate

I've mentioned in a prior post that at least in my system the RedNet seems much more impervious to normal audiophile tweaking than prior setup with USB. I've also noticed something else. When I used a Dual PC set-up I was an avid fan of Infinity Blade/Bughead and thought JRiver sq was kind of meh. I've found over the last 3-4 weeks with the D16 that (a) the sq of whatever player I use (JRMC, Bughead, Roon, HQ Player w/o filters) sounds uniformly excellent and (b) the difference between players is not nearly as pronounced as I remember it being with USB.  I have to say I really don't  have a decided preference anymore from a sq stand point.  Ease of use and other features become more important. I'm using Roon and JRMC most often because of the interface. My past favorite (IB) is essentially being ignored. Anyone else experiencing this? Have to say it is a bit of a surprise.


----------



## johnjen

Status report thus far.
 I just added a SR Quantum fuse (standard, not red, nor black) and the AS Statement Silver AES cable is settling in quite nicely at 180hrs+.
  
 These 2 tweaks are worth the $$$ and effort, at least in my system anyways.
 I was wondering if the fuse tweak would yield similar results to those gains I get with analog gear.
 I mean its an all digital circuit with a SMPS instead of a linear power supply which has different current demands.
  
 And thus far after testing 3 previous 'audio grade' fuses and now this SR Quantum fuse my observation is yes there are gains to be realized.
 And while some might think of them as subtle and seemingly small, their cumulative effects are most welcome.
  
 JJ


----------



## scottcocoabeach

ccschua said:


> what is the limit of RN3 as compared to D16 ?


 
  
 I was wondering the same thing. I looked at photos of the back of the units and it looks like only the D16 has an AES output. Sweetwater has good pictures of the units that allow you to clearly see the connection options for each. It would be great if someone could weigh in on any other differences. I just recently caught up reading through this thread but don't own a Rednet (yet).


----------



## mtoc

scottcocoabeach said:


> looks like only the D16 has an AES output.


 
  
 You betta do som homwork.


----------



## somestranger26

scottcocoabeach said:


> I was wondering the same thing. I looked at photos of the back of the units and it looks like only the D16 has an AES output. Sweetwater has good pictures of the units that allow you to clearly see the connection options for each. It would be great if someone could weigh in on any other differences. I just recently caught up reading through this thread but don't own a Rednet (yet).


 
 RN3 also has AES output, but you need a DB25 breakout cable to use it. The D16 supports 176kHz and RN3 does not. For personal audio use, that's about all the differences are.
  
 I'm actually using my RN3 with AES now after receiving a DB25-AES cable from @johnjen today. Sounds about the same as using the AS Statement SE RCA cable. JJ is also using his RN3 with AES.


----------



## scottcocoabeach

somestranger26 said:


> RN3 also has AES output, but you need a DB25 breakout cable to use it. The D16 supports 176kHz and RN3 does not. For personal audio use, that's about all the differences are.
> 
> I'm actually using my RN3 with AES now after receiving a DB25-AES cable from @johnjen today. Sounds about the same as using the AS Statement SE RCA cable. JJ is also using his RN3 with AES.


 
  
 Thanks for actually providing a useful response. I was looking at the round AES connector and missed the flat one. I also understand the Rednet 3 is physically larger than the 16. Here is a picture of the back of the 3. Thanks for providing some more insight on the differences for those of us reading the entire thread to learn more from those who have these units.


----------



## jelt2359

Bear in mind: those optical outs on the RN3 can't be used with your dac, because they're not spdif. 

Also the d16 has two ethernet ports so many are going computer -> d16 then d16 to router, which allows you to have laptop connected to both d16 and the Internet. Personally with the RN3 I will be connecting both my laptop and the RN3 to the router to achieve a similar effect.


----------



## Iving

scottcocoabeach said:


> ... It would be great if someone could weigh in on any other differences. I just recently caught up reading through this thread but don't own a Rednet (yet).


 
  
 The best summary of R3 vs. D16 differences I have seen was given by Aleg at CA: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index10.html#post561329
  
 In short:
 1. Form factor (height) = 2U (R3) vs. 1U (D16)
 2. AES is breakout only (R3) vs. integral (D16)
 3. SR 192 but not 176.4 (R3) vs. both (D16)
 4. 1 x Ethernet port (R3) vs. Primary and Secondary (D16)
 and
 5. price! Whereas R3 is or was about $1,000 vs. $1,600 in the U.S., in UK/Europe R3 and D16 are much nearer par.
  
 What is not a difference is that they are both a loud and striking red. That means that you can id the Focusrite brand in a pro-audio rig from a million miles. Some people don't like it - but I think it's perfectly OK. I mean - it's just part of its personality. I like people and audiophile products just as they are. Live and Let Live


----------



## Danutz

Don't forget about brooklyn version 1 (for rednet 3) vs. version 2 (D16)


----------



## Iving

danutz said:


> Don't forget about brooklyn version 1 (for rednet 3) vs. version 2 (D16)


 
  
 Yep - Aleg's post is good on that and some other detail - see link I provided ...


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> I am running JRiver with DVS on my music server and use JRemote on my IOS devices to control it. As jabbr said you need a audio program that can use the Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS) ASIO driver.
> 
> ...




If you want to use JRiver, get the MC 22 version from the MC22 subforum (still beta) and enable the Sox Resampler.
It is soooooooooo much better than the internal resampler from JRiver itself.
I used foobar especially to be able to upsample to 192 kHz with Sox.

But I noticed JRiver has a better network behaviour than Foobar.
Don't know (yet) where or why Foobar is doing worse, but sometimes I had that the Latency monitor showed a peak, esp. when loading or playing large sized tracks (e.g. playing a 2 hour track from a TV performance). I also had the impression that Foobar did not load the track in memory even though I said it should and allowed plenty of size (7 GB).

So maybe with the next release of MC22 I might step over, if they keep the Sox resampler in this release.

Cheers


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> If you want to use JRiver, get the MC 22 version from the MC22 subforum (still beta) and enable the Sox Resampler.
> It is soooooooooo much better than the internal resampler from JRiver itself.
> I used foobar especially to be able to upsample to 192 kHz with Sox.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the tip. I think that I am prepaid for version 22 so I will give it a try.
  
 BTW. You mentioned that you are using AO. Are you just using the Windows GUI interface or have you tried "minimum" or "core" yet with DVS?


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> If you want to use JRiver, get the MC 22 version from the MC22 subforum (still beta) and enable the Sox Resampler.
> It is soooooooooo much better than the internal resampler from JRiver itself.
> I used foobar especially to be able to upsample to 192 kHz with Sox.
> 
> ...


 
  
 PS. Is the Sox resampler part of JRMC22 or is it something found from another site and added as a plugin?


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Thanks for the tip. I think that I am prepaid for version 22 so I will give it a try.
> 
> BTW. You mentioned that you are using AO. Are you just using the Windows GUI interface or have you tried "minimum" or "core" yet with DVS?




At the moment I'm running just in GUI mode. For now (and maybe forever if it doesn't make a difference) it is just much easier with installing, analysing etc to have a full GUI.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> PS. Is the Sox resampler part of JRMC22 or is it something found from another site and added as a plugin?




Just part of the MC22 install. You have to enable it in Options / Audio / Settings.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Just part of the MC22 install. You have to enable it in Options / Audio / Settings.


 
  
 Thanks. I looked right past that. Will give it a try...


----------



## joelha

johnjen said:


> Status report thus far.
> I just added a SR Quantum fuse (standard, not red, nor black) and the AS Statement Silver AES cable is settling in quite nicely at 180hrs+.
> 
> These 2 tweaks are worth the $$$ and effort, at least in my system anyways.
> ...




Thanks for the information, johnjen,

What specs for the fuse?

And why not red or black fuse vs. the standard fuse you're using?

Joel


----------



## johnjen

I'm using the 'standard' SR Quantum fuse because it's readily available and less costly than the reds or blacks.
 The fuse is a 2 amp slow blow but I'm about to take my experiments to the next level with WAQY chips, silver goo and a few other tweaks.
  
 Just to see if there are any noticeable changes.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

johnjen said:


> I'm using the 'standard' SR Quantum fuse because it's readily available and less costly than the reds or blacks.
> The fuse is a 2 amp slow blow but I'm about to take my experiments to the next level with WAQY chips, silver goo and a few other tweaks.
> 
> Just to see if there are any noticeable changes.
> ...


 
 Thanks for the information.
  
 For those of us who are fuse-ignorant, could you or someone else specifically identify the fuse specs for the stock fuse in the D16?
  
 Regardless of which fuse I buy, I want to be sure it fits and is appropriate for this device.
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Thanks for the information.
> 
> For those of us who are fuse-ignorant, could you or someone else specifically identify the fuse specs for the stock fuse in the D16?
> 
> ...


 
 It is also a "T 2A" (Slow blow 2 amp) fuse of a 20 x 5 mm size.
 It is located on the power board which is inside the acrylic case on the left side.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> It is also a "T 2A" (Slow blow 2 amp) fuse of a 20 x 5 mm size.
> It is located on the power board which is inside the acrylic case on the left side.


 
 You're good jabbr.
  
 Thanks a lot. Great information.
  
 Joel


----------



## artur9

Very interesting technology here.  I've read the whole thread but I'm not sure I am understanding how it all fits together.  Is Dante/Ravenna/AOIP/AES67 all the same thing?
  
 IIUC, there's a virtual sound card on a PC/Mac that converts the audio to AOIP.   That goes through the network to the device (RN3/RN16) and that device feeds the DAC?
  
 If so, since I'm using a Linux box would it make sense to get this Attero USB->Dante thing instead of worrying about drivers?  Sadly, it's not high res capable.
  
 Then what would I connect to the DAC?


----------



## jabbr

artur9 said:


> Very interesting technology here.  I've read the whole thread but I'm not sure I am understanding how it all fits together.  Is Dante/Ravenna/AOIP/AES67 all the same thing?
> 
> IIUC, there's a virtual sound card on a PC/Mac that converts the audio to AOIP.   That goes through the network to the device (RN3/RN16) and that device feeds the DAC?
> 
> ...



 
Dante and Ravenna are two 'competing' protocols for AOIP. So they specify the 'language' they talk across the IP-network.
 
AES67 is an interoperability standard, which allows different protocols to communicate with each other with regard to the *transport of the audio*.
Beside transport there is also other communication in a protocol, like discovery and certain control signals. These are not part of AES67.
 
But AES67 will allow devices from different protocols to communicate with each other and be part of the total AOIP-network.
 
Wrt the Attero thing, I would say in a Linux environment you would need two: Linux --> Usb/Dante  --- IP-network --- Dante/USB --> DAC
or just one and a Rednet:  Linux --> Usb/Dante  --- IP-network --- Rednet/SPDIF --> DAC 
 
But mind you this sound quality also depends on the design and build quality of the Dante interface that is connected to the DAC and as has been shown the Focusrite Rednets are very good.
Whether an Attero USB interface can come close remains to be seen.
The AOIP in itself is no guarantee for supreme sound quality. The goodness can still be screwed up by the interface device which is actually connected to the DAC.


----------



## artur9

> Originally Posted by *jabbr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Wrt the Attero thing, I would say in a Linux environment you would need two: Linux --> Usb/Dante  --- IP-network --- Dante/USB --> DAC
> or just one and a Rednet:  Linux --> Usb/Dante  --- IP-network --- Rednet/SPDIF --> DAC
> ...


 

 Thanks!  These things are pricey, omg.
  
 How does one control where the audio goes?  Say I have a USB/Dante bridge and a AES/Dante bridge.  The computer plays "into" the USB bridge.  How does the AES bridge know to play that stream?
  
  
 I wish those 2 devices were high res capable.  4 channels @ 96Khz / 2 @ 192KHz would be fine for me.  But 4@48 / 2 @88 seems a bit too low res.


----------



## jabbr

artur9 said:


> Thanks!  These things are pricey, omg.
> 
> How does one control where the audio goes?  Say I have a USB/Dante bridge and a AES/Dante bridge.  The computer plays "into" the USB bridge.  How does the AES bridge know to play that stream?
> 
> ...




The Rednet come with Dante Controller software.
This software discovers all Dante devices on the network and allows you to map transmitting channels onto receiving channels on any of Dante devices in your network.

This is Pro-Studio gear and for that I think it is relatively cheap.


----------



## gldgate

My $.02 is that the RedNet offers very good value. It's built like a tank and so far has worked flawlessly. The support is also first rate. When I had a question during initial set-up I was actually able to get a hold of a real person who guided me through my issue. I have a hunch that if this product was marketed as a typical "high-end" consumer audio device instead of Pro Audio it would likely be selling at a premium to it's current price. The RedNet and Mutec reclocker are two purchases where I've had absolutely zero buyers remorse.


----------



## mourip

I have a couple of general ideas to offer. I am finding that I gravitate here most often these days because it is hard to generate enough interest anywhere else for this amazing tech. It just stuns me that the folks over on CA are not all over this. They seem pretty stuck on the streamers.
  
 I have been playing with my system a lot since I got the D16 trying to find the best way to optimize it's already superior SQ. One thing I have been doing is trying different cables and also cable routing and cable length. A few days ago I realized that when I was within a few feet of my speakers I was getting a high pitch buzzing or a "rushing" noise from them. This was new and very different from the very slight tube hum I normally can hear with my ear basically on the driver. At first I thought that one of the 80 year old 01a tubes in my preamp had gone bad but eventually decided through process of elimination that I was picking up some high frequency noise generated from my now complex digital front end. After a lot of process of elimination I thought that it was coming from my PC. With only my PC turned on and my analog preamp and amp on I could hear the noise. I could not figure out how the noise was getting to the analog side with only my computer turned on however. My only guess was either RF or else noise going back into the mains.
  
 The answer turned out to be that I had an HDPlex LPS powering both my PC but also my Tortuga Audio LDR volume control. The DC cable to the LDR Pre passed right behind my tube preamp from one side of my console to the other side. Even though the LDR pre was not turned on the wire was probably acting like an antenna and either sending RF to my tube pre or else injecting noise into the shared ground. I switch back to the power brick that came with the LDR and plugged it into a power conditioner. Not only did the noise go away but the SQ increase dramatically, losing some brightness that had sneaked in at some point.
  
 Just a reminder that everything matters and sometimes just tweaking what you already have can bring gains. With my front end digital stack growing daily in number and complexity I can see that careful attention to cable routing, lenght, and layout as well as power conditioning and isolation is increasingly important...
  
 PS. Please stop buying new equipment and posting the results here. I now have an Antelope on the way


----------



## mourip

PS...
  
 I received this reply from Antelope this morning after asking this question...
  
_"In terms of functionality that affects sound quality is there any difference between Live Clock and Isochrone OCX? Are they functionally the same except for the casing?_
  
_If there are differences what would they be?"_
  
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
 "Hello Paul,

 In terms of functionality both units provide the exact same functions. However, the Isochrone OCX is using older technology in comparison with the Live Clock (the Acoustically Focused clocking technology). Put in short terms. The Live Clock comes in a smaller package with better performance.

 Kind regards,
  
 Technical Support Specialist

 Antelope Audio


----------



## enginedr

What I have to say is by people like Rob rb2013 willingness to take chances on trying new gear and posting the results on this site has brought many of us SQ we would have never known
 possible with gear not priced in the extreme hi end . I spend time reading posts and reviews before pulling the trigger . I was just about to go with the microrendu after reading this post I changed
 my mind and went with the Red Net 3 . I like to watch Youtube  on my big screen TV connected to my Mac Mini HDMI and send the audio to my system . There is more flexibility in a pc solution
 In all of the USB to SPDIF conversations the clock was the key to great SQ it makes total sense to apply this approach to the Red Net . Thank you again Rob


----------



## rb2013

enginedr said:


> What I have to say is by people like Rob rb2013 willingness to take chances on trying new gear and posting the results on this site has brought many of us SQ we would have never known
> possible with gear not priced in the extreme hi end . I spend time reading posts and reviews before pulling the trigger . I was just about to go with the microrendu after reading this post I changed
> my mind and went with the Red Net 3 . I like to watch Youtube  on my big screen TV connected to my Mac Mini HDMI and send the audio to my system . There is more flexibility in a pc solution
> In all of the USB to SPDIF conversations the clock was the key to great SQ it makes total sense to apply this approach to the Red Net . Thank you again Rob


 
 Thanks again for the kind comments.  As a follower of this thread - you know the battles that have gone on  - some industry folks constantly throwing sand in the AOIP tracks - to halt this peasant uprising.  But the SQ speaks for itself - so we all benefit (well maybe not those USB gizmo makers) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  Even just with good old SPDIF/AES 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 So feedback like yours is invaluable. 
  
 I'm hoping to a get a dedicated website/blog of my own up and running this summer - one dedicated to AOIP.  I see the posting action on CA has ground to a halt...not surprised.
  
 This is just the beginning of what will be a major audio force - with much less expensive devices targeted to our needs.  I would love to see a Rednet with just two channels out, Dante in and a DC power source - but with full 192k capabilities and the full Dante/Brooklyn implementation.  I imagine it would be hundreds cheaper then the RN3.
  
 Would be great if Grimm did a simpler 4 output Wclock clock, with DC power as well.
  
 Cheers


----------



## Albrecht

enginedr said:


> What I have to say is by people like Rob rb2013 willingness to take chances on trying new gear and posting the results on this site has brought many of us SQ we would have never known
> possible with gear not priced in the extreme hi end . I spend time reading posts and reviews before pulling the trigger . I was just about to go with the microrendu after reading this post I changed
> my mind and went with the Red Net 3 . I like to watch Youtube  on my big screen TV connected to my Mac Mini HDMI and send the audio to my system . There is more flexibility in a pc solution
> In all of the USB to SPDIF conversations the clock was the key to great SQ it makes total sense to apply this approach to the Red Net . Thank you again Rob


 

 I want to echo a big +1 on your post here!!
  
 Thanks RB, - I can't wait to go down this road when the CFO releases the funding!


----------



## wushuliu

I think there is a ripple effect from these threads that's spreading to some of the other forums I peruse, albeit quietly. I certainly plan on spreading the word. It will take a little time though because everything is moving so fast. The microrendu is barely out the gate and it's already 'meh' as far as we're concerned... Same with the LanRover, which isn't even out yet!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Unless there's some sort of money saving or footprint advantage it'll be pretty tough to beat out a piece of gear being used to record with. Of course there are additions you can make so there's room for improvement but as is vs other ddc units or lan based transports it's a tough unit to out do for the money.

Yes installing has a curve but a little reading and even a call to focusrite will get you sorted out. Their customer service is literally a tech on the phone that knows their stuff who will walk you through settings. By now they should know people who don't know studio jargon are calling in. 





wushuliu said:


> I think there is a ripple effect from these threads that's spreading to some of the other forums I peruse, albeit quietly. I certainly plan on spreading the word. It will take a little time though because everything is moving so fast. The microrendu is barely out the gate and it's already 'meh' as far as we're concerned... Same with the LanRover, which isn't even out yet!


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> I want to echo a big +1 on your post here!!
> 
> Thanks RB, - I can't wait to go down this road when the CFO releases the funding!


 

 Contact Yellen - maybe she can divert some of the freshly printed cash from the Goldman Sachs pipeline.


----------



## enginedr

soundsgoodtome said:


> Unless there's some sort of money saving or footprint advantage it'll be pretty tough to beat out a piece of gear being used to record with. Of course there are additions you can make so there's room for improvement but as is vs other ddc units or lan based transports it's a tough unit to out do for the money.
> 
> Yes installing has a curve but a little reading and even a call to focusrite will get you sorted out. Their customer service is literally a tech on the phone that knows their stuff who will walk you through settings. By now they should know people who don't know studio jargon are calling in a problem


 
 I purchased my Red Net 3 from Sweetwater I first called Focisrite for some tech assistance . The one problem I had was the Rednet controller
 would no recognize the RN3 I was able to get it to play using the Dante controller . I called Sweetwater on Saturday morning there tech logged
 on to my computer with a remote application and rectified the problem . Sweetwater is a great Focisrite dealer they know there stuff


----------



## Albrecht

> maybe she can divert some of the freshly printed cash from the Goldman Sachs pipeline.


 
  
 LOL. After they've finished all the golf courses & resort hotels in Puerto Rico.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I didn't know Sweetwater offered remote assistance, that's better than step by step on the phone. I've purchased instruments from them before and the service was top





enginedr said:


> I purchased my Red Net 3 from Sweetwater I first called Focisrite for some tech assistance . The one problem I had was the Rednet controller
> would no recognize the RN3 I was able to get it to play using the Dante controller . I called Sweetwater on Saturday morning there tech logged
> on to my computer with a remote application and rectified the problem . Sweetwater is a great Focisrite dealer they know there stuff


 notch.


----------



## Clemmaster

enginedr said:


> I purchased my Red Net 3 from Sweetwater I first called Focisrite for some tech assistance . The one problem I had was the Rednet controller
> would no recognize the RN3 I was able to get it to play using the Dante controller . I called Sweetwater on Saturday morning there tech logged
> on to my computer with a remote application and rectified the problem . Sweetwater is a great Focisrite dealer they know there stuff


 
 Do you know what they did exactly?
  
 I have the same problem on both my PC (win10) and my mac mini (El Capitan). Direct connect in both cases.


----------



## enginedr

The security setting on the mac has to be set to open anyway - then he re-downloaded the Red net 3.4 to 3.7 upgrade
    There is instructions on the focisrite down load page as to what version work with each operating system
 The support at Sweetwater is great


----------



## gldgate

After all the talk about clocks the last few days I finally convinced myself  (I'm good at doing that) to try out the Antelope LiveClock for both the RedNet D16 and the Mutec. Looking forward to another candy filled delivery from Sweetwater.


----------



## RKML0007

Interesting gldgate - please share how you envision setting up the combo!


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> After all the talk about clocks the last few days I finally convinced myself  (I'm good at doing that) to try out the Antelope LiveClock for both the RedNet D16 and the Mutec. Looking forward to another candy filled delivery from Sweetwater.


 
  
 I did the same today and also plan to clock my D16 and Mutec USB.
  
 Oops. Just realized that I only bought one BNC word clock cable.


----------



## artur9

Where do you believe the sonic improvements are coming from in this setup?  From using the Rednet devices?  Or is Dante that much better than DLNA?  Or eliminating USB?
  
 The reason I ask is that it seems to me, as an experiment, I should be able to set up two computers with DVS on it and TOSLINK the one into my DAC while using the other to run iTunes or Roon.


----------



## gldgate

Probably a combo. After experiencing Dante  I have absolutely no interest in returning to USB. My hunch is that in 3-5 years (if not sooner) AOIP connection will be ubiquitous for high end DAC's. The proliferation of USB "clean up" devices is a pretty good indication that USB is currently sub-optimal for many DAC's.
  
 Having said all that, it is possible that much of the sq benefits I am hearing is DAC (Yggy) dependent. There was someone on the thread who was going to try a RedNet with a Chord Dave. I am very interesting to hear his impressions because he mentioned that USB connection was Dave's best connection (where it is clearly Yggy's worst).


----------



## enginedr

I would like some feedback on your Antelope live clock implementation . I do not have a Mutec smart clock and would like your impression on just the Antelope without the Mutec and with both clocks
 Robs take on the Mutec was it hurt SQ as a world clock in the RN3 loop but helped as a SPDIF re-clocker .Any feedback would be helpful - I don't want to BOAT - short for break out another thousand - a boating lingo . I am so taken back by the results of this combo in my system . This forum is great for the Ear bad for the pocket .


----------



## gldgate

My liveclock is expected to arrive from Sweetwater on Friday. I'll play with it over the weekend and likely give my impressions the following week. I've heard mixed things in general on external clocks - everything from they are wonderful, to makes no difference at all to actually degrades sq. I've never tried one personally so I thought the liveclock was worth a shot. What appealed to me was (a) the liveclock uses Antelope's latest technology (b) It's less than $1K (ok - barely) (c) it's relatively small form factor and of course (d) some positive comments about Antelope from fellow RedNet owners. Mutec is coming out with their latest and greatest clock in September and I was going to wait for that but I've heard the price is probably in the $2K-$3K zip code (ouch). I've mentioned a couple of times that I find AOIP and RedNet less "tweak" influenced than my USB set-up. The clock experiment should be interesting.


----------



## markus94103

gldgate said:


> Having said all that, it is possible that much of the sq benefits I am hearing is DAC (Yggy) dependent. There was someone on the thread who was going to try a RedNet with a Chord Dave. I am very interesting to hear his impressions because he mentioned that USB connection was Dave's best connection (where it is clearly Yggy's worst).


 
  
 I'll have a Chord Mojo with me at the July 30th Red Hook meet in Seattle, so we might have a chance there to connect it to a Rednet and gather impressions.


----------



## rb2013

markus94103 said:


> I'll have a Chord Mojo with me at the July 30th Red Hook meet in Seattle, so we might have a chance there to connect it to a Rednet and gather impressions.


Any reclocking fun in the mix?


----------



## markus94103

rb2013 said:


> Any reclocking fun in the mix?


 
  
 Do you mean comparing the Rednet+Mojo vs. reclocker+Mojo?


----------



## REXNFX

rkml0007 said:


> Yes, optical isolation referring to the use of FMC between Ethernet. I will conduct further listening tests to verify what I'm hearing. It was pretty simple to notice with my system. The BNC input is how I'm feeding RedNet to 2Qute. It doesn't matter what BNC source I've tried in the past, USB has been it's best input. For the first time, sound through the BNC port with RedNet is better. Introducing the FMC took it up another notch. As I spend time with the system and become more familiar with the sound, I'll bypass certain links in the chain and observe the results.


 
 How's the Rednet v Microrendu comparison going, any updates? TIA


----------



## RKML0007

I was right in the middle of a listening session. The 2Qute has been quite an enigma. So far, I cannot reliably discern any advantage over the other. I'll need to listen more. The 2Qute seems to be indifferent. I'm very perplexed.


----------



## jabbr

rkml0007 said:


> I was right in the middle of a listening session. The 2Qute has been quite an enigma. So far, I cannot reliably discern any advantage over the other. I'll need to listen more. The 2Qute seems to be indifferent. I'm very perplexed.




I'm surprised as well as I'm using a Hugo (2Qute's bigger brother) and differences between a USB-based chain and a Rednet-based chain are quite clear.
I must say I always used the SPDIF port of the Hugo (also in the USB-chain) as that was clearly the better port over the USB port.

What is your playback software in the USB-chain? I ask because I know a USB-chain is quite sensitive to the electrical effects that the software player is causing.


----------



## johnjen

rkml0007 said:


> I was right in the middle of a listening session. The 2Qute has been quite an enigma. So far, I cannot reliably discern any advantage over the other. I'll need to listen more. The 2Qute seems to be indifferent. I'm very perplexed.


 
 How many hrs on the RN3?
  
 JJ


----------



## rb2013

markus94103 said:


> Do you mean comparing the Rednet+Mojo vs. reclocker+Mojo?


 

 No comparing the RN with the Mutec MC-3+ USB as SPDIF reclocker and/or a OXCO clock like the Antelope as ext Wclock
  
 Maybe some there has one of these to bring along and try.


----------



## RKML0007

Still early days, D16 with only 20 hours of listening time on it. I don't power down the unit in between sessions. Roon for playback of Tidal, all audio outputs configured in exclusive mode, fixed volume. 

The 2Qute is galvanically isolated on its USB input and seems to be doing its job. I've read that Hugo and Mojo are not GI, because they are battery powered and would impact run time in a portable application. I have the mojo as well but haven't tested it with the D16 yet.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> No comparing the RN with the Mutec MC-3+ USB as SPDIF reclocker and/or a OXCO clock like the Antelope as ext Wclock


 
  
 I have an Antelope LiveClock arriving today and want to make sure that I understand the best way to hook it up.
  
 My plan is D16 to Mutec USB(as reclocker) and use the two WCLK BNC outputs of the Antelope as external WCLK inputs for both devices...


----------



## enginedr

I have my Antelope Live clock looped into my RN3 world clock this way in RN controller set the clock to external .
 I am interested to see if the Mutec makes a difference as a SPDIF re-clocker  with this set up ? Is more better or is less is more ?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Question for those use to pro gear. Am I able to use a T connector to split the spdif output of my Rednet to send to 2 dacs? Is this a bad and possibly sq-lessening? 

Ideally I'd like run 2 dacs simultaneously through the same source connection, 1 of my DACs does not have AES/ebu.


----------



## RKML0007

I don't know if it negatively affects the impedance, but this worked to run 2Qute and Mojo.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Good to know! Did you notice any sound changes vs just one directly to the Rednet? 





rkml0007 said:


> I don't know if it negatively affects the impedance, but this worked to run 2Qute and Mojo.


----------



## RKML0007

I did not detect any audible SQ degradation.


----------



## mourip

enginedr said:


> I have my Antelope Live clock looped into my RN3 world clock this way in RN controller set the clock to external .
> I am interested to see if the Mutec makes a difference as a SPDIF re-clocker  with this set up ? Is more better or is less is more ?


 
  
 I have not hooked up my Antelope yet but the Mutec makes a big difference as a reclocker. Will find out soon how all three play together.
  
 Last night before dinner I sat down for an hour and listened to some Offenbach whose music I like for it's dynamics. This was an old RCA recording. Ripped from CD at 44k and upsampled for the D16 to 192k. It sounded so amazing that I literally jumped to the edge of my seat in amazement. It is stunning to me that this has not really taken off yet, especially over on CA.
  
 The remarkable thing is that my PC is the same and my DAC and playback system is unchanged. All I have done is altered how the bits are delivered to the DAC


----------



## Muziqboy

mourip said:


> I have not hooked up my Antelope yet but the Mutec makes a big difference as a reclocker. Will find out soon how all three play together.
> 
> Last night before dinner I sat down for an hour and listened to some Offenbach whose music I like for it's dynamics. This was an old RCA recording. Ripped from CD at 44k and upsampled for the D16 to 192k. It sounded so amazing that I literally jumped to the edge of my seat in amazement. It is stunning to me that this has not really taken off yet, especially over on CA.
> 
> The remarkable thing is that my PC is the same and my DAC and playback system is unchanged. All I have done is altered how the bits are delivered to the DAC


 
  
 I think the usb ddc's that most of us used to have is the limiting factor.
  
 I noticed that no matter what Dac you have, the RedNet 3 and D16 makes them perform to their peak which equates to astounding SQ that we all are experiencing.


----------



## wushuliu

So has anyone compared 16/44 to 24/192 playback quality?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Quite true, my mid 2000s Matrix MINI-I took a sound leap over internal usb and a step or two up over the breeze audio ddc.





muziqboy said:


> I think the usb ddc's that most of us used to have is the limiting factor.
> 
> I noticed that no matter what Dac you have, the RedNet 3 and D16 makes them perform to their peak which equates to astounding SQ that we all are experiencing.


----------



## jabbr

​


soundsgoodtome said:


> Good to know! Did you notice any sound changes vs just one directly to the Rednet?




For converting an aes 110 Ohm signal into a bnc 75 Ohm signal, you can use one of these Canare impedance transformers


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

jabbr said:


> ​ For converting an aes 110 Ohm signal into a bnc 75 Ohm signal, you can use one of these Canare impedance transformers


 

 This would be great for a permanent setup but my main DAC only accepts BNC or RCA so I'm quite happy with the RCA output of the Rednet (without having to spend on a breakout or 2-3 of these adapters). I'm thinking of a temporary use if I wanted to share the signal at a meet. Essentially I want my primary DAC and the ability to allow people to try their DAC on the same signal so they can see what the Rednet does for their system.
  
 During the last meet I brought my Matrix Mini-I DAC which has a spdif pass-through that allowed daisy chaining and worked quite well, in the process we found out that the Yggy can not accept a signal directly from the Rednet (which now I believe Focusrite is working on or have worked on with their update). But... the Matrix Mini-i is what I use at work for speakers and headphone use, not the PC1704 MHDT Labs Pagoda I have at home which is levels above in SQ.


----------



## somestranger26

soundsgoodtome said:


> Question for those use to pro gear. Am I able to use a T connector to split the spdif output of my Rednet to send to 2 dacs? Is this a bad and possibly sq-lessening?
> 
> Ideally I'd like run 2 dacs simultaneously through the same source connection, 1 of my DACs does not have AES/ebu.


 
 You can run the one with AES on it with a breakout cable and hook up the other one with RCA. I'm doing that right now with my DirectStream hooked up via AES and Master 11 hooked up with RCA so I can A/B them. The signal is outputted to both simultaneously.
  
 Like this: https://www.amazon.com/Hosa-AES805Y-Breakout-Snake-Female/dp/B000068OGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469045232&sr=8-1&keywords=db25+aes+breakout
  
 I had johnjen make me one with just a 2 channel output.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> I have an Antelope LiveClock arriving today and want to make sure that I understand the best way to hook it up.
> 
> My plan is D16 to Mutec USB(as reclocker) and use the two WCLK BNC outputs of the Antelope as external WCLK inputs for both devices...


 

 Cool. Let us know your thoughts.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> Cool. Let us know your thoughts.


 
  
 Arrived and set up. Easy to connect to the D16. One cable and one mouse click in Rednet Control Panel. The unit is very small and light, about the size of a Mutec. I have a question in to see if I can power it off of the 12V from my HDPlex LPS. It also requires a software app that registers it and makes changes via a USB cable.
  
 I did not hook up the second BNC WCLK cable to my Mutec yet so that is another test. Several possible combinations and permutations of cables and devices here.
  
 I listened to it a bit this evening but under less than ideal conditions so I will let it run in with music overnight before getting serious 
  
 As an aside, I bid on a Antelope OCX on EBay this week before buying the LiveClock. Luckily someone outbid me as I really was not ready to add one to my second headphone based system. Someone got a good deal at $505. Anyone here get it?


----------



## gldgate

I almost picked up an OCX HD before someone pointed out the Liveclock is based on the same technology and comes in a smaller foot print. Yes, the HD does  will clock up to 768khz but with the RedNet at 192Khz it's a feature that would likely go unused. Given that the OCX is now discontinued I'm guessing we will continue to see good pricing on these "older" units. Probably a good time to pick up a 10M as well . Hoping you get good results.


----------



## johnjen

rkml0007 said:


> Still early days, D16 with only 20 hours of listening time on it. I don't power down the unit in between sessions.
> snip


 
 In looking back on my notes, the 20 to ≈ 150 hrs were not anywhere near the best that these RedNet boxes can do.
 In fact my notes say that my 2-Wyrd setup was better.
  
 Just an observation.
  
 JJ


----------



## rb2013

rkml0007 said:


> I don't know if it negatively affects the impedance, but this worked to run 2Qute and Mojo.


Bad idea, you can be lowering the impedance. The key to great SPDIF is as perfect 75 ohm impedance as possible. Just that connector looks sketchy.


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> In looking back on my notes, the 20 to ≈ 150 hrs were not anywhere near the best that these RedNet boxes can do.
> In fact my notes say that my 2-Wyrd setup was better.
> 
> Just an observation.
> ...


 
  
 I am confused. Are you saying that you prefer your Wyred setup to your RN3 set up or that burn-in took longer with your RedNet setup.
  
 Thanks!


----------



## RKML0007

rb2013 said:


> Bad idea, you can be lowering the impedance. The key to great SPDIF is as perfect 75 ohm impedance as possible. Just that connector looks sketchy.




Thanks for weighing in. Here's some info I've come across, wondering if it applies:

Also, it is critical to understand that signal loss is not equal to data loss. 100% data recovery can easily be maintained in the face of 10%, 20% or even higher signal loss. As I have said before, the clock jitter is much more critical to data recovery than signal strength. As long as signal strength is sufficient to allow the receiving end to "recover" the data stream and clock, the absolute signal level does not matter. The output level from the transformer out the cable is ~600mv. The minimum level per the specification for 100% data recover at the receiving end is 200mv. That's just 1/3 the output! That means 30% signal loss would still provide 50% more than the minimum.

Proper impedance matching is important in theory, but in practice there is plenty of margin to insure 100% data transmission.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## somestranger26

mourip said:


> I am confused. Are you saying that you prefer your Wyred setup to your RN3 set up or that burn-in took longer with your RedNet setup.
> 
> Thanks!


 
 He preferred the Wyrd set up until after 150 hours of burn-in on the Rednet.


----------



## thisisvv

Question : For rednet 3 we need the dante software am i right?...if so can the software work under ubuntu ? i am not seeing the ubuntu support under there page?
  
 If it can only be used in windows...does it require lot of ram and Cpu...for windows i have a NUC with i5 and 16gb ram which is also my server for many other things....so is it recommended to have a sperate pc for this or can a one pc which is used for multiple things can be used for streaming audio.


----------



## Muziqboy

thisisvv said:


> Question : For rednet 3 we need the dante software am i right?...if so can the software work under ubuntu ? i am not seeing the ubuntu support under there page?
> 
> If it can only be used in windows...does it require lot of ram and Cpu...for windows i have a NUC with i5 and 16gb ram which is also my server for many other things....so is it recommended to have a sperate pc for this or can a one pc which is used for multiple things can be used for streaming audio.


 
  
 I have the Dante Virtual Soundcard installed on a NUC computer and it is working flawlessly. No linux compatibility at the moment.


----------



## thisisvv

muziqboy said:


> I have the Dante Virtual Soundcard installed on a NUC computer and it is working flawlessly. No linux compatibility at the moment.


 
 how much memory and performance issue you see...I only have 8gb ram to give to this guy.


----------



## Muziqboy

You should be fine with 8gb ram. It is pretty stable in my set-up. Not a single drop-out ever since I had it.


----------



## artur9

thisisvv said:


> how much memory and performance issue you see...I only have 8gb ram to give to this guy.


 

 You're not thinking of virtualizing the Wndows install, are you?  I thought I read that the performance in a VM would be unacceptable.


----------



## thisisvv

artur9 said:


> You're not thinking of virtualizing the Wndows install, are you?  I thought I read that the performance in a VM would be unacceptable.


 
  
  
 No. I have a small Nuc (windows 7 X64) which is used pfsense (home firewall) and some media sharing server. I plan to use Dante on that. I have another machine which has Ubuntu on it, as agreed i cant use it.
  
  
 Was wondering that do the audio device needs to be like CAPS (no other process running) or this NUC can be used.


----------



## johnjen

mourip said:


> I am confused. Are you saying that you prefer your Wyred setup to your RN3 set up or that burn-in took longer with your RedNet setup.
> 
> Thanks!


 
 I am saying that from about 20 to 150hrs of burn in, the RN3 sounded slightly worse, to about the same as my 2-Wyrd setup.
  
 After that the RN3 started to leave the SQ of my 2-Wyrd setup behind, and that the SQ gap has only increased as the hours have accumulated.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> I am saying that from about 20 to 150hrs of burn in, the RN3 sounded slightly worse, to about the same as my 2-Wyrd setup.
> 
> After that the RN3 started to leave the SQ of my 2-Wyrd setup behind, and that the SQ gap has only increased as the hours have accumulated.
> 
> JJ


 
  
 Thanks. I would say that my D16 with Mutec +3 USB sounded better than my REGEN/Mutec USB chain immediately and still continues to improve.
  
 I had not expected break-in with the D16 and I am a big believer in it....


----------



## johnjen

Yeah, many don't think break-in is 'real'.
  
 But I have yet to experience any piece of gear that doesn't get better thru time and in some cases dramatically so.
 The prime example being a Schiit Jggy dac.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

thisisvv said:


> Question : For rednet 3 we need the dante software am i right?...if so can the software work under ubuntu ? i am not seeing the ubuntu support under there page?
> 
> If it can only be used in windows...does it require lot of ram and Cpu...for windows i have a NUC with i5 and 16gb ram which is also my server for many other things....so is it recommended to have a sperate pc for this or can a one pc which is used for multiple things can be used for streaming audio.


 
 There are 2 sources of s/w needed for these RedNet boxes.
 Both Focusrite and Audinate supply necessary s/w bits.
  
 And if Ubuntu isn't listed, for either, a phone call or email will answer your question for sure.
  
 As for ram usage, these s/w bits are mostly for setup, monitoring and really not much else.
 The Virtual sound card, which is a virtual device driver runs, but that's about it, and unless you open the Danté or RedNet controller s/w there isn't anything else added to the running s/w mix.
  
 JJ


----------



## thisisvv

johnjen said:


> There are 2 sources of s/w needed for these RedNet boxes.
> Both Focusrite and Audinate supply necessary s/w bits.
> 
> And if Ubuntu isn't listed, for either, a phone call or email will answer your question for sure.
> ...


 
  
  
 So a NUC should suffice. Nice i dont need to spend another 600$ for a CAPS server i can think of buying rednet3 now....Nice and Thank you.
  
 V


----------



## jabbr

thisisvv said:


> So a NUC should suffice. Nice i dont need to spend another 600$ for a CAPS server i can think of buying rednet3 now....Nice and Thank you.
> 
> V



The only thing to mind is that your PC with DVS and playback software, has low enough network latency. Dante runs real time network protocols, so its traffic has to be top notch.
This depends how you connect to the RN3 or D16, a direct connection to the PC probably won't give any issues. Connecting PC via a switch to the Rednet might require more attention.


----------



## thisisvv

jabbr said:


> The only thing to mind is that your PC with DVS and playback software, has low enough network latency. Dante runs real time network protocols, so its traffic has to be top notch.
> This depends how you connect to the RN3 or D16, a direct connection to the PC probably won't give any issues. Connecting PC via a switch to the Rednet might require more attention.


 
 Noted. I plan to have Fiber optic between PC , Fiber optic switch and Dante.


----------



## johnjen

Yeah what he ^^^^^^ said…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 And it will also help if the NIC you use, be used only for the Danté network.
 This may be a non-issue due to the low throughput we are sending across this network, but still it is a streaming situation which can sometimes 'compete' with the 'normal' ethernet protocols already in use.
  
  
 And in other news…
 Tonight the SQ is in full blossom, like I've NEVER heard it before.
  
 Things are focusing down to, and inside of 'Voices' to a degree that is truly remarkable.
 The RN3 has ≈ 750hrs, the Silver AES cable has ≈ 335hrs and the fuse has ≈ 150hrs.
 So at this point I figure the RN3 is fully settled in, the AES cable may need ≈150hrs more, and fuse 3-400 more hrs to fully settle in.
 At least if they continue to morph during break in like most of the rest of my gear.
  
 JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/ifi-audios-spdif-ipurifier-debuts-at-fujiya-avic-spring-2016/

Check it out, a spdif purifier by ifi with a side optical output to run both coax and optical. Sign me up!


----------



## motberg

thisisvv said:


> Noted. I plan to have Fiber optic between PC , Fiber optic switch and Dante.


 

 I do not have any use for this currently (and not sure if this is directly relevant), but I thought the article and comments were helpful to better understand the optical option..
  
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/electrically-isolate-your-networked-audio#XAD5vfGyz6RyPJ5L.97


----------



## gldgate

Received an antelope liveclock yesterday. This is my first external master clock. First impression was that I felt I needed to crank the volume a little bit more. Next impression was that music using the internal RedNet clock seemed to be more forward with a fuller, more rounded sound while the Antelope appeared better balanced top to bottom.  Additional listening confirmed that while the stock RedNet had a rounder sound the imaging at the edges loses focus a little bit compared to the Antelope where the imaging sounds more solid (if slightly recessed in comparison).
  
 For pure visceral excitement, I'd probably give nod to the stock RedNet. However, the more I A/B I get the impression that the LiveClock may be the more natural perspective. There is no doubt that they sound different. Good news is that sq with Antelope (like RedNet) has no digital glare and music has a wonderful flow to it that reminds me of my analog system. Also, using the RedNet Control it is easy to change from internal to external clock with a mouse click.
  
 Liveclock has been running less than 24 hours so I'll continue to monitor to see if sound changes over time.


----------



## enginedr

I have had the Antelope Live clock in my system for 7 days . The sound difference I noticed was combination of better focus and a
 smoothness of the sound very analog sounding . I use a Metrum Octave NOS DAC . I have a 18volt LPS for the clock on the way
  If it does not improve the SQ that's Ok . Then Antelope did a good job on the design .  
 I am not using a SPDIF Re-clocker


----------



## prot

gldgate said:


> Received an antelope liveclock yesterday. This is my first external master clock. First impression was that I felt I needed to crank the volume a little bit more....



That's normally a very good sign. The more 'musical' and less 'digital' the sound is, one can & kinda feels the need to turn the volume up.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> Received an antelope liveclock yesterday. This is my first external master clock. First impression was that I felt I needed to crank the volume a little bit more. Next impression was that music using the internal RedNet clock seemed to be more forward with a fuller, more rounded sound while the Antelope appeared better balanced top to bottom.  Additional listening confirmed that while the stock RedNet had a rounder sound the imaging at the edges loses focus a little bit compared to the Antelope where the imaging sounds more solid (if slightly recessed in comparison).
> 
> For pure visceral excitement, I'd probably give nod to the stock RedNet. However, the more I A/B I get the impression that the LiveClock may be the more natural perspective. There is no doubt that they sound different. Good news is that sq with Antelope (like RedNet) has no digital glare and music has a wonderful flow to it that reminds me of my analog system. Also, using the RedNet Control it is easy to change from internal to external clock with a mouse click.
> 
> Liveclock has been running less than 24 hours so I'll continue to monitor to see if sound changes over time.


 
  
 I received my LiveClock last Wednesday and your assessment pretty much mirrors my own. I also find myself listening at a higher volume because there is just the music there with subtle detail revealed and less of the dross that accompanies less effective rendering. The soundstage is deeper with more layering front to back and the image positioning is really solid. It is a very natural sound with no glare.
  
 I have the LiveClock now clocking both my D16 and my Mutec MC3+ USB which I am using to re-clock. Not a simple setup but truly remarkable.


----------



## somestranger26

mourip said:


> I received my LiveClock last Wednesday and your assessment pretty much mirrors my own. I also find myself listening at a higher volume because there is just the music there with subtle detail revealed and less of the dross that accompanies less effective rendering. The soundstage is deeper with more layering front to back and the image positioning is really solid. It is a very natural sound with no glare.
> 
> I have the LiveClock now clocking both my D16 and my Mutec MC3+ USB which I am using to re-clock. Not a simple setup but truly remarkable.


 
 Do you think the Mutec or the LiveClock makes a bigger difference? Did you notice any burn-in changes like those commonly attributed to XOs on many devices?


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> I received my LiveClock last Wednesday and your assessment pretty much mirrors my own. I also find myself listening at a higher volume because there is just the music there with subtle detail revealed and less of the dross that accompanies less effective rendering. The soundstage is deeper with more layering front to back and the image positioning is really solid. It is a very natural sound with no glare.
> 
> I have the LiveClock now clocking both my D16 and my Mutec MC3+ USB which I am using to re-clock. Not a simple setup but truly remarkable.


 
 Clocking the Mutec to the Antelope is next-up. I only had one BNC cable laying around so waiting for cable delivery . Need one of you guys now to go out and try the Liveclock with an Atomic clock . Between the Mutec, D16 and Liveclock in the last 4-5 months I've burned through my audio piggy bank. Time to consolidate things for a bit and focus purely on the music. Good timing as with the current set-up the music sounds great.


----------



## jelt2359

Just to clarify- you are using the Mutec as an external clock to the Rednet, not as a converter? Or both (how would that work?)

Also any reason you guys decided not to wait on the Ref10?


----------



## gldgate

jelt2359 said:


> Just to clarify- you are using the Mutec as an external clock to the Rednet, not as a converter? Or both (how would that work?)
> 
> Also any reason you guys decided not to wait on the Ref10?


 
  
 The Mutec is a swiss army knife and can be used as master clock, converter and reclocker. It can also convert formats (DSD/DoD to PCM). The clock on the Mutec (while very good) is not IMO a reference level clock. A few people have experimented using Mutec to clock RedNet and preferred the RedNet internal clock.
  
 In my system I am using an Antelope as the external clock for the RedNet (and Mutec shortly). I am using the Mutec to reclock.
  
 Good question on Ref10. Primary reasons for the liveclock are (a) It's available now (b) the Liveclock uses the same 4th generation clock that is in their latest Trinity and OCX HD products (c) Antelope has a very good reputation for clocking (d) At $995 I thought the price tag was worth a trial and (e) the liveclock was available via Sweetwater who I feel very comfortable with from a customer service standpoint. I have no prior experience using an external clock so I did not want to spend big bucks (i.e - more $ than my DAC) only to potentially find out that it did not make much difference. My understanding is that the Mutec will probably have a price in the neighborhood of around $2500 - $3K. Given my experience with the MC-3+USB it is likely the Ref10 will be very good. If it turns out to be better than sliced bread it's still a potential option going forward.


----------



## gldgate

> Originally Posted by *somestranger26* /img/forum/go_quote.gif


 


> Do you think the Mutec or the LiveClock makes a bigger difference? Did you notice any burn-in changes like those commonly attributed to XOs on many devices?


 
  
 I'm not Mourip but my recommendation would be for people to get equipment in the following order (a) RedNet (get off the USB merry go round) (b) Mutec (extremely versatile audio tool) and then (c) LiveClock.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> I'm not Mourip but my recommendation would be for people to get equipment in the following order (a) RedNet (get off the USB merry go round) (b) Mutec (extremely versatile audio tool) and then (c) LiveClock.


 
  
 I am Mourip and I was just about to suggest the exact same thing 
  
 Adding the Mutec as a re-clocker made a big difference. Adding the LiveClock made a more subtle improvement but still worth it. After I get more hours on the system I might try a few combinations like trying the D16 with just the LiveClock. 
  
 Actually I should have just quoted gldgate's longer post from above as I would have said those same things for the same reasons. I believe that we both also use an Yggy.
  
 Hey gldgate! Do you live in SF? I grew up in El Cerrito....
  
 Best,
  
 Paul


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> I am Mourip and I was just about to suggest the exact same thing
> 
> Adding the Mutec as a re-clocker made a big difference. Adding the LiveClock made a more subtle improvement but still worth it. After I get more hours on the system I might try a few combinations like trying the D16 with just the LiveClock.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, currently live in the Bay area - Santa Clara.
  
 I always follow your posts here and on CA because our digital chain is virtually identical.


----------



## somestranger26

mourip said:


> Adding the Mutec as a re-clocker made a big difference. Adding the LiveClock made a more subtle improvement but still worth it. After I get more hours on the system I might try a few combinations like trying the D16 with just the LiveClock.
> 
> Actually I should have just quoted gldgate's longer post from above as I would have said those same things for the same reasons. I believe that we both also use an Yggy.


 
 That's what I figured. I'll probably get both eventually but wanted to know what order to buy them in. I've got a DirectStream which Torq certainly liked in his "Life after Yggdrasil" thread.  http://www.head-fi.org/t/804153/life-after-yggdrasil/525#post_12730063
  


gldgate said:


> Yes, currently live in the Bay area - Santa Clara.
> 
> I always follow your posts here and on CA because our digital chain is virtually identical.


 
 Oh finally someone that isn't living in the Pacific Northwest! Live in San Jose and work in Santa Clara. Seems like the whole rednet group lives within 5 miles of Seattle.


----------



## enginedr

I guess I am the token New Yorker . I feel the RN . Live clock combo is killer but like anything it is system dependent .
 I feel sometimes less is more . The Live clock made perfect sense too me . I always felt clean power and a good clock was the key to
 great digital SQ . I play my system through speakers most of the time . I am not a big Headphone fan I want to feel  music . My digital front
 end has never sounded better.


----------



## rb2013

rkml0007 said:


> Thanks for weighing in. Here's some info I've come across, wondering if it applies:
> 
> Also, it is critical to understand that signal loss is not equal to data loss. 100% data recovery can easily be maintained in the face of 10%, 20% or even higher signal loss. As I have said before, the clock jitter is much more critical to data recovery than signal strength. As long as signal strength is sufficient to allow the receiving end to "recover" the data stream and clock, the absolute signal level does not matter. The output level from the transformer out the cable is ~600mv. The minimum level per the specification for 100% data recover at the receiving end is 200mv. That's just 1/3 the output! That means 30% signal loss would still provide 50% more than the minimum.
> 
> ...


That's in theory, in reality it can be much different. But that's NOT the issue I raised, I was speaking about IMPEDENCE, not signal gain. And that set up looks to be very questionable. Not to mention the BJC cable for spdif duty. Mediocre at best (and yes I have tried it). No wonder the built in USB in equaling the SQ.


----------



## RKML0007

I don't run this permanently. I responded to a question for test purposes. Your comment was well taken and inspired me to look further.


----------



## bazelio

rb2013 said:


> rkml0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for weighing in. Here's some info I've come across, wondering if it applies:
> ...


 
  
 It sounds like his splitter usage was temporary and a non-factor in USB vs SPDIF sound quality observations.  So there's another *theory* that didn't seem to match reality.  But regarding the SPDIF cable problem - I'm curious about its mediocrity in the application of transmitting digital data, all else being equal.  Is it the case that digital data transmitted over, say, a 1 foot 7N OCC silver SPDIF cable would differ when transmitted over the 1 foot BJC cable after being examined in the DAC's input buffer, in theory or in reality, assuming of course both cables meet spec?  Because, yet another reasonable theory is that well-isolated USB interfaces - as in the 2Qute apparently - don't give up much to alternate digital interfaces and methods of isolation.


----------



## johnjen

somestranger26 said:


> snip
> 
> Oh finally someone that isn't living in the Pacific Northwest! Live in San Jose and work in Santa Clara. Seems like the whole rednet group lives within 5 miles of Seattle.


 
 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha…
  
 We were thinking of calling our group The Can Tank, and that would make us members CanTankRUs…
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

enginedr said:


> I guess I am the token New Yorker . I feel the RN . Live clock combo is killer but like anything it is system dependent .
> I feel sometimes less is more . The Live clock made perfect sense too me . I always felt clean power and a good clock was the key to
> great digital SQ . I play my system through speakers most of the time . I am not a big Headphone fan I want to feel  music . My digital front
> end has never sounded better.


 
  
 I grew up in the Bay Area but have lived in DC for several decades now so I guess I qualify as part of the RN East Coast mob.
  
 I also mainly listen to speakers now. I used to listen to HP's solely due to my living environment but now have a nice basement where I can squander my retirement. At my present rate of spending I can only afford to live until 90.
  
 I never thought that digital could sound this natural, clear, and engaging. I am totally stumped that it is not a hot topic over on CA. It just baffles me...
  
 Here is my speaker setup...
  
*Server*: “CAPS-Like” server with HDPlex 19\12\9\5v LPS and Keces 5v LPS>Windows 2012sp2 with JRMC to Dante Virtual Soundcard with ethernet out
*DAC*: Focusrite REDnet D16 to Mutec MC+3 USB(reclocking with Antelope LiveClock as external Wordclock to both) and then to Schiit Yggdrasil DAC
*Preamp*: Custom single stage 301A DHT tube with OPT (3db gain) and Tortuga Audio LDR3.V2 Passive Volume Control
*Amp*: First Watt SIT2 (10 watts)
*Speakers*: Omega Super 6 Alnico single driver crossover-less floorstanders and SVS SB2000 12” sub
*Wire and Cable*: Belden 8402 IC’s, Apogee Wyde Eye AES/EBU, Western Electric WE16 speaker cable wired direct to drivers


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> That's in theory, in reality it can be much different. But that's NOT the issue I raised, I was speaking about IMPEDENCE, not signal gain. And that set up looks to be very questionable. Not to mention the BJC cable for spdif duty. Mediocre at best (and yes I have tried it). No wonder the built in USB in equaling the SQ.


 
  
 Glad to have you still weighing in here!


----------



## enginedr

You have a very well thought out system . Coherent speakers and killer transparency and I see a little tube flavor all bottomed out by the Sub .
 Way to go . Enjoy it   . I have not spun a record in weeks . As for CA you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink


----------



## Iving

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enginedr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I play my system through speakers most of the time . I am not a big Headphone fan I want to feel  music . My digital front end has never sounded better.
> 
> ...


 

  
 Agreed!
 It (Pro Audio AOIP) is a revolution.
 Today was a revelation.
 I have been without music for a while as my Snell Type A III mids needed re-foaming.
 Now they are re-established I played:
 a 7" 45 on the P3-24 / RB 301 / Exact / Schitt Mani;
 an LP on the LP12 / Ittok / Troika / Linto;
 and,
 similar music via RedNet D16 AES / Convert-2.
 I am fairly long in the tooth with vinyl and a great fan. I have always loathed CDs. This comparison confirmed for the first time that digital music can be more enjoyable and engaging than analogue. That is something I never imagined saying.
 I don't believe that I could make such an assertion about USB (although I have not explored every avenue).
 Invoking a (satisfaction) hierarchy such as that favoured by rb2013 
 P3-24 = 3/10
 LP12 = 6/10
 D16/C-2 = 8/10


----------



## gldgate

I've got more money invested in my analog system (Nottingham Anna-log, Koetsu Onyx Platinum, Auditorium Hommage H2) than my digital gear. Up to now I've had a preference for Analog. With the Antelope-RedNet-Mutec-Yggy chain I've probably reached the point where musical satisfaction is roughly equivalent (though analog set-up with my best 45rpm pressings still probably has the edge).  While I still play vinyl most of my time (80%/20%) is now spent with digital because of the convenience factor - especially with Roon/Tidal.


----------



## rb2013

bazelio said:


> It sounds like his splitter usage was temporary and a non-factor in USB vs SPDIF sound quality observations.  So there's another *theory* that didn't seem to match reality.  But regarding the SPDIF cable problem - I'm curious about its mediocrity in the application of transmitting digital data, all else being equal.  Is it the case that digital data transmitted over, say, a 1 foot 7N OCC silver SPDIF cable would differ when transmitted over the 1 foot BJC cable after being examined in the DAC's input buffer, in theory or in reality, assuming of course both cables meet spec?  Because, yet another reasonable theory is that well-isolated USB interfaces - as in the 2Qute apparently - don't give up much to alternate digital interfaces and methods of isolation.


 
 Really a theory about the importance of impedance matching on a spdif coax connection - not matching reality?  How did you come up with that spout of wisdom?  All I can say is you have not experimented with the dozen of so BNC and RCA SPDIF cables and reclockers - you see my wise theoryman, it's my ears that tell me otherwise.  Just like the reason I started this thread and so many others...glad you can dispel your insights here...try doing a little homework son
  


mourip said:


> Glad to have you still weighing in here!


 
 I really don't know why I bother - see this geniack's post above.  Ugg!  Great to see everybody hoping on my Wclock discovery...the new discovery I found (and oh this one is a ground shaker) one I'll just keep to myself.


----------



## enginedr

rb2013 said:


> Really a theory about the importance of impedance matching on a spdif coax connection - not matching reality?  How did you come up with that spout of wisdom?  All I can say is you have not experimented with the dozen of so BNC and RCA SPDIF cables and reclockers - you see my wise theoryman, it's my ears that tell me otherwise.  Just like the reason I started this thread and so many others...glad you can dispel your insights here...try doing a little homework son
> 
> I really don't know why I bother - see this geniack's post above.  Ugg!  Great to see everybody hoping on my Wclock discovery...the new discovery I found (and oh this one is a ground shaker) one I'll just keep to myself.


 

 I can just see it now - A group of crazed audiophiles standing outside your home with torches and pitchforks screaming for your latest  SQ improvement discovery . LOL
 The fact is you are right most of the time . I just sit on the fence and wait out a few upgrades before pulling the trigger . the World clock was off the hook good .
 Thank you Again Rob


----------



## enginedr

rb2013 said:


> Really a theory about the importance of impedance matching on a spdif coax connection - not matching reality?  How did you come up with that spout of wisdom?  All I can say is you have not experimented with the dozen of so BNC and RCA SPDIF cables and reclockers - you see my wise theoryman, it's my ears that tell me otherwise.  Just like the reason I started this thread and so many others...glad you can dispel your insights here...try doing a little homework son
> 
> I really don't know why I bother - see this geniack's post above.  Ugg!  Great to see everybody hoping on my Wclock discovery...the new discovery I found (and oh this one is a ground shaker) one I'll just keep to myself.


 

 I can just see it now - A group of crazed audiophiles standing outside your home with torches and pitchforks screaming for your latest  SQ improvement discovery . LOL
 The fact is you are right most of the time . I just sit on the fence and wait out a few upgrades before pulling the trigger . the World clock was off the hook good .
 Thank you Again Rob


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> I also mainly listen to speakers now. I used to listen to HP's solely due to my living environment but now have a nice basement where I can squander my retirement. At my present rate of spending I can only afford to live until 90.
> 
> I never thought that digital could sound this natural, clear, and engaging. I am totally stumped that it is not a hot topic over on CA. It just baffles me...
> 
> ...




Good to hear. By my calculations if you hold off from purchases for a few months until the ref10 comes out you'll continue your current rate of spending and as a bonus we'll all get to know how good it is


----------



## REXNFX

iving said:


> Agreed!
> It (Pro Audio AOIP) is a revolution.
> Today was a revelation.
> I have been without music for a while as my Snell Type A III mids needed re-foaming.
> ...


 
 Finding a digital source that competes with my Vinyl front end has been a quest for me too. Still haven't found it yet, having heard many high end systems (went to a hifi show recently and all the digital stuff sounded unnatural to me) so heartening to hear your experience. If starting from scratch, is it best to bite the bullet and buy the Rednet unheard and build a digital front end around it?  TIA!


----------



## Iving

rexnfx said:


> Finding a digital source that competes with my Vinyl front end has been a quest for me too. Still haven't found it yet, having heard many high end systems (went to a hifi show recently and all the digital stuff sounded unnatural to me) so heartening to hear your experience. If starting from scratch, is it best to bite the bullet and buy the Rednet unheard and build a digital front end around it?  TIA!


 
  

 The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it may be difficult to road test a RedNet. All the same, my answer to your question is, "Yes - it is all in the RedNet." That is - you can buy a RedNet 3 or a D16 AES and realise immediately the SQ advantages lauded on this thread. The differences, including cost, between the RedNet 3 and D16 AES are explicit recently on these pages and elsewhere. Whatever DAC you have, a RedNet box will demonstrate to you its credentials. I had an Yggdrasil - the SQ was great - but the RCA/Phono spdif input jack was faulty and that was discovered only after painful investigations. Anyway, I far prefer its replacement, the Dangerous Convert-2. The Convert-2 has a good Clock and, so, I use it as Master instead of the D16 AES. At half the price of the Yggdrasil you can have a Gungnir. If your budget is lower yet, any good DAC that will do as it's told wrt SR to only 192 kHz required is fine. Whilst rb2013 gives us plenty to chew on wrt cables etc - you can run any old ethernet cable from your PC (or even a UPnP arrangement such as I have) to the RedNet. The cable from RedNet to DAC matters - but modest ones do a great job. The rest is down to your back end. In all likelihood I won't replace my Snell Type A IIIs until they (or I) die - because I love them and they love me. Talking of that kind of thing, my wife agrees with my /10 ratings previously described, she doesn't mind that the RedNet is red, she authorised my Hi-Fi loan to myself and we still sleep in the same bed.
  
 Another way of understanding my previous post is on a bang-for-buck footing. In its day, the LP12 / Ittok / Troika was a benchmark. Without spending silly money, or exploring esoteric alternatives, it was about as good as you could get in the 1980s. If I sold it now I could get, maybe, £1,500 let's just say. The Linto is another £500. So £2,000 on a vinyl source gets you 6/10. The D16 AES and Convert-2 were well over £3,000 combined - so in a (crude mathematical) sense it's inevitable that together they generate 8/10. But that still surprises me. As we all know, loudspeakers (like dogs) resemble their owners. My Snell Type A IIIs (whilst a privilege to behold, being effusive and natural not to say accurate in all aspects of performance and delivery - did I mention constantly appealing) are full of sparkle, bright and just very slightly forward. Accordingly, they are merciless with digital feeds. USB never got past the Snells without having to excuse itself, but that is not true with RedNet box and Convert-2 - the Banshee has left the building. You can spend £5,000 and more on an LP12 now. I doubt I would do that; however, I can see that if I heard one - or owned maybe a certain kind of refurbished Garrard rig, I might want to play a record instead of the computer! Finally - there is the convenience factor. I can sit at my coffee table and play anything I like in my huge remote library almost without lifting a finger. My wife stops short of bringing my coffee to me whilst I am in reverie. OK - actually she does that too.


----------



## REXNFX

iving said:


> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it may be difficult to road test a RedNet. All the same, my answer to your questions is, "Yes - it is all in the RedNet." That is - you can buy a RedNet 3 or a D16 AES and realise immediately the SQ advantages lauded on this thread. The differences, including cost, between the RedNet 3 and D16 AES are explicit recently on these pages and elsewhere. Whatever DAC you have, a RedNet box will demonstrate to you its credentials. I had an Yggdrasil - the SQ was great - but the RCA/Phono spdif input jack was faulty and that was discovered only after painful investigations. Anyway, I far prefer its replacement, the Dangerous Convert-2. The Convert-2 has a good Clock and, so, I use it as Master instead of the D16 AES. At half the price of the Yggdrasil you can have a Gungnir. If your budget is lower yet, any good DAC that will do as it's told wrt to SR up to just 192 kHz is fine. Whilst rb2013 gives us plenty to chew on wrt cables etc - you can run any old ethernet cable from your PC (or even a UPnP arrangement such as I have) to the RedNet. The cable from RedNet to DAC matters - but modest ones do a great job. The rest is down to your back end. I won't replace my Snell Type A IIIs until they die - because I love them and they love me. Talking of that kind of thing, my wife agrees with my /10 ratings previously described, she doesn't mind that the RedNet is red, she authorised my Hi-Fi loan to myself and we still sleep in the same bed.
> 
> Another way of understanding my previous post is on a bang-for-buck footing. In its day, the LP12 / Ittok / Troika was a benchmark. Without spending silly money, or exploring esoteric alternatives, it was about as good as you could get in the 1980s. If I sold it now I could get, maybe, £1,500 let's just say. The Linto is another £500. So £2,000 on a vinyl source gets you 6/10. The D16 AES and Convert-2 were well over £3,000 combined - so in a sense it's inevitable that together they generate 8/10. But that still surprises me. As we all know, loudspeakers (like dogs) resemble their owners. My Snell Type A IIIs are good looking, precocious, bright and admittedly just very slightly forward. Accordingly, they are merciless with digital feeds. USB never got past the Snells without having to excuse itself, but that is not true with the RedNet and Convert-2 - the Banshee has left the building. You can spend £5,000 and more on an LP12 now. I doubt I would do that; however, I can see that if I heard one - or owned maybe a certain kind of refurbished Garrard rig, I might want to play a record instead of the computer! Finally - there is the convenience factor. I can sit at my coffee table and play anything I like in my huge remote library almost without lifting a finger. My wife stops short of bringing my coffee to me whilst I am in reverie. OK - actually she does that too.


 
 Many thanks! I quite like the idea of not using a PC, what is your server arrangement?


----------



## Iving

rexnfx said:


> Many thanks! I quite like the idea of not using a PC, what is your server arrangement?


 

 One great advantage of RedNet is that you can use your player of choice (subject to ASIO). I have a *very* strong preference for fb2k. I just want to play rock 'n' roll (and other stuff - I am not a complete reprobate) being able to view everything in my music library and select what I want easily. I have a very strong aversion towards bells, whistles and any of that paid-for, advertisement-laden, ulterior software. My RedNet is cabled from my coffee table - upon which at my fingertips I have a "silent" [see below] Windows 10 tablet PC (Surface Pro 3) whose Docking Station has an ethernet port. I can play direct from the Surface Pro 3 (via DVS of course). But the Surface Pro 3's SSD is not huge (256 Gb) and, besides, I think I get a better rendition over a LAN when a competent Windows 7 PC is doing the "heavy lifting" (Sox upsampling to 192 kHz on a fb2k Server). Thus - I have a (large flac-loaded HDD connected via USB 3.0 to a) good Windows 7 workhorse in my office (also used for stringent ripping in EAC and general library management) connected via Cat 5 to a router in the hallway - thence via Cat 6 to the Secondary ethernet port on the D16 AES (which is in my listening room unsurprisingly). The D16's Primary ethernet port is fed via (a BJC) Cat 6 from the coffee table Surface Pro 3 Docking Station. Vitally, this lets me access my (Windows 7) music library courtesy of *fb2k UPnP Browser*, the (Windows 10) Surface Pro 3 having to do very little work (NB: DVS is installed on the SP3 only). No network hiccoughs to write home about. Many of the hardware and software issues - neurotic tweakery in general - so prevalent taming the USB Banshee - are no longer required (at least, far less called for) with RedNet. I admit I don't like the fan in the Surface Pro 3, but I roll back everything in Windows 10 to try to keep it off, and that works most of the time. I have just discovered that the most meagre incarnation of the Surface Pro 4 (Core m3) is *fanless* - and probably is OK spec-wise for realtime Audio. Something about me abhors advertising for Microsoft!
  
 I suppose if you have a psychological distaste for manipulating a PC to get music, you could operate a remote server using Linn Kazoo on a smartphone - but that most definitely would not appeal to me - and someone else could advise better. (I will not use Apple devices or anything else Apple for any purpose - not even wiping my a^&e.)


----------



## mourip

enginedr said:


> You have a very well thought out system . Coherent speakers and killer transparency and I see a little tube flavor all bottomed out by the Sub .
> Way to go . Enjoy it   . I have not spun a record in weeks . As for CA you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink


 
  
 Thanks. It has taken a while and I had to kiss a few frogs but I am finally quite happy with it. Unfortunately the power switch on my preamp decided to die yesterday. I took the opportunity to bypass the preamp and see what the system would sound like as all solid state. The DHT preamp definitely contributes some magic...


----------



## mourip

rexnfx said:


> Finding a digital source that competes with my Vinyl front end has been a quest for me too. Still haven't found it yet, having heard many high end systems (went to a hifi show recently and all the digital stuff sounded unnatural to me) so heartening to hear your experience. If starting from scratch, is it best to bite the bullet and buy the Rednet unheard and build a digital front end around it?  TIA!


 
  
 You could try buying a RN3 from a vendor with a good return policy and just try it out. All you really need is a decent laptop and a trial copy of JRiver or another suitable app. The RN3 comes with the virtual soundcard software. I guess the tricky part is tweaking everything to get the sound to your liking. There is a bit of learning.
  
 I have been trying to see how far I could get my digital front end for at least a decade and can say easily that Rednet tops everything else I have tried and is not just relatively better but the best I have heard.


----------



## Cornan

> I suppose if you have a psychological distaste for manipulating a PC to get music, you could operate a remote server using Linn Kazoo on a smartphone - but that most definitely would not appeal to me - and someone else could advise better. (I will not use Apple devices or anything for any purpose whatsoever - not even wiping my a^&e.)


 
  
 Kazoo on iOS is not the only available option. There is always the possibillity to use BubbleDS Next or BubbleUPNP on an Android tablet as well. Personally I prefer BubbleDS Next since it is built for audio purposes only and sounds slightly better to these ears. Just make sure to install Bubbleguuum UPNP add-on to fb2k for a reliable connection plus add the free BubbleUPNP Server or Minimserver to your laptop/NAS (were the music is stored). BubbleDS Next is only free for max 15 songs at a time (for evaluation purpose) but the price for the full version is very low (roughly USD5-13 depending on how much you think it is worth). I use it myself with a 7" Android tablet with great results...but left the PC for Aurelic Aries Mini some time ago and have´nt looked back.


----------



## Mogos

Mytek 192 has an ADAT input . I just find it out and thought it may be interesting to RN 3 owners. 
  
 S/PDIF Optical Input (Toslink) – Consumer digital input
 that accepts up to 96KHz. Can also accept professional ADAT
 signal up to 96KHz.


----------



## artur9

I was surprised to discover that certain dbx DriveRack models have Dante built-in.   That offers some interesting possibilities.


----------



## wushuliu

I've been having trouble getting the DVS to work with Jplay. Finally, I decided to change the encoding to 32bit. Then it started to play. This whole time I've had it set to 16 with no issues because I thought that's what it should be. I did a thread search and see that some folks kind of knew that, but it's not clear why. I guess Jplay processes at 32bits?


----------



## joelha

wushuliu said:


> I've been having trouble getting the DVS to work with Jplay. Finally, I decided to change the encoding to 32bit. Then it started to play. This whole time I've had it set to 16 with no issues because I thought that's what it should be. I did a thread search and see that some folks kind of knew that, but it's not clear why. I guess Jplay processes at 32bits?


 
 And does JPlay improve the sound in your system when routed through your Rednet device?
  
 Joel


----------



## wushuliu

joelha said:


> And does JPlay improve the sound in your system when routed through your Rednet device?
> 
> Joel


 
 Going to be awhile as I now try out all the different settings before I come to any firm conclusions but so far, yes, Jplay has the more 3-D presentation typical of Jplay.


----------



## Peachcore

Finally finished reading the thread, and quite interested in the AoIP gears.
 Waiting for 2-channel network interface.
 BTW,  why nobody mentioned Rednet 1/2? RedNet 1 includes eight analog outputs and JetPLL technology, saving cost on a DAC...


----------



## jabbr

peachcore said:


> Finally finished reading the thread, and quite interested in the AoIP gears.
> Waiting for 2-channel network interface.
> BTW,  why nobody mentioned Rednet 1/2? RedNet 1 includes eight analog outputs and JetPLL technology, saving cost on a DAC...




My guess is most people would want to use their own choice of DAC.


----------



## Cornan

I have a question to the experts on this thread. What is the difference between a Rednet and a LANRover connected to a normal DAC?
As far as I see it LANRover is just a AOIP USB cable for any DAC and Rednet is the same thing built in but cost more money. If I am wrong..please enlight me! 
You'll need to have really good reasons. I have the most amazing USB sound now with 3-wire unshielded USB wires and going to 2-wire dito with star ground pretty soon if I do not get convinced!


----------



## Iving

peachcore said:


> Finally finished reading the thread, and quite interested in the AoIP gears.
> Waiting for 2-channel network interface.
> BTW,  why nobody mentioned Rednet 1/2? RedNet 1 includes eight analog outputs and JetPLL technology, saving cost on a DAC...


 
  
 To the best of my understanding ... although @mhamel is the RedNet progenitor, @rb2013 got the chance to obtain a RedNet 3 at a discounted price. It went from there. It may be the case that, in the USA, Sweetwater offered a limited range of models; what's more, whereas in the UK and Europe RedNets 3 and D16 AES are on a price par approx., at Sweetwater the D16 AES was priced at $1,600 vs. $1,000 for the RedNet 3 (although rb2013 got his for $800 if I am not mistaken). RedNet box specs can be evaluated easily enough at https://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet and elsewhere on the www - factored of course against their prices. Even weighing up RedNet 3 vs. D16 AES should be a careful research-based purchasing process (see this thread a few pages back for differences between RedNet 3 and D16 AES - not to mention possible DAC compatibility issues). RedNets 1 and 2 are expensive. They don't boast what at-home audiophiles would typically use at the rear - i.e., RCA/Phono or BNC and/or AES outputs for a DAC. Even if requiring only Analog out on RedNets 1 and 2 with inbuilt D/A, you'd have to exploit DB25 connectors somehow. There may be host of other considerations of which I am not aware. I dare say rb2013 could provide the best narrative but he is a little shy lately - probably once bitten by the odd marauder. Anyway - the main point is to cross-reference RedNet model facilities very careful against your present and future usages (ever bearing in mind cost). For example, I appreciate (and use) the dual Ethernet ports on the D16 AES as well as its AES facility to feed my Dangerous Convert-2 (additional credit mhamel for the recommendation) which also has JetPLL technology and a better Clock than the D16 AES (so I use it). At least with RedNet 3 and D16 AES it's possible - thanks to this thread - to draw your own conclusions about what existing owners are saying about their experiences, provided of course they continue to chip in. btw I wouldn't hold my breath for a 2-channel version (although see AM2). Much water can pass under the digital playback bridge in not a lot of time these days.


----------



## jabbr

cornan said:


> I have a question to the experts on this thread. What is the difference between a Rednet and a LANRover connected to a normal DAC?
> As far as I see it LANRover is just a AOIP USB cable for any DAC and Rednet is the same thing built in but cost more money. If I am wrong..please enlight me!
> You'll need to have really good reasons. I have the most amazing USB sound now with 3-wire unshielded USB wires and going to 2-wire dito with star ground pretty soon if I do not get convinced!




Nobody needs to convince you, you need to convince yourself.

All of the people who have tried the Rednet think it better than USB, and all had very good USB chains, some including LANRover-like setups.

Cheers


----------



## Cornan

jabbr said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question to the experts on this thread. What is the difference between a Rednet and a LANRover connected to a normal DAC?
> ...



I like how you convince people Jabbr!  However, it takes nore than that to convince me to switch. I cannot imagine a better sound that I have right now..with additionsl external grounding on BPS and Aries & BPS on streamer and Regen. Would I want a more complicated setup for small SQ upgrade? I do not think so!


----------



## enginedr

cornan said:


> I have a question to the experts on this thread. What is the difference between a Rednet and a LANRover connected to a normal DAC?
> As far as I see it LANRover is just a AOIP USB cable for any DAC and Rednet is the same thing built in but cost more money. If I am wrong..please enlight me!
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The only way to convince yourself is to take the plunge . I have and I am not sorry. Like all upgrades you don't know until you do it
 All systems are not alike this is true of the listener as well . All I can say is the RN3 & Antelope Live clock combo is the best digital
 I have heard to date .


----------



## mourip

Quote:


cornan said:


> I like how you convince people Jabbr!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 So it sounds like you already had your mind set before you asked the questions. That must confuse those who responded to you.
  
 As Jabbr said no one here is selling AOIP. Those of us who have tried it after using expensive and well thought out USB chains just think that it is a remarkable upgrade.
  
 It need not be complex. With one RN3 you can replace a bunch of cables, purifiers, linear power supplies.
  
 AOIP seems to be the best kept secret in audio and is hiding in plain sight. I recommend you stay with USB since you are satisfied now.


----------



## artur9

What is everyone using for source components?  Is the only option a computer with the virtual sound card?  
  
 If it is a computer what about the concerns about a jittery and noisy (not meaning fan here) computer in the audio chain?


----------



## Cornan

If I rephrase that question: How much would it take for you to change your setup that you finally perfected? Pretty much I guess! Even if I told you that I had the end game device in my hand for $100 I am pretty sure you would'nt bite without a solid proof. LANRover will be cheaper and easier to bite if it turns out as good as advertised. I can use my own DAC that I know I like. If I had the spare money I would jump the AOIP train just for fun. However, with my hard earned money I want to be very very sure before spending approx USD 2000 om a possible SQ improvement. I would rather spend them on good power supplies and grounding at this point...than loosing them on Rednet!


----------



## mourip

artur9 said:


> What is everyone using for source components?  Is the only option a computer with the virtual sound card?
> 
> If it is a computer what about the concerns about a jittery and noisy (not meaning fan here) computer in the audio chain?


 
  
 As far as I know you need a computer at this point. For Rednet you also need either the Dante Virtual Soundcard(DVS) software which is included along with the hardware or else their expensive, and for us unnecessary, Dante PCIe ethernet card.
  
 The good news is that most of us have found that this system isolates so well that many/most of the usual computer issues and consequent tweaks become moot.


----------



## Cornan

mourip said:


> So it sounds like you already had your mind set before you asked the questions. That must confuse those who responded to you.
> 
> As Jabbr said no one here is selling AOIP. Those of us who have tried it after using expensive and well thought out USB chains just think that it is a remarkable upgrade.
> 
> ...



In a way you are right. I have made up my mind..,but my mind is never rock solid when it comes down to audio. I have changed my mind more than ones to be honest! I have been in this hobby for more than 40 years though and it takes more than one or two opinions to make me change...but I will change to better knowledge! ;!


----------



## Cornan

I just want to add my admiration for @rb2013 that are continously exploring the outer borders of digital audio. Hurray for the curiousity!!


----------



## mourip

cornan said:


> If I rephrase that question: How much would it take for you to change your setup that you finally perfected? Pretty much I guess! Even if I told you that I had the end game device in my hand for $100 I am pretty sure you would'nt bite without a solid proof. LANRover will be cheaper and easier to bite if it turns out as good as advertised. I can use my own DAC that I know I like. If I had the spare money I would jump the AOIP train just for fun. However, with my hard earned money I want to be very very sure before spending approx USD 2000 om a possible SQ improvement. I would rather spend them on good power supplies and grounding at this point...than loosing them on Rednet!


 
  
 Thanks for putting your questions in context. I certainly agree that just having a few folks touting a new product is not enough reason to stretch ones finances without more proof. I probably jumped in too quickly partly because I liked the idea of networked audio and partly because I have been following RB2013 for quite a while and trust his approach. As others started reporting similar success my resolve dissolved and I bought the D16 knowing that Sweetwater in the US has a 30 day return policy. Part of my plan was that if the D16 turned out to be better than my USB chain I would probably break even financially by selling my Mutec MC+3 USB and REGEN Amber. What I did not count on was that using the Mutec to re-clock after the D16 was another big improvement. So I am still going down the financial rabbit hole but am exceedingly happy with the sound quality. I always found digital recordings to be bright and fake sounding. Now I believe that our playback equipment just was not yet up to the task.
  
 Hopefully as manufacturers see the new AOIP audiophile market some cheaper and maybe even better 2 channel devices will appear soon.
  
 Sorry if I was sharp or did not understand where you were coming from. Thanks for replying.


----------



## Cornan

If you are not aware about it...here is a link to better SQ despite option: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/audio-system-grounding-and-misconceptions/ Just ignore the slightly "angled" touch and do not forget to watch the video!


----------



## wushuliu

cornan said:


> I have a question to the experts on this thread. What is the difference between a Rednet and a LANRover connected to a normal DAC?
> As far as I see it LANRover is just a AOIP USB cable for any DAC and Rednet is the same thing built in but cost more money. If I am wrong..please enlight me!
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Never mind. I see I was behind a page.


----------



## Cornan

mourip said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > If I rephrase that question: How much would it take for you to change your setup that you finally perfected? Pretty much I guess! Even if I told you that I had the end game device in my hand for $100 I am pretty sure you would'nt bite without a solid proof. LANRover will be cheaper and easier to bite if it turns out as good as advertised. I can use my own DAC that I know I like. If I had the spare money I would jump the AOIP train just for fun. However, with my hard earned money I want to be very very sure before spending approx USD 2000 om a possible SQ improvement. I would rather spend them on good power supplies and grounding at this point...than loosing them on Rednet!
> ...



No problem! Even if you do not recognize me I recognize you from CA!  You will have to know the limitation of new products. Cheap products (below $200) could grow quickly within a mounth or so...but expensive stuff have to wait for recognition before they succeed. I am 100% sure that AOIP will grow...but if it will grow inside or outside DAC is another question all together!


----------



## patrikh

Has anyone compared the rednet 3 with a usb solution like the SU-1 with the latest xmos interface?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

patrikh said:


> Has anyone compared the rednet 3 with a usb solution like the SU-1 with the latest xmos interface?


 

 The F-1 which is the SU-1 in a simple form -- verdict from multiple people who also fed the F-1 with super clean power, generators, etc -- the Rednet by itself was still a class up.


----------



## patrikh

How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.


----------



## mhamel

patrikh said:


> How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.


 
  
 Is it? 
  
 When you start looking at the additional cables, tweaks, power supplies, filters, LAN extender and whatever else people are piling on to their USB chains, it's not necessarily more expensive.


----------



## somestranger26

patrikh said:


> How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.


 

 Use the search. This question has been answered over and over again.
  


> Originally Posted by *rb2013* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...
> ...
> Here are my current ratings:
> ...


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

patrikh said:


> How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.


 
  


mhamel said:


> Is it?
> 
> When you start looking at the additional cables, tweaks, power supplies, filters, LAN extender and whatever else people are piling on to their USB chains, it's not necessarily more expensive.


 


 Not to mention the clutter -- connector here connector there. Fun when first setting up and plugging things in but after awhile you realize it'd be nice for one single box to replace 4-5 different usb accessories.

 Now if Focusrite can get the size down to say 12x10x3" or smaller box, now we're talking.


----------



## wushuliu

mhamel said:


> Is it?
> 
> When you start looking at the additional cables, tweaks, power supplies, filters, LAN extender and whatever else people are piling on to their USB chains, it's not necessarily more expensive.




Bingo.

 The comparison I would really like to hear about is the red net versus a micro Rendu with the $1300 power supply upgrade .


----------



## wushuliu

patrikh said:


> How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.




 One caveat I think it might be important to mention is that it seems to me from the posts that i have read, the source may makes a difference. If you are using USB plus f1 etc. from a dedicated server solution then the gap in performance might not be so wide.


----------



## Iving

patrikh said:


> How much better would be a better way of putting the question; rednet is a whole lot more expensive than a usb solution.


 

 To me that is a spurious question. USB and AOIP are not on the same dimension. It is like comparing apples with pears.
  
 To me also, the SQ or listening satisfaction return on investment is much less ambiguous, even if the investment (which is of course on the same dimension) is greater.
  
 I have never owned an audiophile rig costing many multiples of the amounts under consideration presently (say £5k plus for a single source). The only ultra-rig I can imagine envying now would be a vinyl one. The sheer depth and quality of what I'm hearing from flacs today leaves little to desire. I just listened to digital renditions of what on vinyl was (as a soundtrack to my early adulthood) "... And The Music Plays On" by Del Shannon (originally an unreleased album "Home And Away"). There are at least two CD representations (different production cuts) of that music from Del's Liberty years (late 1960s). What I was able to *enjoy* (both nostalgically and immediately) comparing both this evening exceeded (in marginal SQ terms) a few decades' worth of trying to glean more detail from vinyl. Isn't that what it's about? I'm having a more meaningful life!


----------



## mourip

For those of you who own a Mutec MC3+ USB there is a firmware update available for it on the Mutec website.
  
 Hopefully not too off topic since I know several of you use one with your REDnet units...


----------



## motberg

wushuliu said:


> One caveat I think it might be important to mention is that it seems to me from the posts that i have read, the source may makes a difference. If you are using USB plus f1 etc. from a dedicated server solution then the gap in performance might not be so wide.


 

 This is what I was thinking also... some of the comparisons have even been done using a standard off the shelf PC, in those cases I am not sure if any type of USB chain can clean up the mess originating in the mother board. Besides Rednet, hopefully the comments in this thread will also help drive better development of dedicated source components more suited for the casual home user.


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> For those of you who own a Mutec MC3+ USB there is a firmware update available for it on the Mutec website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


I thought I had read somewhere that this update improves the sound quality of the MC-3+ USB, but the firmware update description only lists functional improvements.

Does anyone know anything more as regards the update and improved sound quality?

Thanks,

Joel


----------



## REXNFX

wushuliu said:


> Bingo.
> 
> The comparison I would really like to hear about is the red net versus a micro Rendu with the $1300 power supply upgrade .


 
 Me too but the fact the microrendu apparently sounds best in NAA mode using HQPlayer is putting me off as minimalist players are not great user experience.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

joelha said:


> mourip said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who own a Mutec MC3+ USB there is a firmware update available for it on the Mutec website.
> ...


 
http://www.mutec-net.com/artikel.php?id=1469649461
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index31.html


----------



## wushuliu

rexnfx said:


> Me too but the fact the microrendu apparently sounds best in NAA mode using HQPlayer is putting me off as minimalist players are not great user experience.




 Yes that's another reason why the micro Rendu is really not an option for me. It's just too limited and will be outdated in a year or two time.


----------



## gldgate

I've downloaded the new Mutec firmware from 1.01 to 1.03 to 1.10.  My aural memory may be playing tricks on me but very first impression is that the sound seems a bit more lively without losing any clarity/flow. However, I don't have a quick method to A/B so I can't be sure (That's the nice thing about the Antelope liveclock - I can A/B quickly with a mouse click). Regardless, system sounds very nice so I'm sticking with it.
  
 Yep, don't think I'm hearing things. More musical presence. As if I've moved up a few rows in an auditorium.


----------



## johnjen

An observation of USB vs AOIP.
  
 USB is convenient, near universal, and 'inexpensive' to implement.
 I mean you can go to target or malmart or staples (etc.) and get a perfectly usable USB cable.
 And if you think that the $14.95 cable MUST be better, well, because that $8.49 cable, just can't be that good, Can It?
 For many this is more than enough.
 You get to play your music with little fuss nor muss.
  
 BUT,
 USB was never designed nor meant to handle streaming, nor audio, let alone AudioPhoolerly levels of performance.
 It's for keyboards and mice and printers etc.
  
 AOIP is just about a perfect opposite.
 It's fussy to an extreme, obscure, and expensive.
  
 Even music stores that sell to pro audio guys usually don't know much about AOIP, nor networked audio (there are exceptions, especially online).
 It certainly isn't mainstream, nor much embraced even by those with a technical bent.
  
 And the thing is Digital Audio is just as susceptible to 'external and unwanted influences' as tweako analog is, perhaps even more so, especially while using USB, and in ways that we are just now ferreting out.
 That is why there has been a steady increase in USB 'fixer devices' of all sorts types, natures and extremes ever since the Wyrd Schiit surfaced.
 And the proliferation of the number of these devices doing pretty much the same thing (cleaning up the signal coming from the player's hardware (computer)) AND that using multiples of them in series also helped, was a clear indication that troubles lurk just under the surface while using USB for streaming digital audio.
  
 AND that using this same tactic, even in an AOIP setup results in *'Better'* SQ, just points to the "susceptible to 'external and unwanted influences'" that exists in all of digital audio.
 And this too, we are ferreting out, meaning we are finding those specific technical aspects that contribute, in a major way, to *'Better'* SQ in the digital realm.
  
 So why AOIP?
 It's *'Better'* from a SQ perspective in every way I use to describe *'Better'*.
  
 The first time I heard about it was from Musiqboy who just started raving and then brought up the topic in RB2013's thread from where it started getting more attention.
 It really hasn't stopped, but there are more and more who are leaving USB audio and all of these 'fixer devices' (DDC's, bare boards, tweako clocks, and a mess of wires on their desk…),
 behind and not looking back.
  
 All because the techno stuff is cool and all but that's not what this is all about.
  
 It IS about a step up in SQ and for some a Giant step up in SQ.
 As Musiqboys sez
 "USB AIN't GOT NOTHIN' ON AOIP!!!"
  
 And I agree 1001%
  
 And yeah right now its sorta 'rough around the edges' and expensive and fussy to get working 'properly', but for some those quirks are just the what ya gotta do to make it happen.
 And we are early in this unfolding of AOIP as a replacement/substitute/improvement for USB Audio.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

liu junyuan said:


> http://www.mutec-net.com/artikel.php?id=1469649461
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index31.html


 
 Great information Lin Junyan.
  
 Thanks for posting it.
  
 I wonder whether Mutec has anything to say about what their update did to create these listener impressions?
  
 Joel


----------



## gldgate

wushuliu said:


> I've been having trouble getting the DVS to work with Jplay. Finally, I decided to change the encoding to 32bit. Then it started to play. This whole time I've had it set to 16 with no issues because I thought that's what it should be. I did a thread search and see that some folks kind of knew that, but it's not clear why. I guess Jplay processes at 32bits?


 
  
 Thanks for the tip. I never really even thought about Jplay in addition to the Dante Virtual Soundcard (why add another layer of sw?) but I changed the encoding to 32 and yes, it does indeed work. It's another option for those who already have Jplay.


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> mourip said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who own a Mutec MC3+ USB there is a firmware update available for it on the Mutec website.
> ...


 
  
 Comments on CA by Julian from Mutec gave the impression that there would be SQ improvements also. I hope to find out for myself today


----------



## Octagon

*Mutec MC3+ Smart Clock USB FW Update 1.10 *



mourip said:


> Comments on CA by Julian from Mutec gave the impression that there would be SQ improvements also. I hope to find out for myself today




Hi all,

I do have the newest version with the updated firmware with me already some weeks for beta testing. I can confirm that there is a recognizable raise in sq. I could recognized that by more details and clearer stage front to back for example. I can't comment on the changes with the firmware more than published by Mutec because of non disclosure agreement but understand the reason of what I am hearing and measuring. More feedback from other users will support that impression for sure. Mutec decided to stay silebt about details for business reasons and I fully understand that.

I did test quite intense with different setups including F-1, RME ADi-2, RME UCX and T+A Dac 8. I promissed Mr. Peters not to publish anything before the official launch, should be able to share the test in a while. For the moment just that: In nearly every position within the chain the MC3+ USB improved SQ. But the differences in sq changes where I integrated it in the chain where quite interesting.

With regard to the topic of this thread I can confirm that the combination F-1 > SPdif > MC3+ USB produces better sq than any of them alone.

So finally I made it to get on topic 

Take care
Thomas


----------



## jabbr

A little feedback on using the Grimm Cc1 Master clock.

First remark:
The CC1 is still new and cold out of the box. Arrived only today.
The Mutec MC3+USB has been running for over a month, nearly continuously and has always been on the new firmware 1.10 so I don't know the old firmware.

Observations:
1. I prefer Mutec SPDIF reclock over the Grimm SPDIF reclock. Mutec shows mored detailed/controled bass lines.
2. Mutec behind Rednet D16, is enhanced greatly by using Grimm as an external Master clock on the Mutec instead of Mutec's internal clocking mechanism. Greater clarity, music a bit more forward, enhanced perceived loudness (thus lower noise floor), lower lows with even more control of bass details. This is definitely the best setup.

Still to do:
a. Add Grimm as external Master clock on the Rednet D16. Need a second BNC cable for that. Will receive two Oyaide silver BNC cables tomorow, so both devices will be receiving clock signals over exactly the same length and spec-ed cables.

b. Let the Grimm CC1 run for many, many hours to get a proper burn in, and then test the above observations again.

Glad to have the Grimm in the setup :biggrin: :atsmile:

Cheers


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> A little feedback on using the Grimm Cc1 Master clock....
> 
> .... Let the Grimm CC1 run for many, many hours to get a proper burn in, and then test the above observations again.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for this Grimm tale 
  
 Looking forward to more as it cooks...
  
 Oops. Sounds like Hansel and Gretel!
  
 My Antelope is getting better with a little cooking also...


----------



## enginedr

mourip said:


> Thanks for this Grimm tale
> 
> Looking forward to more as it cooks...
> 
> ...


 

 I have just received my R-core 18v LPS it sounds like a improvement to the SQ need some more burn in time . I am waiting to here if anyone tried the Antelope or any other world clock
 only without a SPDIF Re-clock. This information is helpful to all the people sitting on the fence . The RN3 and external clock is a two grand set up do you need to break out another thousand ?


----------



## joelha

enginedr said:


> I have just received my R-core 18v LPS it sounds like a improvement to the SQ need some more burn in time . I am waiting to here if anyone tried the Antelope or any other world clock
> only without a SPDIF Re-clock. This information is helpful to all the people sitting on the fence . The RN3 and external clock is a two grand set up do you need to break out another thousand ?


 
 What is the LPS powering?
  
 Joel


----------



## enginedr

joelha said:


> What is the LPS powering?
> 
> Joel


 

 The Antelope audio Live Clock . I am using it as the external master clock for the RN3 .


----------



## joelha

Thanks for the reply enginedr.
  
 On a separate note, I'd be curious to hear from everyone who uses a Rednet 3 or D16 who has made an improvement upstream of the device (ethernet cable, s/w player, improved server, LPS on server/SSD/etc.) who has noted an improvement in their sound.
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Thanks for the reply enginedr.
> 
> On a separate note, I'd be curious to hear from everyone who uses a Rednet 3 or D16 who has made an improvement upstream of the device (ethernet cable, s/w player, improved server, LPS on server/SSD/etc.) who has noted an improvement in their sound.
> 
> Joel




None whatsoever as long as it doesn't influence the bits.
The thing I did notice giving a big improvement, was using Sox SRC for upsampling to 192kHz instead of other SRC software. But obviously this does influence the bits that are actually sent to the D16


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> None whatsoever as long as it doesn't influence the bits.
> The thing I did notice giving a big improvement, was using Sox SRC for upsampling to 192kHz instead of other SRC software. But obviously this does influence the bits that are actually sent to the D16


 
 +1 for SoX in JRMC v22.
  
 I upgraded Audiophile Optimizer to v2.0 but feel it is no longer necessary.
  
 Added TP-Link optical cable for the ethernet port on my server that goes to my LAN last night but have not had time to listen yet. As it is mainly for reducing noise I am not holding out much hope. AOIP seems to make a lot of our up-stream tweaks unnecessary. I may even put the SMPS brick back for my PC just to see...


----------



## gldgate

joelha said:


> Thanks for the reply enginedr.
> 
> On a separate note, I'd be curious to hear from everyone who uses a Rednet 3 or D16 who has made an improvement upstream of the device (ethernet cable, s/w player, improved server, LPS on server/SSD/etc.) who has noted an improvement in their sound.
> 
> Joel


 
  
 I feel I am a broken record on this issue. Not saying upstream items don't make a difference but what I am hearing has much less impact than what I experienced on USB set-up. External clock (Antelope) and especially Mutec reclocking are the two "tweaks" that were most meaningful and which I would recommend. It can be tough to break old habits but with AOIP I'm not constantly in search of the next accessory level upgrade.


----------



## enginedr

gldgate said:


> I feel I am a broken record on this issue. Not saying upstream items don't make a difference but what I am hearing has much less impact than what I experienced on USB set-up. External clock (Antelope) and especially Mutec reclocking are the two "tweaks" that were most meaningful and which I would recommend. It can be tough to break old habits but with AOIP I'm not constantly in search of the next accessory level upgrade.


 

 My chain is a 2014 Mac Mini  for player software I am using Channel D audio Pure Music and I tunes - Dante VSC to Red Net 3 with a Antelope audio Live clock patched in with 2 Carne BNC cables
 The Antelope is the master clock . Out  of the RN3 s coax SPDIF I am using a Mad Scientist 1 m carbon fiber SPDIF cable to my Metrum Octave NOS DAC .I have the player set to up sample
 to 92khz  all of my music is 44.1 Redbook in lossless format . I just added a Zero Zone 18 v LPS with a R-core transformer for the power on the Live clock it was a nice improvement .
 This combo sounds so good I am just going to enjoy it as is for now .


----------



## gldgate

Finally got my second word clock cable in today so I was able to hook up mutec to external clock as well. I agree with the board consensus opinion. The antelope Liveclock is not only better on the RedNet but I prefer it on Mutec as well. If anything, I think the Mutec benefits even more than the RedNet from the Antelope. Same type of improvements as with the RedNet (more solid imaging) but even more magnified. Before purchasing the Antelope I was on the fence as to the importance of external clocks. I'm well off the fence now. If anything, I'm even more curious on how a 10M clock would perform. Still amazed at the versatility of the Mutec box. Whether internal or external clock reference, USB or AOIP, Mutec's reclocking has shown to improve sq across the board. Good stuff.


----------



## jelt2359

I wonder if a single ref10 would do better, or this antelope. Don't really have the stomach for more than one external clock, although I do understand they are different items...


----------



## gldgate

jelt2359 said:


> I wonder if a single ref10 would do better, or this antelope. Don't really have the stomach for more than one external clock, although I do understand they are different items...


 
  
 Until the Ref10 comes out I don't think anyone knows for sure. From what I hear the Mutec will be cheaper than the Antelope 10MX. The older 10M is officially discontinued so we may start seeing deals on those as well. There is also the Stanford Research Perf 10. My understanding is that Stanford clock is actually what is used in the 10M but that Antelope adds some additional audio type improvements (power supply etc..) For those on the budget there is also a Rubidium clock from China that sells for about $1100-$1200. 
  
 Given the quality and performance of the Mutec MC-3+USB I will be following the Ref10 release very closely.  
  
 Will say that given the nose-bleed pricing of state of the art clocks the Antelope Liveclock really fits a market niche. Glad another forum member shed light on this more affordable option.
  
 Too bad rb2013 is posting less here. He got the ball rolling on the RedNet/external clock issue. So grateful for his input.


----------



## enginedr

I am a little confused here You state the Antelope helped the Mutec as well as the Red net . Question I have to ask when you insert the Antelope in the Mutec word clock in and out are you bypassing the Mutec clock or cascading both clocks ? If you are bypassing the Mutec
 clock that tells me the Antelope is a superior clock and there is no need for a Mutec . I have inserted my Live clock in the Red Net 3 loop
 and commanded it to use the Antelope as the Master clock . If I am wrong with assumption please explain


----------



## jabbr

I get a sense that not everybody knows what the difference is between reclocking, master wordclock and 10M-clock sources:
  
 Mutec performs reclocking of SPDIF. It can use an internal word clock mechanism (their 1G mechanism) or an external word clock generator (like Antelope Live clock or Grimm CC1 or others)
  
 Master clocks vary quite alot in design, oscilators used, narrow-band / wide-band PLL etc. They can give therefore quite varying results depending not only on the clock but also depending on the device to be reclocked.
  
 10M clocks are clocks with very high *long term* stability. This does not say anything about short term variation.
  
 Grimm has published a number of white papers explaining the purpose and usability of master wordclocks and PLL, 10M clocks, jitter etc.
 They are an easy and interesting read and I think a 'must know' to be able to make well considered decisions:
  
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/pll_and_clocking.pdf           - A tutorial on PLL's and their influence on jitter.
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/pll_and_clock_basics.pdf    - PLL and clock basics without the math.
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/picoseconds_or_ppm.pdf    - Provides insight in the highly debatable topic of 'atomic clocks for audio'.
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## jabbr

enginedr said:


> I am a little confused here You state the Antelope helped the Mutec as well as the Red net . Question I have to ask when you insert the Antelope in the Mutec word clock in and out are you bypassing the Mutec clock or cascading both clocks ? If you are bypassing the Mutec
> clock that tells me the Antelope is a superior clock and there is no need for a Mutec . I have inserted my Live clock in the Red Net 3 loop
> and commanded it to use the Antelope as the Master clock . If I am wrong with assumption please explain


 
 I can state that adding a Mutec MC-3+USB that reclocks the output of the RedNet has a far greater impact than only adding an external wordclock to the RedNet.
 Putting both under the same wordclock gives best results.


----------



## jabbr

jelt2359 said:


> I wonder if a single ref10 would do better, or this antelope. Don't really have the stomach for more than one external clock, although I do understand they are different items...


 
 The Ref10 is just that, a 10Mhz clock.
 It is not a wordclock, so it does not generate clock signals needed for clocking audio 44.1kHz - 192kHz.
  
 The Ref10 generates a 10Mhz that can be used by clocking devices that can accept a 10 Mhz signal. It is meant for giving wordclock generators like the Antelope a more stable input to their internal oscilator than whatever method they otherwise use.
  
 In general you cannot just replace a wordclock that generates 44.1-192 kHz signals with a 10M clock. The device receiving a 10M clock must be designed to handle that and use that with their generator of a wordclock for digital audio devices.
  
 Read the Grimm papers!


----------



## jelt2359

jabbr said:


> The Ref10 is just that, a 10Mhz clock.
> It is not a wordclock, so it does not generate clock signals needed for clocking audio 44.1kHz - 192kHz.
> 
> The Ref10 generates a 10Mhz that can be used by clocking devices that can accept a 10 Mhz signal. It is meant for giving wordclock generators like the Antelope a more stable input to their internal oscilator than whatever method they otherwise use.
> ...




I should have provided the context. Gldgate, Mourip and myself all have the Rednet in addition to the Mutec 3+ USB. The latter device accepts a 10mhz signal. The question is whether the ref10 or the antelope- both different items, but similar in that they're an additional box that costs money (heh)- would make a better improvement to this chain. 

So:

Rednet (clocked by antelope) -> Mutec 3+ USB (clocked by antelope)

Vs

Rednet -> Mutec 3+ USB (with a ref10 signal)

...is the comparison I was alluding to.


----------



## gldgate

jabbr said:


> I get a sense that not everybody knows what the difference is between reclocking, master wordclock and 10M-clock sources:
> 
> Mutec performs reclocking of SPDIF. It can use an internal word clock mechanism (their 1G mechanism) or an external word clock generator (like Antelope Live clock or Grimm CC1 or others)
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Yes, I've read all the Grimm white papers and even referenced one on CA when someone there was referencing an Atomic Clock for the Mutec. However, there are still several high end studios that use the Antelope 10M and swear by the result. In the end I've decided (like much of my experience with Audio) that technical papers alone do not guarantee great sound and that home audition is generally the best course of action. Not saying that the Antelope 10M would be better than the Grimm or upcoming Mutec. Just know that I was somewhat skeptical of external clocks in general and my experience with the Liveclock has been a pleasant surprise. Because of this I'm not going to write anything off.


----------



## jabbr

Noted!
  
 But less well read people should not think they can add a 10M clock into their Rednets.
 The Rednet requires a wordclock (44.1  kHz - 192 kHz) and not a 10M clock.
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## mourip

jelt2359 said:


> I should have provided the context. Gldgate, Mourip and myself all have the Rednet in addition to the Mutec 3+ USB. The latter device accepts a 10mhz signal. The question is whether the ref10 or the antelope- both different items, but similar in that they're an additional box that costs money (heh)- would make a better improvement to this chain.
> 
> So:
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 AFAIK no one here can answer your question yet as none of us have sipped from that 10M cup due to expense and the incredibly rapid pace of our recent discoveries...and purchases.
  
 ...so we would be guessing. Probably one of us will cave in eventually as the curiosity gets to us...
  
 Personally I am literally running out of rack/cabinet space.


----------



## enginedr

jabbr said:


> I can state that adding a Mutec MC-3+USB that reclocks the output of the RedNet has a far greater impact than only adding an external wordclock to the RedNet.
> Putting both under the same wordclock gives best results.


 

 Sounds like I am getting steered to a Re-clock in the SPDIF chain . If that is the icing on the cake can I use the Mutec mc3+ without the USB and get the same results ?


----------



## mourip

enginedr said:


> Sounds like I am getting steered to a Re-clock in the SPDIF chain . If that is the icing on the cake can I use the Mutec mc3+ without the USB and get the same results ?


 
  
 I basically asked Julian from Mutec in that CA thread this same question. His reply was that the Mutec MC+3 USB incorporates a lot of upgrades other than just adding USB.
  
 I was thinking of getting the cheaper model for my HP rig since I no longer use USB there.  Hard to say how big a difference it would make without trying it out but I decided against buying a second less expensive Mutec for now until the dust settles a bit.


----------



## enginedr

mourip said:


> I basically asked Julian from Mutec in that CA thread this same question. His reply was that the Mutec MC+3 USB incorporates a lot of upgrades other than just adding USB.
> 
> I was thinking of getting the cheaper model for my HP rig since I no longer use USB there.  Hard to say how big a difference it would make without trying it out but I decided against buying a second less expensive Mutec for now until the dust settles a bit.


 

 Thank you for the answer . I also feel the USB version would have better resale appeal as it solves more problems for USB audio chains .
 I have room for one more box that is it .The wife is going to have me committed .
 What I am hearing now is off the hook good . How much better can it get ?


----------



## gldgate

enginedr said:


> I am a little confused here You state the Antelope helped the Mutec as well as the Red net . Question I have to ask when you insert the Antelope in the Mutec word clock in and out are you bypassing the Mutec clock or cascading both clocks ? If you are bypassing the Mutec
> clock that tells me the Antelope is a superior clock and there is no need for a Mutec . I have inserted my Live clock in the Red Net 3 loop
> and commanded it to use the Antelope as the Master clock . If I am wrong with assumption please explain


 
  
 In my system, the Mutec is now set up for external reclocking. It is still performing a reclocking function but now using the Antelope as the external clock reference instead of the internal Mutec clock. At the same time the Antelope is also serving as the external clock reference for the RedNet. Having both devices using the Antelope provides better sq to my ears.


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> AFAIK no one here can answer your question yet as none of us have sipped from that 10M cup due to expense and the incredibly rapid pace of our recent discoveries...and purchases.
> 
> ...so we would be guessing. Probably one of us will cave in eventually as the curiosity gets to us...
> 
> Personally I am literally running out of rack/cabinet space.




There's still time before it is released. My hopes are on you and/or gldgate to boldly drink from the chalice before any other.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Until the Ref10 comes out I don't think anyone knows for sure. From what I hear the Mutec will be cheaper than the Antelope 10MX. The older 10M is officially discontinued so we may start seeing deals on those as well. There is also the Stanford Research Perf 10. My understanding is that Stanford clock is actually what is used in the 10M but that Antelope adds some additional audio type improvements (power supply etc..) For those on the budget there is also a Rubidium clock from China that sells for about $1100-$1200.
> 
> Given the quality and performance of the Mutec MC-3+USB I will be following the Ref10 release very closely.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for that!
  
 I wish Antelope published the phase noise numbers and clock accuracy for the 10M and 10MX - like SR does for the Perf10.  See my post from awhile ago on the other thread:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/2940#post_12713793
  
Phase Noise for the PERF10 <-130 dBc/Hz (10 Hz) is truly extraordinary - especially for a Rubidium clock which tend to have very high phase noise  (they use a special cross cut crystal to do this).

 The issues of short term AND long term clock rate stability do matter!  If your audio device needs a precise 24.576MHz clock for example - both the short term stability will of course matter - but so does the long term drift away from the original designed frequency.  If your clock adds +1ppm per year that is moving away from the desired precise frequency.
  
See my post here comparing a typical OXCO and the Cyrstek CCHD clocks (neither Antelope nor Mutec publish figures on their internal clocks or their phase noise - Sheeh!).  But Antelope mentions sub 1ppm accuracy for it's OCX):
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/2940#post_12716172
  
 Well designed Rubidium clocks are orders of magnitude better in all regards.
  
 The Rednet (using a XO clock), Mutec with a XO 1GHz, and the Antelope using a OXCO - use the 10Mhz input from the atomic clock as a 'disciplining' reference frequency to lock to - which helps their clocking maintain precision.  This provides them much greater short term and maybe even more important - LONG TERM clock frequency accuracy.
  
 SR makes a lab equipment version of the PERF10 (not as pretty - no leds for example) that is cheaper the FS725
 http://www.thinksrs.com/products/FS725.htm


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Finally got my second word clock cable in today so I was able to hook up mutec to external clock as well. I agree with the board consensus opinion. The antelope Liveclock is not only better on the RedNet but I prefer it on Mutec as well. If anything, I think the Mutec benefits even more than the RedNet from the Antelope. Same type of improvements as with the RedNet (more solid imaging) but even more magnified. Before purchasing the Antelope I was on the fence as to the importance of external clocks. I'm well off the fence now. If anything, I'm even more curious on how a 10M clock would perform. Still amazed at the versatility of the Mutec box. Whether internal or external clock reference, USB or AOIP, Mutec's reclocking has shown to improve sq across the board. Good stuff.


 

 How did you hook up the Liveclock to the Mutec as ext clock  At least on my Mutec MC-3+ USB it only accepts a 1-10Mhz ext clock and the Antelope OCX can only output up to 192K - after looking over the manual of the Liveclock - I believe that is the same.
  
 It appears that the Mutec would require a higher ext Wclock rate to work.


----------



## RKML0007

From the Mutec 3+ USB manual


----------



## RKML0007

Also need to switch internal jumper to allow external clock input.


----------



## jabbr

gldgate said:


> ..... Having both devices using the Antelope provides better sq to my ears.




+1 my experience as well.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> How did you hook up the Liveclock to the Mutec as ext clock  At least on my Mutec MC-3+ USB it only accepts a 1-10Mhz ext clock and the Antelope OCX can only output up to 192K - after looking over the manual of the Liveclock - I believe that is the same.
> 
> It appears that the Mutec would require a higher ext Wclock rate to work.


 
  
 The upper BNC on the right accepts both WCLK and 1-10M in. That is how I hooked mine up after setting up the config to External and Re-Clock...
  
 The labeling is confusing. Took me a few to figure it out.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> +1 my experience as well.


 
  
 Ditto...


----------



## gldgate

Here is a pic of my Mutec setting. Can't see the Antelope but is just to the right of the Mutec. 
  
 It is possible that the  Mutec is doing something different than I think it is (would not be the first time). However, based on reading the manual a few times I believe the LED indicators are telling me I am externally reclocking using the Antelope. 
  
 This pix was snapped when I was playing something from Roon/Tidal so it's at 44.1Khz. I also was able to play files natively at 96Khz and 192Khz as well. I was also able to upsample to 192Khz in Jriver.
  
 If I'm doing something wrong someone let me know.


----------



## jabbr

gldgate said:


> Here is a pic of my Mutec setting. Can't see the Antelope but is just to the right of the Mutec.
> 
> It is possible that the  Mutec is doing something different than I think it is (would not be the first time). However, based on reading the manual a few times I believe the LED indicators are telling me I am externally reclocking using the Antelope.
> 
> ...



 
Hi Gldgate
 
This is completely *RIGHT* !!!
 
First column says it is reclocking using an external source.
Second column says it is using the AES3/1 connector for the audio signal used as reference for sample rate.
 
The two blue lights tell you:
1. top one: it has a lock on the incoming audio signal.
2. second from top: it has a lock on the external clock signal.
 
Pressing menu and select together and hold it for 3(?) seconds will turn off all the lights exept power and the two block lock leds. This is quite fiddely thought, to get them pressed properly together (according to the Mutec that is). It gives a more quiet image though.
 
cheers


PS.
You did also set the RedNet to use an external clock?
You set it in RedNet Control / Settings of your device (Spanner symbol) / RedNet Clock Source / BNC input (word clock)


PS2.
In RedNet Control I also saved the settings to a file using the default name offered, as I don't know if all settings are remembered across reboots/power down situations.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> The upper BNC on the right accepts both WCLK and 1-10M in. That is how I hooked mine up after setting up the config to External and Re-Clock...
> 
> The labeling is confusing. Took me a few to figure it out.


 
  
 It is indeed confusing, but you are right. It has one incoming BNC for the external clock, be it a word clock or a 1-10M clock.
  
 This has become a device with a lot of features in a little box, so indeed labeling can be a bit short and cramped in space.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> gldgate said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a pic of my Mutec setting. Can't see the Antelope but is just to the right of the Mutec.
> ...


 
 "Pressing menu and select together and hold it for 3(?) seconds will turn off all the lights exept power and the two block lock leds. This is quite fiddely thought, to get them pressed properly together (according to the Mutec that is). It gives a more quiet image though."
  
 So you're saying with the lights off it looks better or it actually sounds better?
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> "Pressing menu and select together and hold it for 3(?) seconds will turn off all the lights exept power and the two block lock leds. This is quite fiddely thought, to get them pressed properly together (according to the Mutec that is). It gives a more quiet image though."
> 
> So you're saying with the lights off it looks better or it actually sounds better?
> 
> Joel


 
 it looks better, not having to look at so many green and red LED lights


----------



## enginedr

I found this on CA -http://pinknoisemag.com/pink-papers/pink-paper-002


----------



## jabbr

enginedr said:


> I found this on CA -http://pinknoisemag.com/pink-papers/pink-paper-002


 
 I have read that before. Nice article.
 Also shows that different master clocks can still create different sound quality/colorations.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> The upper BNC on the right accepts both WCLK and 1-10M in. That is how I hooked mine up after setting up the config to External and Re-Clock...
> 
> The labeling is confusing. Took me a few to figure it out.


 

 Yes I see that in the manual, but could not get a lock on ext clock using the BJC BNC cable.
  
 Fortunately the Oyaide BNC cable arrived Friday - and that one worked.  Great cable.  I will have to order another one for the wclock ext fed to the Mutec.
  
 Right now working with a friend on a project using the BURL Dante Brooklyn 2 card and the B2 Bomber DAC. 
  
 After some mods this thing is killer good - will report more on this later...bypassing SPDIF for a direct AOIP Dante DAC solution.
  
 My RN3, Mutec maybe going up for sale soon.


----------



## gldgate

jabbr said:


> gldgate said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a pic of my Mutec setting. Can't see the Antelope but is just to the right of the Mutec.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for confirming. Yes, I have RedNet set to use external (Antelope Live) clock as well. Did not know about the menu/select feature - thanks for passing along that tip.


----------



## gldgate

For those looking for a more affordable 10M clock option there is also cybershaft in Japan:
  
 http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/a-products-rb.html


----------



## jabbr

gldgate said:


> For those looking for a more affordable 10M clock option there is also cybershaft in Japan:
> 
> http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/a-products-rb.html


 
 Those phase noise figures are not something to get excited about: 


> 1Hz -78dBc/Hz以下 ／ オフセット10Hz -90dBc/Hz


----------



## gldgate

jabbr said:


> Those phase noise figures are not something to get excited about:


 
  
 Looks like this would be the top of line model:
  
   http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/limited.html
  
 Don't know anything about them other than 1 or 2 folks at WTB forum have cybershaft units and have posted positive things.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ....
> Right now working with a friend on a project using the BURL Dante Brooklyn 2 card and the B2 Bomber DAC.
> 
> After some mods this thing is killer good - will report more on this later...bypassing SPDIF for a direct AOIP Dante DAC solution.
> ...




Don't you follow our friend Mike on het Mivera Audio forum?.
He has a SuperStream Pro and PureStream DAC out for release soon that is based on Ravenna protocol going with Ravenna directly into the DAc at very reasonable price levels and with true top of the line hand picked oscilator cristals.
This Ravenna implementation has no limit of 192kHz or PCM for that matter.

http://www.miveraaudio.com/#!mivera-audio-forum/ycs0u


----------



## jabbr

gldgate said:


> Looks like this would be the top of line model:
> 
> 
> http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/limited.html
> ...



That one is much better and at the level I would expect to see for a good external clock


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> Looks like this would be the top of line model:
> 
> http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/limited.html
> 
> Don't know anything about them other than 1 or 2 folks at WTB forum have cybershaft units and have posted positive things.


 
  
 WTB forum?


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> WTB forum?


 
  
  
 Here you go:
  
 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/
  
 Looks like the guy who posted there also posted on audiogon forums. He purchased a cybershaft clock that has separate 10M OCXO and Rubidbium outputs. Appears he prefers the 10M OCXO and is using it 90-95% of the time.
  
 Here is link to the "combo" clock:
  
 http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/entry27.html
  
  
 and here is the premium 10M OCXO (not the limited I linked previously):
  
 http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/premium.html
  
  
 The premium 10M OCXO looks interesting and has pricing that is more in line with my audio comfort zone. The Cybershafts have 50-ohm connectors instead of the 75-ohm typical in audio but from what I've been reading if you keep cables short it should not be an issue.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


>


 
  
 Good morning jabbr.
  
 Are you still using optical media converters with your new REDnet system? Have you tried removing them to see if it matters now? If you are still using optical ethernet what leg(s) of your system is it deployed in?
  
 I picked up a pair of the media converters and a lenght of optical cable to see if I could hear the isolation effects. My PC has two network cards. One goes to my D16 while the other goes to my LAN. I inserted the converters in the LAN leg.  I was hoping that the fiber would drop off some noise as the back of my cabinet is getting pretty busy these days with a D16, Mutec, Antelope, DAC, Pre, and amp.To be honest I am not sure that I hear a difference. I will probably leave it in for now and then take it out later to see if something good leaves.
  
 Thanks!


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> Good morning jabbr.
> 
> Are you still using optical media converters with your new REDnet system? Have you tried removing them to see if it matters now? If you are still using optical ethernet what leg(s) of your system is it deployed in?
> 
> ...




Don't forget to leave a space for the ref10!


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Good morning jabbr.
> 
> Are you still using optical media converters with your new REDnet system? Have you tried removing them to see if it matters now? If you are still using optical ethernet what leg(s) of your system is it deployed in?
> 
> ...



Hi mourip
 
I use a set of 3 Cisco switches in my house. All switches are connected via optical cabling.
One of these switches is in my listening room and is also used for several other media devices in that room that need LAN-connection.
My Rednet D16 is connected to the Cisco switch via optical fibre using a single TP-Link media converter (the other end is connected to an optical transciever in my Cisco switch).
The Audio PC I use for playback is connected to the same switch via my Acousense GISO GB LAN-isolator, which I have anyway, so might just as well use it.
 
So of the RedNet D16 I only use one ethernet port.
 
I did not listen to any setup without optical fibre connections, as I think maximum electrical isolation is always good (but maybe not better perse), and I have fibre connections in the house anyway.
The TP-Link is powered by one of my Paul Hynes LPS rails which became available after dropping the USB-card from my Audio PC.
 
My Hifi-rack consists of 8 full single width levels and 2 double width levels, and I can still manage to put all of it in.
DAC is lying behind the Grimm Master Clock and the Mutec is lying behind a stack of CD's on the top-level.
I put the RedNet D16 on a set of Pangea Mega feet to give it a bit of clearance and it sits on top of another device.
I put several sheets of 3M EMI absorbers on the bottom of the RedNet to absorb any stray interference that might be radiated from the device underneath.
 
Get the picture 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ?


----------



## jabbr

jelt2359 said:


> Don't forget to leave a space for the ref10!


 
 If it ever comes to that, I still have one level in my rack that is unused.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Get the picture
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for taking the time to spell it out in detail. I appreciate it. My system is basically set up the same way.
  
 I might try the 12v tap from my HDPlex LPS to my Antelope and I think I have an adjustable tap to get 9v for the TP-Link. My only concern is feeding back noise into the LPS which also gives 19v to my PC...


----------



## jelt2359

jabbr said:


> If it ever comes to that, I still have one level in my rack that is unused.


 
 That was for mourip, he's been setting up some excuses like 'space is running out'. Like, really?? More so than miserably small Singapore?


----------



## mourip

jelt2359 said:


> That was for mourip, he's been setting up some excuses like 'space is running out'. Like, really?? More so than miserably small Singapore?


 
  
 I guess I will just have to build another room 
  
 Actually one more item in the Den and I will be single again...


----------



## panhead

rb2013 said:


> Yes I see that in the manual, but could not get a lock on ext clock using the BJC BNC cable.
> 
> Fortunately the Oyaide BNC cable arrived Friday - and that one worked.  Great cable.  I will have to order another one for the wclock ext fed to the Mutec.
> 
> ...


 
 I look forward to your comments!


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Thanks for taking the time to spell it out in detail. I appreciate it. My system is basically set up the same way.
> 
> I might try the 12v tap from my HDPlex LPS to my Antelope and I think I have an adjustable tap to get 9v for the TP-Link. My only concern is feeding back noise into the LPS which also gives 19v to my PC...




The TP-link can also run from 5V (see the manual) and that's how I run it from my PH LPS (the 5V was previously feeding my USB card).


----------



## mourip

Anyone run across this Dante dongle yet?
  
 http://www.amphenolaudio.com/products/dante/adapter/amphe-dante/#more-info
  
 Interesting although certainly not going to be high-end. 24/96 and costs $200 and has a built in DAC


----------



## patrikh

Is there a fundamental difference between d16 and rednet 3?


----------



## mourip

patrikh said:


> Is there a fundamental difference between d16 and rednet 3?


 
 In SQ probably not, mostly in features.
  
  Both do up to 192K however the RN3 cannot do 176K while the D16 can.
 The D16 has two ethernet ports making it a little more versatile for network config and redundancy.
 The D16 has AES/EBU outputs while the RN3 needs an adapter to get AES out. 
  
 Lots of good details like these earlier in this thread and also on the Rednet thread over on The Computer Audiophile.
  
 If you decide to get one Sweetwater has great service and if you ask for "their best price" will trim some off of the advertised price...


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Been awhile since going into this thread. 

So are the Rednet units still ahead of the USB offerings as far as SQ including the su-1? Not including reclocker and atomic clock, just Rednet v USB.


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> Been awhile since going into this thread.
> 
> So are the Rednet units still ahead of the USB offerings as far as SQ including the su-1? Not including reclocker and atomic clock, just Rednet v USB.


 
 I would say easily, expecting the SU1 to be only marginally better, if at all, than the F-1, and the Rednets being leaps ahead of the F-1.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Right on, just scratching my head why there's still activity in the USB threads lol. I know people have yet to make the switch but amazes me people aren't exploring this avenue in droves and are still fiddling with usb chains.


----------



## wushuliu

soundsgoodtome said:


> Right on, just scratching my head why there's still activity in the USB threads lol. I know people have yet to make the switch but amazes me people aren't exploring this avenue in droves and are still fiddling with usb chains.




The Rednet is expensive and not reviewed by audiophile websites. Just this thread.


----------



## Luckbad

http://www.basshead.club/spdif-battle-mutec-singxer-lynx-rednet-et-al/

In short, the Rednet does sound better by itself than anything I've heard.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Right on, just scratching my head why there's still activity in the USB threads lol. I know people have yet to make the switch but amazes me people aren't exploring this avenue in droves and are still fiddling with usb chains.


 

 Well the stock SU-1 is likely better then a stock F-1 fed by a PC USB power, as the SU-1 would have much cleaner power source.  A well fed F-1 should as good or even better then a SU-1 unmodded.
  
 The reason is likely cost #1, simplity of setup #2, and the flexiblity of the i2s output on the SU-1 #3 (they engineered a great pin adpation scheme with those jumper settings.)
  
  
 For $400 shipped the SU-1 is a terrific bargain - turn key solution.


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> http://www.basshead.club/spdif-battle-mutec-singxer-lynx-rednet-et-al/
> 
> In short, the Rednet does sound better by itself than anything I've heard.


 

 Nice!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I can understand the i2s but simplicity is out when you've got cleaners and linear power all lined up to the usb. I suppose those are plug and play as well. The price is definitely up there in comparison to stock units. Even an F1 with a Schiit Wyrd sounds amazing for USB so I suppose that extra 10-15% might not be worth reaching for if you've never heard it. 

Then there's the argument that servers don't have the same issues as consumer pc usb issues...I don't know about that one.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I can understand the i2s but simplicity is out when you've got cleaners and linear power all lined up to the usb. I suppose those are plug and play as well. The price is definitely up there in comparison to stock units. Even an F1 with a Schiit Wyrd sounds amazing for USB so I suppose that extra 10-15% might not be worth reaching for if you've never heard it.
> 
> Then there's the argument that servers don't have the same issues as consumer pc usb issues...I don't know about that one.


 

 Well I think alot of folks think like @Luckbad, that is just don't really want to explore (and spend for) complex USB chains, or power supply chains as well.  So are looking for a simple plug and play turnkey solution.
  
 We tweekers are really a unique group - looking to push the envelope.  Yes the payoff is high if done right - but not for everyone.  Reminds me of my teenage muscle car days.  We were always looking for ways to eke out a little more horsepower or cut ET times.  Some folks just wanted to go to the dealer and drive away.
  
 Then there is a group devout to i2s - this is not to surprising with the ability to do DSD natively if your DAC can handle that.
  
 Anyway - sota AOIP chains can get more complex then USB ones.  I mean I have two LPS for my fiber ethernet - then an Antelope OCX Wclock, Mutec MC-3+USB as a SPDIF reclocker, etc...maybe more insane (and definitely more expensive) then my uber USB chain.
  
 And you should see what we've done to a BURL B2 Bomber + BURL Dante BK2 card!  Oh man this is crazy and good!
  
 Excited to see what Mike is coming up with.


----------



## rb2013

> Later this summer we will be introducing a companion unit to turn the Superstream into a Superstream Pro. This unit will run the incredible Ravenna Audio over IP protocol to convert the audio to the cleanest signal possible. It will be another box exactly like the Superstream that the Superstream will sit on top of. It will link to the Superstream with ST fiber.   For outputs it will have nothing but the finest. 3 different I2S modes ( LVDS/HDMI (PS Audio pinout), CMOS over RJ-45, and Superlink). It will also have an AES/EBU digital output for legacy DAC support of the highest quality. The AES/EBU output will be on a modular board that can be substituted with ST fiber/word clock out for DAC's such as EMM labs and Playback designs.   What is Superlink? It's a special connection that connects to Ravenna retrofit boards. These Retrofit boards can be installed in any DAC with a removable USB interface to bring the pure Ravenna I2S into the unit in the best way possible. Max resolution support from the I2S and Superlink outputs will be PCM 24/384 and DSD 512. For example the Amanero USB boards found in all of the Lampizator DAC's would be perfect for the upgrade.10 minute job max to install the board in place of the Amanero. ​ The Ravenna Pro I/O box will also have a choice of ultra low jitter clocks from the highly praised Crystek 957, to the incomparable NDK DuCULoN clock: ​ More info on the amazing DuCULoN clock can be found HERE ​ When the Superlink option is used, the master clock will be located on the retrofit board so the DAC chip can be slaved to it for the lowest jitter possible. Imagine the famous Lampizator Golden Gate using the Crystek 957, or even the NDK DuCULoN as the master clock rather than the clock built on the Amanero USB interface! Wow!   The Superstream Pro will run an AES67 VSC, so it will be able to talk to all AES67 compliant devices from Dante and Ravenna. This includes for example DAC's such as the Merging NADAC, active speakers from Genelec, and AES67 enabled amps.   Here's a list of all of the possible ways the Superstream Pro will be able to interface to DAC's, active speakers and AES67 enabled amps: ​ 1: USB
> 2: I2S over CMOS (RJ-45)
> 3: I2S over HDMI
> 4: AES/EBU
> ...


 
  
  
  
  
 http://www.miveraaudio.com


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> And you should see what we've done to a BURL B2 Bomber + BURL Dante BK2 card!  Oh man this is crazy and good!
> 
> Excited to see what Mike is coming up with.


 
  
 Yes! Yes! Details and pictures!


----------



## gldgate

I'm generally not one to be impulsive but the performance "boost" of the Antelope Liveclock on the Mutec and RedNet had me thinking about 10M clocks. I thought about the Antelope, Stanford Research and upcoming Mutec but I have some personal reservations (I'm cheap!) about spending more for a clock than on my DAC (Yggy). I've also shot through my 2016 audio budget like a warm knife through butter.  Therefore, I've put in place plan B:
  
 http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/premium.html
  
 Cybershaft has several 10M clocks available (OCXO and Rubidium). In communications with owner it was recommended that based on my tastes (more classical and Jazz then rock/pop) to go with the OCXO Premium. Plan is to feed the 10M into the Liveclock which is hooked up to both Mutec and RedNet.  Unit is being fitted for US Power and should be shipping via EMS in a few days. Will post impressions...


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

gldgate said:


> I'm generally not one to be impulsive but the performance "boost" of the Antelope Liveclock on the Mutec and RedNet had me thinking about 10M clocks. I thought about the Antelope, Stanford Research and upcoming Mutec but I have some personal reservations (I'm cheap!) about spending more for a clock than on my DAC (Yggy). I've also shot through my 2016 audio budget like a warm knife through butter.  Therefore, I've put in place plan B:
> 
> http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/premium.html
> 
> Cybershaft has several 10M clocks available (OCXO and Rubidium). In communications with owner it was recommended that based on my tastes (more classical and Jazz then rock/pop) to go with the OCXO Premium. Plan is to feed the 10M into the Liveclock which is hooked up to both Mutec and RedNet.  Unit is being fitted for US Power and should be shipping via EMS in a few days. Will post impressions...


 

 $840, not bad. How much after shipping? This is a Japanese made unit?


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> And you should see what we've done to a BURL B2 Bomber + BURL Dante BK2 card!  Oh man this is crazy and good!




rb2013,

I'm curious as to which dacs you've compared the Burl B2 Bomber.

Thanks for your constant updates and suggestions.

Joel


----------



## gldgate

soundsgoodtome said:


> $840, not bad. How much after shipping? This is a Japanese made unit?


 

 ​With power conversion, shipping and (optional) BNC cable price came to almost exactly $1000 via papyal. Yes, unit is built and tested in Japan using primarily oscillators from Rakon (New Zealand). SQ and build quality (via 3rd party reports) has been positive but sample size is small. Product comes with one year warranty and they also provide calibration/inspection services.


----------



## ccschua

So is rednet releasing a down to earth price dante modules?


----------



## jabbr

ccschua said:


> So is rednet releasing a down to earth price dante modules?


 
 No, Dante OEM-boards have always been available.
 RedNets are devices made by Focusrite which incorporate a Dante OEM-boards.
  
 This BURL Bomber DAC can also be fitted with a Dante OEM-Board which Burl Audio offers for all its products.
 Don't know how BURL Dacs sound though.


----------



## mourip

ccschua said:


> So is rednet releasing a down to earth price dante modules?


 
  


jabbr said:


> No, Dante OEM-boards have always been available.
> RedNets are devices made by Focusrite which incorporate a Dante OEM-boards.
> 
> This BURL Bomber DAC can also be fitted with a Dante OEM-Board which Burl Audio offers for all its products.
> Don't know how BURL Dacs sound though.


 
  
 Hi ccschua.
  
 If you mean a two channel audiophile DDC, that is the one we are all waiting for but have heard no indication that it is even being considered...by anyone.
  
 RB2013 is working with the Burl as we speak...
  
 The good news is that for under $1000usd you can get a RN3 right now. You can sell off your USB bits to help offset the cost. This will put you ahead of USB to start. The "bad news" is that adding a Mutec MC3+ and an external clock like the Antelope produces truly remarkable sound but is a pretty hefty investment.


----------



## patrikh

Upon brief investigation it seems rednet 3 goes for 1400 eur in Europe. Wonder if anyone sells one for a reasonable price ;_;


----------



## Cornan

RedNet 3 goes for EUR 1424.- here https://www.thomann.de/gb/focusrite_rednet_3.htm?ref=search_rslt_focusrite_263992_30
 However, I have started to investigate if the Focusrite RedNet AM2 for EUR449.- could possibly suit my personal needs https://www.thomann.de/gb/focusrite_rednet_am2.htm?ref=search_rslt_focusrite_382207_22 Initially it looks very promising!  Have anyone tried it on this thread?


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> rb2013,
> 
> I'm curious as to which dacs you've compared the Burl B2 Bomber.
> 
> ...


 

 Well I'm a big tube DAC guy.  I've had to many to list - both solid state and tube output.
  
 Right now my #1 DAC is a heavily modded R2R DAC60.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
  
 #2 is a APL NWOjr.
  
 The BURL is excellent with tube like Class A output devices.
 http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/79/b2-bomber-adc-dac/
  
 We've been able to improve it substantially with some major power supply mods and a few other tweeks.  It does have a wclock in (which is one thing about Pro-audio DACs that I really like - this is a std feature on the better models).
  
 We're also looking at how BURL designed the Brooklyn II Dante card interface.  They sell the BK2 card for $250.  It would be great to have just a interface device that it would plug into, powered by ext DC.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> ​With power conversion, shipping and (optional) BNC cable price came to almost exactly $1000 via papyal. Yes, unit is built and tested in Japan using primarily oscillators from Rakon (New Zealand). SQ and build quality (via 3rd party reports) has been positive but sample size is small. Product comes with one year warranty and they also provide calibration/inspection services.


 

 A new super clock from NDK -
  
http://www.ndk.com/en/ad/2013/001/pdf/c_NH47M47LA_e.pdf
 
NDK Ultra-Low-Phase-Noise OCXO DuCULoN®
 
Look at those phase noise numbers!


----------



## rb2013

cornan said:


> RedNet 3 goes for EUR 1424.- here https://www.thomann.de/gb/focusrite_rednet_3.htm?ref=search_rslt_focusrite_263992_30
> However, I have started to investigate if the Focusrite RedNet AM2 for EUR449.- could possibly suit my personal needs https://www.thomann.de/gb/focusrite_rednet_am2.htm?ref=search_rslt_focusrite_382207_22 Initially it looks very promising!  Have anyone tried it on this thread?


 

 This was discussed extensively some time back.
  
 Not likely to yield near the SQ of the RN3 or RN16D.  It has no digital output (so can not feed a DAC) and uses a different Audinate product.
  
 The AM uses a Dante Ultimo chip - not the descrete Brooklyn I or II board like the 3 & D16, respectively.
  
 The Ultimo is limited to 96k

  

 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-ultimo


----------



## ccschua

I wonder if this is the brooklyn II card . https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-brooklyn-ii
  
 even with this, the DSC is not bundled and need to be provided ?


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> A new super clock from NDK -
> 
> [COLOR=FF4400]http://www.ndk.com/en/ad/2013/001/pdf/c_NH47M47LA_e.pdf[/color]
> 
> ...





Mike found another crazy clock:
-130 dB at 1 Hz and -145 dB at 10Hz and lower still at higher frequencies. :eek:

http://www.oscilloquartz.com/files/1363164953-Br_%20OCXO%208607.pdf


----------



## jabbr

ccschua said:


> I wonder if this is the brooklyn II card . https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-brooklyn-ii
> 
> even with this, the DSC is not bundled and need to be provided ?




Yes, that is the Dante OEM board Brooklyn II. Audinate is the manufacturer of these boards and the developer of the Dante protocol.
I believe that OEM manufacturers that use this board do supply it with DVS.
Every OEM manufacturer that wants to build a Dante compatible device has to buy their boards from Audinate. That's the business model of Audinate.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Mike found another crazy clock:
> -130 dB at 1 Hz and -145 dB at 10Hz and lower still at higher frequencies.
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Nice.  Wonder how much they cost.  The J option looks really good.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Yes, that is the Dante OEM board Brooklyn II. Audinate is the manufacturer of these boards and the developer of the Dante protocol.
> I believe that OEM manufacturers that use this board do supply it with DVS.
> Every OEM manufacturer that wants to build a Dante compatible device has to buy their boards from Audinate. That's the business model of Audinate.


 

 The killer is the licensing fee - like $10K


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Nice.  Wonder how much they cost.  The J option looks really good.




According to Mike: Between $5000 and $ 10000 with a lead time of up to a year


----------



## ccschua

rb2013 said:


> The killer is the licensing fee - like $10K


 
  
 no wonder. if Rednet can come out with a strip down version (with external PS option) at USD 400 it will sell like Pokemon Go.


----------



## ccschua

I am getting a fuse for digital equipment, will a hifi tuning supreme "slow blow" fit for rednet ?


----------



## jabbr

ccschua said:


> I am getting a fuse for digital equipment, will a hifi tuning supreme "slow blow" fit for rednet ?




The rednets have a T2AL250VAC fuse size 5x20


----------



## somestranger26

jabbr said:


> Mike found another crazy clock:
> -130 dB at 1 Hz and -145 dB at 10Hz and lower still at higher frequencies.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 They could be fudging the numbers or make the numbers look great on paper but then the real world results don't add up. In that post by Minerva Audio about their upcoming streamers, they talked about the large difference in real world clock performance vs. manufacturer-stated numbers.


----------



## Cornan

rb2013 said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > RedNet 3 goes for EUR 1424.- here https://www.thomann.de/gb/focusrite_rednet_3.htm?ref=search_rslt_focusrite_263992_30
> ...



Have you actually listen to the AM2 or is this conclutions by design only? In my case I will use it only with Tidal as source so the 96k limit is not an issue. I am currently curious how it will sound using a AD converter like the Benchmark ADC1 (which is a pretty good option available second hand) connected to my Pioneer U-05 DAC/HPA/PRE (which I like very much) via AES/EBU. The analogue>digital>analogue conversion actually appeal to me. It is almost like the AC>DC>AC path!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

cornan said:


> Have you actually listen to the AM2 or is this conclutions by design only? In my case I will use it only with Tidal as source so the 96k limit is not an issue. I am currently curious how it will sound using a AD converter like the Benchmark ADC1 (which is a pretty good option available second hand) connected to my Pioneer U-05 DAC/HPA/PRE (which I like very much) via AES/EBU. The analogue>digital>analogue conversion actually appeal to me. It is almost like the AC>DC>AC path!


 

@markus94103 has the AM2 on hand and uses Tidal, maybe he can chime in.


----------



## rb2013

cornan said:


> Have you actually listen to the AM2 or is this conclutions by design only? In my case I will use it only with Tidal as source so the 96k limit is not an issue. I am currently curious how it will sound using a AD converter like the Benchmark ADC1 (which is a pretty good option available second hand) connected to my Pioneer U-05 DAC/HPA/PRE (which I like very much) via AES/EBU. The analogue>digital>analogue conversion actually appeal to me. It is almost like the AC>DC>AC path!


 

 Well since it has no digital out - how could I listen to it in my system or compare it to the RN3?
  
 AN>DIG>AN Ok dude what ever works for you
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 And by the time you add the cost of a ADC to the mix why not just avoid the Rube Goldberg setup and get a RN3


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> According to Mike: Between $5000 and $ 10000 with a lead time of up to a year


 

 Och!


----------



## prot

gldgate said:


>




Something is just not right in that pic .. some of you guys are replacing the old, awful 5devices+20cables Usb chain with a 5devices&10cables Ethernet chain. Why oh why?!
And those Usb thingies were at least small and not so hard to hide. The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative .. even most IT server racks rooms look better than that stack.

Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your ears, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


----------



## johnjen

prot said:


> Something is just not right in that pic .. some of you guys are replacing the old, awful 5devices+20cables Usb chain with a 5devives&10cables Ethernet chain. Why oh why?!
> And those Usb thingies were at least small and not so hard to hide. The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative .. even most IT server racks rooms look better than that stack.
> 
> Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your esra, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


 
 Hahahahahahahahaha…
  
 And that's a 'simple' stack…
  
 Wait till the dual Mutecs with a word and 10M clock and a pair of TP-Link FMC's and a Rnx, are all stacked up…
  
  
 Bwuuhahahahahahaha
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

Progress report on my full mod traction-action on my RN3.
  
 I added a SRQ slowblow fuse, added a WAQy chip to the fuse and added a transformer chip in the SMPS and the silver goo'd a bunch of known useful spots.
  
 After ≈100hrs+ the SQ is rising and being able to hear these sorts of changes at this early a stage is most telling.
  
 For instance I heard the air handling system kick in during a 'quiet' passage of a Grieg piano concerto.
  
 I would say that being able to hear this, and easily identify it for what it was is *'Better'* in my book.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> Something is just not right in that pic .. some of you guys are replacing the old, awful 5devices+20cables Usb chain with a 5devices&10cables Ethernet chain. Why oh why?!
> And those Usb thingies were at least small and not so hard to hide. The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative .. even most IT server racks rooms look better than that stack.
> 
> Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your ears, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


 
  
 Well the sound quality is vastly better than the USB chain, so there is a lot to be gained.
  
 Further it requires just some skills in stacking & hiding.
 All this does require a proper Hifi rack though.
 It is a definite no go just stacking a lot of devices directly on top of each other, the radiation among the devices will have an impact as well, so should  be avoided or managed.


----------



## prot

johnjen said:


> Hahahahahahahahaha…
> 
> And that's a 'simple' stack…
> 
> ...




Well, for anyone reading this thread it's clear that the pic is quite 'simple'. Didnt even want to mention the extra clocks, fibre-eth converters, the tens of "must" have LPSes, gold power cables, diamond fuses and groundboxes filled with the sand of audiogods. 

Many of you guys are doing a great job riding the Aoip trend. But you gotta remember that this stuff should be used by people with eyes .. and spouses .. and wallets .. and limited time. 
The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
 The only good news around here are those ravenna-to-i2s boards by Mivera-Audio. Hope they'll work as expected and will be followed by many similar.


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> Well, for anyone reading this thread it's clear that the pic is quite 'simple'. Didnt even want to mention the extra clocks, fibre-eth converters, the tens of "must" have LPSes, gold power cables, diamond fuses and groundboxes filled with the sand of audiogods.
> 
> Many of you guys are doing a great job riding the Aoip trend. But you gotta remember that this stuff should be used by people with eyes .. and spouses .. and wallets .. and limited time.
> The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
> The only good news around here are those ravenna-to-i2s boards by Mivera-Audio. Hope they'll work as expected and will be followed by many similar.


 
 I don't think my stack looks bad at all, at least my wife doesn't think so. Even though there is a RedNet and a master clock in the stack.
 The DAC and the Mutec all nicely put out of view


----------



## johnjen

prot said:


> snip
> Many of you guys are doing a great job riding the Aoip trend. But you gotta remember that this stuff should be used by people with eyes .. and spouses .. and wallets .. and limited time.
> The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
> snip


 
 That certainly is one way to view all of this activity.
  
 Another is when all of this AOIP gets sorted out, there will probably be no box, just a CAT6 cable from the computer to the dac, or perhaps just a single box the size of, lets say the Mutec feeding our dacs.
  
 And what we're doing is helping to set the parameters that have a direct and significant impact on the SQ.
 We're the guinea pigs, the envelope pushers, those who dare to 'find out', and get to listen to some killer tunes while we're at it…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> ....
> The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
> .....




Until the ideal transport is designed and the ideal, most perfect and suits-everybody DAC is invented, there will never be just a transport with just a cable to the DAC solution.

The Mivera devices are an interesting development, but are a multi-box and multi cable solution as well and still have to prove themselves.


----------



## mourip

prot said:


> Something is just not right in that pic .. some of you guys are replacing the old, awful 5devices+20cables Usb chain with a 5devices&10cables Ethernet chain. Why oh why?!
> And those Usb thingies were at least small and not so hard to hide. The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative .. even most IT server racks rooms look better than that stack.
> 
> Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your ears, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


 
  
 I can only speak for myself but my only goals are sound quality and sharing what I learn with others. So far just adding a D16 beat out a well conceived USB chain and that is a simple solution, more so than the USB chain with LPS etc.. Adding the Mutec and an Antelope boosts SQ way beyond that. I doubt that any of us are overly concerned about appearance at this point and certainly none are thinking about ourselves as pioneers for creating a product to sell...just enjoying feeling the thrill of discovery.
  
 BTW. Perhaps you might say ".. but still, that stuff has no future in *MY* living room." 
  
 Perhaps we can revive your spirit of adventure?


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> I don't think my stack looks bad at all, at least my wife doesn't think so. Even though there is a RedNet and a master clock in the stack.
> The DAC and the Mutec all nicely put out of view


 
  
 Nicely laid out. Luckily I have a cabinet with doors but with an open back to let heat out. It is getting crowded though...


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Something is just not right in that pic .. some of you guys are replacing the old, awful 5devices+20cables Usb chain with a 5devices&10cables Ethernet chain. Why oh why?!
> And those Usb thingies were at least small and not so hard to hide. The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative .. even most IT server racks rooms look better than that stack.
> 
> Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your ears, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


 
"The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative..."
  
Oh you got that right.  Wifey is not a happy camper right now.  Add in a big silver Antelope with glaring SR window.
  
The good news is we are all set for Christmas decorations...I see red, blue, green, yellow, more red leds lit up all over the place.


----------



## rb2013

ccschua said:


> no wonder. if Rednet can come out with a strip down version (with external PS option) at USD 400 it will sell like Pokemon Go.


 
 I will come eventually.  Watch XMOS.
  


ccschua said:


> I am getting a fuse for digital equipment, will a hifi tuning supreme "slow blow" fit for rednet ?


 
 Don't forget vibration control and isolation - this made a nice improvement on the Mutec and Antelope.  I use plastic cans filled with BB's on top for weight and vibracones and feet underneath.
  
 http://www.walmart.com/ip/Daisy-6000ct-BB-Ammo/15729973


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> "The new Aoip chain is a monster .. made of chritmas-trees-of-leds. The WAF on that stuff is probably strongly negative..."
> 
> Oh you got that right.  Wifey is not a happy camper right now.  Add in a big silver Antelope with glaring SR window.
> 
> The good news is we are all set for Christmas decorations...I see red, blue, green, yellow, more red leds lit up all over the place.


 

 ​Ha. Have to keep a sense of humor about this stuff. From an audio perspective we are the crazy uncle people want to keep upstairs away from "normal" people. But hey, it's still a lot of fun.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> Progress report on my full mod traction-action on my RN3.
> 
> I added a SRQ slowblow fuse, added a WAQy chip to the fuse and added a transformer chip in the SMPS and the silver goo'd a bunch of known useful spots.
> 
> ...


 

 You forgot a few of these...SR HFT's


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Well, for anyone reading this thread it's clear that the pic is quite 'simple'. Didnt even want to mention the extra clocks, fibre-eth converters, the tens of "must" have LPSes, gold power cables, diamond fuses and groundboxes filled with the sand of audiogods.
> 
> Many of you guys are doing a great job riding the Aoip trend. But you gotta remember that this stuff should be used by people with eyes .. and spouses .. and wallets .. and limited time.
> The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
> The only good news around here are those ravenna-to-i2s boards by Mivera-Audio. Hope they'll work as expected and will be followed by many similar.


 

 Well in theory you are right - but the ears don't lie...and mine are telling me that all this evelope pushing has really paid off..and you forgot the Graphene power cords.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
 
Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
 
REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)           270
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB/Audience au24 se digital cable                               250
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF reclocker)/AS Sliver Statement dig cable        240
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                              220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB              170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                       155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                 145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                              135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                  135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                    130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                  125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                        110
Singxer F-1  Stock feed                                                                                        110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                 109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                     108
  Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                           100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                               95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                  92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                           85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                        81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                  76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                 72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                    65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                    65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                            60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                       50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                       40
  
Note the two major leaps - one by adding the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB Extender into the chain.  Then the bigger leap away from USB completely to the REDNET3 Dante AES67 AOIP.  The Mutec 3+ did not help as an ext Word Clock to the RD3 - but after the RD3 as a SPDIF reclocker - excellent.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> ​Ha. Have to keep a sense of humor about this stuff. From an audio perspective we are the crazy uncle people want to keep upstairs away from "normal" people. But hey, it's still a lot of fun.


 

 Boy you got that right.  But then I was talking to my neighbor who just had to spend $35k for new sails for his boat - that he uses a dozen times a year - and his is not a rich man.  So it's all relative I guess.
  
 My hope on the BURL project is to combine the DANTE Brooklyn II with a great DAC - that would at least elminate two boxes.  No need for the Mutec or the RN.
  
 http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/79/b2-bomber-adc-dac/
  


> Next the B2 DAC travelled uptown to the mastering room of Howie Weinberg at Masterdisc to spend time with Matthew Agoglia. Matt ran the Burl through its paces against their DCS DAC, which they clock off of an Antelope Audio 10M (Tape Op #68). Keep in mind that the DCS cost about $10,000 fifteen years ago and has been a standard in mastering studios for well over a decade. On top of that, the Antelope system runs close to $8000. “Overall, the Burl (whether clocked to the 10M or internally) has a more neutral, smooth and transparent character compared to our DCS. The DCS has a color in its midrange, a tightness in the bass, and a subtle crispness in the highs. We could say that the DCS is more curvy, sounding different in different areas of the frequency spectrum, while the Burl is very smooth and linear, sounding very similar throughout the frequency spectrum. In particular, the Burl’s low end was actually a bit more extended, with sub frequencies a bit clearer, while the DCS had a very pleasant low end focused around 80–120 Hz. The Burl also sounds a bit wider than the DCS. When clocking the DCS off the Antelope 10M, we get that larger-than-life sound that some describe as “hype” — not necessarily a bad thing in mastering because you don’t end up adding too much EQ or other processing to achieve your results. I wondered if I might be inclined to EQ/process more with the Burl handling my DAC duties because I’d want to hear more excitement. Note that when I clocked the Burl to the 10M, it definitely took on more of the excitement I heard with the DCS, bringing the two converters closer in sound. Please keep in mind that we are talking subtle differences here. The Burl at $2500 is a bargain!”


 
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Burl-Audio-BKII-card-for-B2-DAC-Burl-Audio-BKII-card-for-B2-DAC/401156764482?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D37470%26meid%3D23531578409746d49a18ea3a0928c8dd%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D7%26sd%3D131803551395


----------



## wushuliu

Made an interesting accidental discovery today. My Blu-ray player broke this week, so I decided to take a look at the oppo players and noticed that the 103 and 105 players are capable of ethernet streaming including using servers and renderers like kazoo and foobar etc. unfortunately there do not seem to be many people who use these players with ethernet streaming, it's mostly USB inputs that are used. But I figured what the hell I love Oppo products and miss my old DVD player so why not try this out. For a movie buff like me any reason to have an oppo is a good one. 




 So I ordered one from Amazon yesterday and it arrived this morning. A 103. Set up was easy and I used the basic server retrieval option. After a few minutes I got playback going from my PC through ethernet to the oppo and then coaxial out to my DAC. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the sound quality is pretty darn good. I'm going to give it some time to burn in, but so far I think it sounds promising. Now does it sound as good as the rednet 3? Not quite. There is a little bit of a hardness to the sound and it's not quite as wide a soundstage. However to my ears I think the noise floor may actually be lower than what I hear on the rednet 3. I will have to of course listen further and compare some more. But the sound quality difference between the two at this time is not that huge. 

Another appealing factor of the oppo is that it is not too hard for a DIY person like myself to either buy a replacement linear power supply or build one for the oppo. There are several companies that offer replacement linear power supplies for not overly expensive amount of money. There are even clock replacement options.

The main take away from this experience as we have learned already so far is that ethernet just trounces USB. There is such a difference in the lack of digital hash and grain and fatigue once you use ethernet. So for those who are considering a budget option to the rednet3, an Oppo may be worth considering. Of course the upgrade options are more limited but again as a budget option at half the price I think it's pretty impressive so far.

Edit: sorry for the damn auto correct spelling errors, should make more sense now.


----------



## wushuliu

ugh. sorry for the previous errors in the above post, my ipad butchered the hell out of it.


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> Boy you got that right.  But then I was talking to my neighbor who just had to spend $35k for new sails for his boat - that he uses a dozen times a year - and his is not a rich man.  So it's all relative I guess.
> 
> My hope on the BURL project is to combine the DANTE Brooklyn II with a great DAC - that would at least elminate two boxes.  No need for the Mutec or the RN.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, you brought up BURL several months ago as one of the only DAC's available with DANTE option. It makes sense to me that the next evolution of AOIP will be proliferation of more and more direct connect DAC's. The Rednet boxes have been wonderful - the D16 allowed me to "taste" AOIP and get rid of USB. However these are Pro devices and overkill for most consumer applications. Also, in my experience it is best to eliminate separate external boxes in the chain when you can. Will be following your exploration of the BURL.


----------



## Asimov-kln

wushuliu said:


> Made an interesting accidental discovery today. My Blu-ray player broke this week, so I decided to take a look at the oppo players and noticed that the 103 and 105 players are capable of ethernet streaming including using servers and renderers like kazoo and foobar etc. unfortunately there do not seem to be many people who use these players with ethernet streaming, it's mostly USB inputs that are used. But I figured what the hell I love Oppo products and miss my old DVD player so why not try this out. For a movie buff like me any reason to have an oppo is a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Fantastic discovery.
 Reading this thread for a while and till now it is the cheapest AOIP.
 Need more feedback from you.
 Thanks for sharing this.
 Happy Listening!


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Yes, you brought up BURL several months ago as one of the only DAC's available with DANTE option. It makes sense to me that the next evolution of AOIP will be proliferation of more and more direct connect DAC's. The Rednet boxes have been wonderful - the D16 allowed me to "taste" AOIP and get rid of USB. However these are Pro devices and overkill for most consumer applications. Also, in my experience it is best to eliminate separate external boxes in the chain when you can. Will be following your exploration of the BURL.


 

 What I like about the BURL DAC is the 2 channel only implementation at board level. So need to follow the Audinate 16 channel std.  It looks like BK2 card uses a std mini PCI socket.  So the thing we're exploring is the connection from the PCI socket to the DAC inputs.


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Made an interesting accidental discovery today. My Blu-ray player broke this week, so I decided to take a look at the oppo players and noticed that the 103 and 105 players are capable of ethernet streaming including using servers and renderers like kazoo and foobar etc. unfortunately there do not seem to be many people who use these players with ethernet streaming, it's mostly USB inputs that are used. But I figured what the hell I love Oppo products and miss my old DVD player so why not try this out. For a movie buff like me any reason to have an oppo is a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I've long coveted the ModWright version of the Oppo 105 - what a sweet piece of kit:
 http://www.modwright.com/modifications/oppo-bdp83-and-bdp83se-mod.php
  
 One question what is the foobar to Oppo interface -  just a Oppo ASIO driver? 
  
  

  
 PS Is this Ethernet connection through DNLA or SMB/CIFS?


----------



## wushuliu

rb2013 said:


> I've long coveted the ModWright version of the Oppo 105 - what a sweet piece of kit:
> http://www.modwright.com/modifications/oppo-bdp83-and-bdp83se-mod.php
> 
> One question what is the foobar to Oppo interface -  just a Oppo ASIO driver?
> ...




currently smb. next step is to figure out dlna.


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> currently smb. next step is to figure out dlna.




IMHO, this has got nothing to do with AOIP. This is just a plain old mpd, or popcorn hour type of playback machine.

SMB or DLNA just do file transfer into the playback device and that will have to unpack, and render it into audio samples for the internal DAC.

AOIP sends true audio samples (and not files) over ethernet and these 'only' have to be pushed to the DAC, So no unpacking, or converting and rendering with AOIP.

It's got nothing to do with how Rednets works and can't be considered 'a budget option to the rednet3' as you call it.


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> IMHO, this has got nothing to do with AOIP. This is just a plain old mpd, or popcorn hour type of playback machine.
> 
> SMB or DLNA just do file transfer into the playback device and that will have to unpack, and render it into audio samples for the internal DAC.
> 
> ...


----------



## wushuliu

Who said it had anything to do with how rednet works you clearly read a whole bunch of stuff into my post that I did not speculate about. I suggest you reread it again and reconsider your tone. Thanks.


----------



## artur9

prot said:


> Experimenting is good and fun .. and in the end is your money, your ears, your choice .. but still, that stuff has no future in a living room


 
 Yeah, that's kind of why I think the AES endpoint might be a good thing.  That's form-factor is not much different than a USB reclocker.


----------



## somestranger26

wushuliu said:


> Who said it had anything to do with how rednet works you clearly read a whole bunch of stuff into my post that I did not speculate about. I suggest you reread it again and reconsider your tone. Thanks.


 

 You're basically talking about a streamer box here which is not the same thing as AoIP, the topic of the thread.


----------



## wushuliu

somestranger26 said:


> You're basically talking about a streamer box here, which is not the same thing as AoIP which is the topic of the thread.




Which was compared to the Rednet 3 that I own that IS the topic of this thread. Perhaps jabber wanted me to clarify the differences so there would be no confusion. Fair enough. Could have been a bit more polite about it. At any rate, consider my thoughts on the topic closed.


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Which was compared to the Rednet 3 that I own that IS the topic of this thread. Perhaps jabber wanted me to clarify the differences so there would be no confusion. Fair enough. Could have been a bit more polite about it. At any rate, consider my thoughts on the topic closed.


 

 I've been reading some reviews on the BDP-105 - funny none of the reviewers tried it by the ethernet connect.  I'd like to see a comparison in SQ on a stock 105 from USB, SPDIF,  Ethernet - that would be interesting.
  
 You never answered the Foobar question - does Oppo just provide a ASIO that you select in FB2K?
  
 This is certainly not AES67 AOIP - but interesting none the less.


----------



## wushuliu

Haven't had a chance to test dlna. Today was shopping with the missus. Oppo website search shows Asio for usb driver but nothing else. Hmmm...


----------



## aki kumar

Currently, Windows or Mac only compatibility is a show stopper for me. Are there any plans for Linux compatibility ?

Lack of wi-fi compatibility for the Via application (which provides the ability to stream sound from a PC connected to the network, and looks fantastic on paper) is also a limiting factor.
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sms marketing


----------



## prot

artur9 said:


> Yeah, that's kind of why I think the AES endpoint might be a good thing.  That's form-factor is not much different than a USB reclocker.




Saw that one a while ago. It has some limitations but certainly looks like a better solution than those led-fest-monsters. Unfortunately I havent found any reviews. And I'm still waiting for that small aoip receiver card that you put inside your Dac (i.e. replace the usb-to-iis card that most dacs have nowadays). Mivera seems to be working on one, although their page is somewhat unclear about how it'll work. 

P.S.
Looks like there is still lots of confusion about what aoip is. Like with any new tech I guess it's normal .. but reading wikipedia is not so hard.
First hint: not every audio device with a network cable is aoip. In fact 99,99% of them are not .. that includes all modern Bluray players, streaming boxes like popcornhour/roku/firetv/appletv/androidtv/etc, all modern av receivers .. and many, many others. 
And btw, many people on audio forums badmouth those AV receivers but the latest TOTL models from yamaha/marantz/etc are competitive with any midrange Dac separate .. and 10x easier to use plus tons of useful extras like dlna, room correction,.... And lastgen surround preprocessors like Marantz 8802 can sit near *any* Dac in terms of SQ .. and in any living room .. and overall are a much better investition than any 'simple' Dac. 
Oh well, audio is growing fast and going all sorts of places nowadays .. which isnt bad at all


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Haven't had a chance to test dlna. Today was shopping with the missus. Oppo website search shows Asio for usb driver but nothing else. Hmmm...


 
 So you are using the Oppo as just a pass through ethernet to spdif interface.  It has no s/w interface?  Is the output set by remote control or on TV screen?
  


aki kumar said:


> Currently, Windows or Mac only compatibility is a show stopper for me. Are there any plans for Linux compatibility ?
> 
> Lack of wi-fi compatibility for the Via application (which provides the ability to stream sound from a PC connected to the network, and looks fantastic on paper) is also a limiting factor.
> 
> ...


 
 Not likely soon.


----------



## rb2013

prot said:


> Saw that one a while ago. It has some limitations but certainly looks like a better solution than those led-fest-monsters. Unfortunately I havent found any reviews. And I'm still waiting for that small aoip receiver card that you put inside your Dac (i.e. replace the usb-to-iis card that most dacs have nowadays). Mivera seems to be working on one, although their page is somewhat unclear about how it'll work.
> 
> P.S.
> Looks like there is still lots of confusion about what aoip is. Like with any new tech I guess it's normal .. but reading wikipedia is not so hard.
> ...


 

 That was discussed quite a while ago.  Based on the Ultimo chip on the BK I or II.  Limited to 96k and likely uses a on chip PLL clock vs a XO like the BK card.
  
 Well I have defined AOIP vs AoIP as level three Ethernet IP protocol, now updated to the AES67 std.  AoIP can mean many other avenues such as AVB which is only level 2 and requires special switches.  Then there is DNLA/UpNP with does use a Ethernet cable.  But the use of a CAT5 cable for audio interfaces has been around for over a decade in proprietary formats.
  
 In fact I still have a EMU-1616M. 
 http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/emu-1616m
  
 But these are not AOIP.
 See the beginning of my AOIP for references and links describing AES67.


----------



## jabbr

For me AOIP is quite simple to explain;
  
 Streaming is all transfer of data van storage into a player (software or hardware)
 AOIP is transfer of audio samples from player into an external DAC.
  
*Storage* ------ (Streaming/DLNA: file transport using IP-network) -------> *Player* ------- (AOIP: Audio _*Device*_ sending audio samples over IP-network using real time protocol) -------> *DAC*


----------



## wushuliu

rb2013 said:


> So you are using the Oppo as just a pass through ethernet to spdif interface.  It has no s/w interface?  Is the output set by remote control or on TV screen?


 
  
 Yes. Looks like that's the only option via ethernet. Output selection requires monitor/tv. However there is this app available for ios/android. Haven't tried it yet though.
  
 I did back to back comparisons with my RN3 and no question the RN has better depth and separation and (possibly) inner detail. I do think the oppo has a lower noise floor - or a sin of omission that comes off that way. I will clarify my earlier post by saying that I prefer the oppo playback to any of the usb/spdif devices I've tried, and I'm wondering how much that has to do with not AOIP/Dante/Ravenna etc, obviously, but the ethernet connection itself when used as a spdif pass through, which aside from a few exceptions I have not found much feedback online from an audiophile perspective.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> For me AOIP is quite simple to explain;
> 
> Streaming is all transfer of data van storage into a player (software or hardware)
> AOIP is transfer of audio samples from player into an external DAC.
> ...


 

 Great simplified explaination.
  
 And does the use of a ICRON/Startech GB LAN Ethernet USB extender  make this USB AOIP? - of course not.


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Yes. Looks like that's the only option via ethernet. Output selection requires monitor/tv. However there is this app available for ios/android. Haven't tried it yet though.
> 
> I did back to back comparisons with my RN3 and no question the RN has better depth and separation and (possibly) inner detail. I do think the oppo has a lower noise floor - or a sin of omission that comes off that way. I will clarify my earlier post by saying that I prefer the oppo playback to any of the usb/spdif devices I've tried, and I'm wondering how much that has to do with not AOIP/Dante/Ravenna etc, obviously, but the ethernet connection itself when used as a spdif pass through, which aside from a few exceptions I have not found much feedback online from an audiophile perspective.


 

 Interesting.  From what I hear my RN3 has a near zero floor noise.  Focusrite quotes <138db for it's internal SRC.
  
 I wonder if the AES output of the RN3 would yield any better SQ then the SPDIF RCA?
  
 I just picked up a nice Digidesign SUB-d 25 pin cable for $49  Will give that a try.  AES output maybe be better then SPDIF for connecting to the Mutec.
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/401117429920
  
 The Oppo 103's sell for around $400 used on Ebay - so not that cheap.  But cheaper then a fully decked out F-1 chain.  And less then half the price of the RN3.
  
 Thanks for posting that - it really is a unique find.


----------



## wushuliu

rb2013 said:


> Interesting.  From what I hear my RN3 has a near zero floor noise.  Focusrite quotes <138db for it's internal SRC.
> 
> I wonder if the AES output of the RN3 would yield any better SQ then the SPDIF RCA?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, I've been wondering about the AES vs spdif. Which means reconfiguring my soekris to take AES, so I'm looking into that... So many rabbit holes, so little time...


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Yes, I've been wondering about the AES vs spdif. Which means reconfiguring my soekris to take AES, so I'm looking into that... So many rabbit holes, so little time...


 

 I'll report on what I find - not expecting any earth shaking though.
  
 Cheers


----------



## Muziqboy

I have been running the RN3 via DB-25 to AES ever since the last meet that we had. Using AES connection across the whole system now.
  
 Re-configured a 0.7 meter DH Labs SilverSonic AES cable with a DB-25 connector. What we heard during the meet was a more holographic imaging of individual instruments as compared to Spdif. I also re-configured the AS Statement Silver SE Spdif cable into 4 bnc word clock cables from the LiveClock feeding the 2 Mutec+3 non usb & 1 Mutec+3 USB (daisy chained) and RN3.
  
 The sound now has more solidity and impact with the more holographic imaging with the AES connection. It was a treat listening to a binaural recording of C.C. Colletti's 'Bring it On Home' album. The guitar was very clear and about a couple feet out of the left headphone cup and same with the harmonica which was out past the right cup.
 Very engaging with toe-tapping goodness.
  
 Got a 2.0 meter AS Statement Silver AES cable on the way and will re-configure it to a DB-25 to AES and 3 AES to AES cables when it gets here.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> I have been running the RN3 via DB-25 to AES ever since the last meet that we had. Using AES connection across the whole system now.
> 
> Re-configured a 0.7 meter DH Labs SilverSonic AES cable with a DB-25 connector. What we heard during the meet was a more holographic imaging of individual instruments as compared to Spdif. I also re-configured the AS Statement Silver SE Spdif cable into 4 bnc word clock cables from the LiveClock feeding the 2 Mutec+3 non usb & 1 Mutec+3 USB (daisy chained) and RN3.
> 
> ...


 

 Good feedback - then I hope to hear an improvement with AES out of the RN3 to the Mutec..  One thing I hate on the Mutec - the BNC SPDIF input socket is so close to the AC input.  The AES sockets are further away.


----------



## Muziqboy

For those of you looking for a nice equipment rack, I got this good looking 4U rack custom made by these guys.
http://www.madeinfarmington.com/audiorax-4-space-straight-rack


----------



## gldgate

muziqboy said:


> For those of you looking for a nice equipment rack, I got this good looking 4U rack custom made by these guys.
> http://www.madeinfarmington.com/audiorax-4-space-straight-rack


 
  
 Very nice rack.  Plus RedNet, Antelope, Theta and 3 Mutec's.  Talk about blinking LED's - That's some serious audio porn.


----------



## seeteeyou

gldgate said:


> Very nice rack.


 


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## johnjen

I too compared SPDIF vs AESs out from my RN3 to my PWD.
  
 No doubt about it, the AES3 is *'Better'* in every way that I use to describe better.
 And that was using pro audio level 110Ω cable (≈50¢/ft) vs an Oyide SPDIF cable (≈$400).
  
 Then I upgraded to the AS Statement Silver AES cable and the gap widened considerably.
 And I'm not done optimizing my AES3 digital path yet.
  
 JJ


----------



## prot

muziqboy said:


> For those of you looking for a nice equipment rack, I got this good looking 4U rack custom made by these guys.
> http://www.madeinfarmington.com/audiorax-4-space-straight-rack





I am a bit afraid to ask but I'll try: why 4 clocks? Maybe you can clarify the whole stup a bit .. seems intriguing.


----------



## jabbr

prot said:


> I am a bit afraid to ask but I'll try: why 4 clocks? Maybe you can clarify the whole stup a bit .. seems intriguing.


 
 As I understand, the Mutecs are used as reclockers and not as clock sources. The Live is used as clock source (and not as reclocker   )
  
 It has been shown by people who actually tried it (so not just a theoretical excercise) that with the 'old' Mutec MC-3+ reclockers the sound quality significantly benefitted by creating a daisy chain of reclockers.
 Now you think of an explanation why that could be so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .
  
 The new Mutec MC-3+USB has then again shown to be a better reclocker than a daisy chain of 3 'old' Mutec MC-3+ reclockers.
 Now think again of an explanation why that could be so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Muziqboy

prot said:


> I am a bit afraid to ask but I'll try: why 4 clocks? Maybe you can clarify the whole stup a bit .. seems intriguing.


 
  
 Signal starts from RN3 via DB-25 to AES going to 1st Mutec (non-usb) then to 2nd Mutec (non-usb) then to 3rd Mutec (usb version) being daisy-chained re-clocked and finally to dac. All are using the LiveClock as reference word clock.
  
 All of this craziness relates to jitter reduction.
  
 Here's the link to the cascaded Mutec experiment and findings. http://www.mutec-net.com/artikel.php?id=1388254422
  
 I know it's crazy but you gotta hear it to believe it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
  


jabbr said:


> As I understand, the Mutecs are used as reclockers and not as clock sources. The Live is used as clock source (and not as reclocker   )
> 
> It has been shown by people who actually tried it (so not just a theoretical excercise) that with the 'old' Mutec MC-3+ reclockers the sound quality significantly benefitted by creating a daisy chain of reclockers.
> Now you think of an explanation why that could be so
> ...


 
  
 In that Mutec link, a guy named Fujak cascaded 4 non-usb Mutecs in daisy chained re-clocking mode.
  

  
  
 This table represents his findings after each re-clocking stage.
  

  
  
 I already had acquired the 2 non-usb Mutecs before I found out about the difference between the usb and non-usb version. Now I added a Mutec usb version so I guess it is comparable to having 4 non-usb cascaded.
 The usb version sounded better on it's own than the 2 non-usb cascaded hands down.
  
 But with the 2 non-usb in front and the usb ver. last before the dac, All I can say is that all those adjectives that relate to good SQ has been multiplied by 3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Oh, and using all Silver AES digital, analog and bnc word clock cabling helped quite a bit too.


----------



## prot

jabbr said:


> As I understand, the Mutecs are used as reclockers and not as clock sources. The Live is used as clock source (and not as reclocker   )
> 
> It has been shown by people who actually tried it (so not just a theoretical excercise) that with the 'old' Mutec MC-3+ reclockers the sound quality significantly benefitted by creating a daisy chain of reclockers.
> Now you think of an explanation why that could be so   .
> ...




Thx for the extra info. 
Cant really start to think about any of your open Qs cause I'm already stuck with the basic: why is reclocking needed? The Dac has a good clock, the RN3 too and there is the master Antelope clock too (which I assume/hope does sync all devices). So why using any of those mutecs?!


----------



## jabbr

> Dac has a good clock


 
 Why do you assume the DAC has a good clock? And why is it independent of the quality of the incoming SPDIF signal?
  


> the RN3 too


 
 And why does the RN3 have a good clock? Why can't the the jitter profile of the SPDIF output not be improved upon?
  


> master Antelope clock too


 
 This is the only part 'known' with a good clock.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Signal starts from RN3 via DB-25 to AES going to 1st Mutec (non-usb) then to 2nd Mutec (non-usb) then to 3rd Mutec (usb version) being daisy-chained re-clocked and finally to dac. All are using the LiveClock as reference word clock.
> 
> All of this craziness relates to jitter reduction.
> 
> ...


 

 Now that's a Christmas tree of LED's.
  
  


> The usb version sounded better on it's own than the 2 non-usb cascaded hands down.


 
 That's confirms Fujak's posting.  Good to hear.
  
 Are you planning on trying a Rubidum atomic clock?


----------



## Muziqboy

And those Christmas tree of LED's merrily lights the way to musical nirvana. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
 Quote:


rb2013 said:


> Now that's a Christmas tree of LED's.
> 
> 
> That's confirms Fujak's posting.  Good to hear.
> ...


 
  
 Maybe later on but for now am just soaking in this musical bliss that I'm hearing.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## prot

Muziqboy thx for the extra info, now it's at least clear how it all works. And the linked Fujak experiments were an interesting read too. 

Still cannot understand why/how does the chain reclockin work. Did you get any technical explanation from your Mutec contacts? 
And is it something particular to the Mutecs or it should work with any reclocker chain?


----------



## Muziqboy

prot said:


> @Muziqboy thx for the extra info, now it's at least clear how it all works. And the linked Fujak experiments were an interesting read too.
> 
> Still cannot understand why/how does the chain reclockin work. Did you get any technical explanation from your Mutec contacts?
> And is it something particular to the Mutecs or it should work with any reclocker chain?


 
  
 IMHO, what the chained re-clocking about is cleaning up the jitter at every stage of the Mutec chain until finally at the last stage, you end up with an almost zero jitter signal that feeds into the dac which equates to letting the dac perform to it's utmost peak potential.
  
 I thought I was hearing an awesome sound coming out of my dac before with the usb converters that I was using previously until we discovered the RedNet's & Mutec's (re-clocking), Now, I am able to really hear what my vintage Theta dac is really capable of.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Anyone know how much jitter control quality studios use for recording? Do they use as much reclocking on top of an atomic clock? Or is analog to digital not as sensitive as digital to analog conversion in jitter?

Also is jitter quantifiable? If so how do we know when jitter level has been minimized to the point where any further reduction would be useless to a DAC.


----------



## enginedr

My question is how many Mutec boxes are really needed ? I have a RN-3 and a Antelope Live clock at  present and the SQ is superb
 No one has stated there findings by taking the Mutec out of the mix and just using the RN and a external clock


----------



## REXNFX

wushuliu said:


> Yes. Looks like that's the only option via ethernet. Output selection requires monitor/tv. However there is this app available for ios/android. Haven't tried it yet though.
> 
> I did back to back comparisons with my RN3 and no question the RN has better depth and separation and (possibly) inner detail. I do think the oppo has a lower noise floor - or a sin of omission that comes off that way. I will clarify my earlier post by saying that I prefer the oppo playback to any of the usb/spdif devices I've tried, and I'm wondering how much that has to do with not AOIP/Dante/Ravenna etc, obviously, but the ethernet connection itself when used as a spdif pass through, which aside from a few exceptions I have not found much feedback online from an audiophile perspective.


 
 The reviewer of the Simaudio Neo 280D MIND DAC which has both ethernet and USB connection (via his microrendu) found little difference between these inputs so probably DAC dependent:
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/moon-simaudio-n%C4%93o-280d-mind#4OekwCja5tfl4gfF.97


----------



## jabbr

O





soundsgoodtome said:


> Anyone know how much jitter control quality studios use for recording? Do they use as much reclocking on top of an atomic clock? ......




An atomic clock is not so important for a studio, a good word clock is that is used to sync all adc/dac devices.

The value of an atomic clock is overrated, the quality of the word clock is much more important. And there an atomic clock can help just that little bit extra, ...... in some cases depending on the design parameters of the word clock.


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> ......
> 
> Also is jitter quantifiable? If so how do we know when jitter level has been minimized to the point where any further reduction would be useless to a DAC.




Can you describe your interpretation of the word 'jitter'?
That might help clarify your line of thought with this question.


----------



## jabbr

enginedr said:


> My question is how many Mutec boxes are really needed ? I have a RN-3 and a Antelope Live clock at  present and the SQ is superb
> No one has stated there findings by taking the Mutec out of the mix and just using the RN and a external clock




I have and with the Mutec it is definitely a step up.


----------



## jabbr

rexnfx said:


> The reviewer of the Simaudio Neo 280D MIND DAC which has both ethernet and USB connection (via his microrendu) found little difference between these inputs so probably DAC dependent:
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/moon-simaudio-n%C4%93o-280d-mind#4OekwCja5tfl4gfF.97




The ethernet connection is not AOIP. It doesn't say much about what MiND is. Probably just their DLNA implementation.


----------



## REXNFX

jabbr said:


> The ethernet connection is not AOIP. It doesn't say much about what MiND is. Probably just their DLNA implementation.


 
 Yes was trying (and failing) to make the point it is not necessarily ethernet that's better.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> And those Christmas tree of LED's merrily lights the way to musical nirvana.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 That has got to sound pretty amazing!
  
 How hard was it to make your silver DB-25/AES cable or did Audio Sens build that for you?
  
 Cheers!
  
 PS I'm selling my entire analog rig  - this digital AOIP is just to good for my LPs to compete.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Anyone know how much jitter control quality studios use for recording? Do they use as much reclocking on top of an atomic clock? Or is analog to digital not as sensitive as digital to analog conversion in jitter?
> 
> Also is jitter quantifiable? If so how do we know when jitter level has been minimized to the point where any further reduction would be useless to a DAC.


 

 I know a few Seattle studio engineers - most use a Antelope OCX like clock with a 10M.  Tascam makes a nice OXCO, as do a few other ProAudio companies.
  
 The poorer ones just a Apogee BigBen.
  
 My understanding is ADC is not as sensitive to precieved jitter - as it's the recording phase. But a recording not made with precision clocking becomes harder to 'decode' by a DAC.
  
 So I guess the jitter winds up on the decoding side.
  
 The concept is a unified agreement on clock SR - for both sides to lock to - deviations away from that SR cause jitter.  But there is phase noise to consider - not just SR accuracy.  Although they are somewhat related.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The ethernet connection is not AOIP. It doesn't say much about what MiND is. Probably just their DLNA implementation.


 
 Good point DNLA is not AOIP.
  


rexnfx said:


> Yes was trying (and failing) to make the point it is not necessarily ethernet that's better.


 
 I have a EMU 1616M that's over 10yrs old - uses a PICMA card to a breakout box - connected by ethernet.  If any ethernet was the best solution - USB would never have come along.
  
 It's not the ethernet itself but this particular implementation - that's what makes it better.


----------



## wushuliu

Well I've decided to take a different route, so my RN3 will be up for sale...


----------



## jazzfan




----------



## Muziqboy

rb2013 said:


> That has got to sound pretty amazing!
> 
> How hard was it to make your silver DB-25/AES cable or did Audio Sens build that for you?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not really that hard to build a DB-25 to AES break-out cable. The only tricky part is trying to solder the right wires to the pins on the DB-25 connector since the pins are so close to each other. I got one of those desktop illuminated magnifier that I use when I do soldering work and it really helps out a lot.
  
 Just follow this pin-outs.
  
 DB-25 pin-out:                           3 Pin XLR pin-out:
    6 is negative (-)                          3 is negative (-)
  18 is positive  (+)                          2 is positive (+)
  19 is screen                                  1 is screen
  
 You can get the DH Labs Silver Sonic wire from: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DH-Labs-Silver-Sonic-D-110-AES-EBU-Cable-Bulk-per-foot-DIY-Digital-cable-/360407119222?hash=item53e9f03576
  
 For the 3 pin xlr silver pins connector: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/NC3MXXBAG
  
 For the DB-25 connector: http://www.showmecables.com/product/DB25-Male-Solder-Connector-Kit-Plastic.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_campaign=1164&gclid=Cj0KEQjw_qW9BRCcv-Xc5Jn-26gBEiQAM-iJhUq-OGIAftOX3QNzKVcn49u4-N9Z-_aDh1wbRtiYBycaAkAp8P8HAQ or you could get a metal one from Fry's.
  
 Or if you want to build a better one, just order the AS Statement Silver XLR from Audio Sensibility then just change the female xlr connector side of the cable with the DB-25 connector. That is what I'm planning to do when I get mine.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Not really that hard to build a DB-25 to AES break-out cable. The only tricky part is trying to solder the right wires to the pins on the DB-25 connector since the pins are so close to each other. I got one of those desktop illuminated magnifier that I use when I do soldering work and it really helps out a lot.
> 
> Just follow this pin-outs.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks - will give the DigiDesign Cable a try, it that pans out will build one of these.  Wonder if you ask AS if they will do the DB25 connection for you.


----------



## johnjen

rb2013 said:


> Thanks - will give the DigiDesign Cable a try, it that pans out will build one of these.  Wonder if you ask AS if they will do the DB25 connection for you.


 
 I asked them about this and they replied that while they could, they weren't really setup to do it.
 And you will be 'stuck' using the DB-25 they wind up using.
 There are *'Better'* DB-25's which are closer to 'Audio grade' than the usual 99¢ connectors.
  
 The pins on the DB-25's are tiny and the Silver wire they use is rather stiff and almost to big in wire gauge so it makes for a challenging solder job, not to mention the shield wire connection is even bigger in gauge.
  
 And using desktop magnifier/holder/illuminator device(s) are not only a significant aid but is just about mandatory for this job.
  
 But the results are most gratifying… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

muziqboy said:


> Not really that hard to build a DB-25 to AES break-out cable. The only tricky part is trying to solder the right wires to the pins on the DB-25 connector since the pins are so close to each other. I got one of those desktop illuminated magnifier that I use when I do soldering work and it really helps out a lot.
> 
> Just follow this pin-outs.
> 
> ...


 
 Additional notes.
 That Neutrik connector won't work with the Statement Silver cable as that cable is 10mm in diameter and the 'standard' xx series of Neutrik connectors only range up to 8mm cable size.
 They do make a version which can handle the 10mm cable size.
  
 And that DB-25 is the 'standard' connector (and not the 'audio grade' version) which I mentioned previously.
  
 JJ


----------



## atomicbob

prot said:


> Well, for anyone reading this thread it's clear that the pic is quite 'simple'. Didnt even want to mention the extra clocks, fibre-eth converters, the tens of "must" have LPSes, gold power cables, diamond fuses and groundboxes filled with the sand of audiogods.
> 
> Many of you guys are doing a great job riding the Aoip trend. But you gotta remember that this stuff should be used by people with eyes .. and spouses .. and wallets .. and limited time.
> The connection between a transport and a Dac should be a cable .. *not* an awfull, mega expensive rack full of leds!
> The only good news around here are those ravenna-to-i2s boards by Mivera-Audio. Hope they'll work as expected and will be followed by many similar.


the bleeding edge of exploration is never pretty.


----------



## REXNFX

wushuliu said:


> Well I've decided to take a different route, so my RN3 will be up for sale...


 
 I for one would like to hear more how your alternative ethernet wired approach evolves (Server-Oppo-DAC). Certainly more WAF friendly and besides I need a new DVD player!


----------



## wushuliu

rexnfx said:


> I for one would like to hear more how your alternative ethernet wired approach evolves (Server-Oppo-DAC). Certainly more WAF friendly and besides I need a new DVD player!




A diyaudio member sells an impressive custom linear power supply and clock upgrades for the Oppo, so that convinced me to return my rn3. As great as the Rednet is, I am a cinephile as well as an audiophile so it's a special opportunity to get my cake and eat it too.


----------



## atomicbob

jabbr said:


> O
> An atomic clock is not so important for a studio, a good word clock is that is used to sync all adc/dac devices.
> 
> The value of an atomic clock is overrated, the quality of the word clock is much more important. And there an atomic clock can help just that little bit extra, ...... in some cases depending on the design parameters of the word clock.


this is so very true. Low short term phase noise is very important while long term accuracy isn't. Anyone wishing to play with atomic clocks should familiarize themselves with phase noise and Allan deviation specs. There is a fellow in the PNW that is Mr. Time owning more cesium and rubidium time references than most can imagine. He also rivals the gov't for time standard accuracy. This device evolved from his research:
 http://www.jackson-labs.com/index.php/products/fury
I have had one of these in my lab/studio for years. Low phase noise and Alan deviation between a rubidium and cesium time reference.


----------



## somestranger26

atomicbob said:


> this is so very true. Low short term phase noise is very important while long term accuracy isn't. Anyone wishing to play with atomic clocks should familiarize themselves with phase noise and Allan deviation specs. There is a fellow in the PNW that is Mr. Time owning more cesium and rubidium time references than most can imagine. He also rivals the gov't for time standard accuracy. This device evolved from his research:
> http://www.jackson-labs.com/index.php/products/fury
> I have had one of these in my lab/studio for years. Low phase noise and Alan deviation between a rubidium and cesium time reference.


 
 Price is only $960 for a single unit (according to the press release when they announced it 9 years ago). Who is going to be the first to try it with their external clock?


----------



## jabbr

somestranger26 said:


> Price is only $960 for a single unit (according to the press release when they announced it 9 years ago). Who is going to be the first to try it with their external clock?


 
 Could you be the first?


----------



## somestranger26

jabbr said:


> Could you be the first?


 
 I don't even have an external clock or a Mutec right now, so I doubt it.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Price is only $960 for a single unit (according to the press release when they announced it 9 years ago). Who is going to be the first to try it with their external clock?


 

 I love this thread - when someone tries to shoot down atomic clocks - the very post fuels more audio lust!


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> I love this thread - when someone tries to shoot down atomic clocks - the very post fuels more audio lust! :tongue_smile:




Well it is easily done when someone else has to foot the bill


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Well it is easily done when someone else has to foot the bill


 

 True that - I have done my fair share


----------



## joelha

I just talked to Sweetwater and found out that the Antelope Live Clock doesn't change sample rates automatically.
  
 So those of you using this clock are upsampling to a fixed rate, manually changing the rate, or something else?
  
 Thanks,
  
 Joel


----------



## somestranger26

joelha said:


> I just talked to Sweetwater and found out that the Antelope Live Clock doesn't change sample rates automatically.
> 
> So those of you using this clock are upsampling to a fixed rate, manually changing the rate, or something else?
> 
> ...


 

 The Rednet also does not change sample rate automatically, so yes I believe everyone just upsamples to 96 or 192khz.


----------



## REXNFX

somestranger26 said:


> The Rednet also does not change sample rate automatically, so yes I believe everyone just upsamples to 96 or 192khz.


 
 Yeah but luckily you don't have to upsample...


----------



## joelha

rexnfx said:


> Yeah but luckily you don't have to upsample...


 
 Right, but according to reports from Focusrite, a firmware update is supposed to be out soon (this month?) to allow the Rednet units to automatically change sample rates.
  
 Joel


----------



## gldgate

joelha said:


> I just talked to Sweetwater and found out that the Antelope Live Clock doesn't change sample rates automatically.
> 
> So those of you using this clock are upsampling to a fixed rate, manually changing the rate, or something else?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've tried upsampling everything to 192 in JRiver but prefer to have the Yggy play at native sample rate. Not a big deal to change sample rate. Both RedNet and Liveclock can be changed via software and it takes 2  mouseclicks (2 seconds).


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> I just talked to Sweetwater and found out that the Antelope Live Clock doesn't change sample rates automatically.
> 
> So those of you using this clock are upsampling to a fixed rate, manually changing the rate, or something else?
> 
> ...




There is a clear advantage of the Grimm CC1 Master Clock, it has a slave mode and can follow sample rate on the AES input.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> There is a clear advantage of the Grimm CC1 Master Clock, it has a slave mode and can follow sample rate on the AES input.


 

 But if it's set to slave - would it not be the master clock any longer?  But would be taking the clock from the AES feed?


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> But if it's set to slave - would it not be the master clock any longer?  But would be taking the clock from the AES feed?




In slave mode it just determines the sample rate from the aes input (44.1/48 and x1, x2, x4), than sets that as the selected clock rate for the master clock which generates a word clock using that sample rate.
You can actually see it change the selected sample rate on the front panel.
The output word clock is than generated using that setting just as you would have manually set that sample rate.

The word clock output always comes from its internal clock generator and is not derived from the incoming spdif signal. It is just an automated sample rate switcher.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> In slave mode it just determines the sample rate from the aes input (44.1/48 and x1, x2, x4), than sets that as the selected clock rate for the master clock which generates a word clock using that sample rate.
> You can actually see it change the selected sample rate on the front panel.
> The output word clock is than generated using that setting just as you would have manually set that sample rate.
> 
> The word clock output always comes from its internal clock generator and is not derived from the incoming spdif signal. It is just an automated sample rate switcher.


 

 Nice feature


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Does anyone have the pinout diagram for the AES breakout on the R3? I just got in a pair of these screw down adapters and my 110-75ohm cardas AES to SPDIF adapter. Looking to try out the different output on the R3 over the SPDIF.

 EDIT: Here's the amazon link. $14 for a pair https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014FO5UOC
 I will run a meter to *make sure the pinouts and screwdowns labels match up*. Never know with the Chinese stuff specially on cabling/markings.


----------



## Luckbad

It's Tascam DB25 so:
  
 http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/aesebu-db25-pinout-guide/


----------



## Muziqboy

soundsgoodtome said:


> Does anyone have the pinout diagram for the AES breakout on the R3? I just got in a pair of these screw down adapters and my 110-75ohm cardas AES to SPDIF adapter. Looking to try out the different output on the R3 over the SPDIF.


 
  
 Post #1403


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

luckbad said:


> It's Tascam DB25 so:
> 
> http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/aesebu-db25-pinout-guide/
> 
> ^TASCAM pinout


 
 Does this then translate from the db25 to XLR diagram below this way:
 Hot to pin 2 "positive" of XLR
 Cold to pin 3 "negative" of XLR
 Ground to pin 1 "ground" of XLR

  
 ----------------------------
  
 Thanks! I was wondering if digital and analog XLR was the same pinout, seems they are. Good stuff on the cable links too, looks like I'll be able to try a cheap cable and a nice DH L Silver cable. I guess I could also make a SPDIF cable as well to go after the Canare adapter with the same stuff. 


muziqboy said:


> Post #1403


 


muziqboy said:


> Not really that hard to build a DB-25 to AES break-out cable. The only tricky part is trying to solder the right wires to the pins on the DB-25 connector since the pins are so close to each other. I got one of those desktop illuminated magnifier that I use when I do soldering work and it really helps out a lot.
> 
> Just follow this pin-outs.
> 
> ...


----------



## seeteeyou

wushuliu said:


> A diyaudio member sells an impressive custom linear power supply and clock upgrades for the Oppo, so that convinced me to return my rn3. As great as the Rednet is, I am a cinephile as well as an audiophile so it's a special opportunity to get my cake and eat it too.


 
  
 $350 + $50 shipping for the mod
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f20-buy-and-sell-audio-and-computer-components/oppo-bd-players-improvements-modifications-models-103-103d-105-105d-27695/#post571444
  
 $399 + shipping for BDT-101CI (US/Canada/Mexico only)
  
 http://www.oppodigital.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SOI-BDT101CI
  
 Playback from a Home Network
  
 http://download.oppodigital.com/BDT101CI/BDT-101CI%20User%20Manual%20v1.1.pdf#page=31
  
 Pretty tempting for roughly 800 bucks if that were able to beat RN3? No warranty already so we could even replace RCA jack with WBT-0210 Ag and IEC inlet with Furutech FI-06 NCF(R) if we want.


----------



## jabbr

seeteeyou said:


> .... if that were able to beat RN3? ....


 
  
 Who says that is able to beat an AOIP solution?
 No USB or DLNA device even comes close to what Rednet AOIP does for sound improvement.
 The Oppo is still just a BD-player.


----------



## alubis

Anyone knows the difference between rednet d16aes and d16r?


----------



## Iving

alubis said:


> Anyone knows the difference between rednet d16aes and d16r?


 
  
 R = redundancy as in "power supply redundancy for maximum reliability". There are two PSUs as seen here: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RedNetD16R. No advantage to domestic audiophiles; in fact, extra PS risks extra noise. Besides - extra expense.
  
 P.S. On a related "redundancy" model - the *AR16R* - the DB25s are different - inc Analog outs. Hints at D/A conversion. See http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2016/1/19/focusrite-announce-dante-based-rednet-ar16r-interface-with-redundancy for "16 channels of network-connected 24-bit, 192kHz A/D-D/A conversion,  line level analogue audio in and out with full network and power supply redundancy".


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Does anyone have the pinout diagram for the AES breakout on the R3? I just got in a pair of these screw down adapters and my 110-75ohm cardas AES to SPDIF adapter. Looking to try out the different output on the R3 over the SPDIF.
> 
> EDIT: Here's the amazon link. $14 for a pair https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014FO5UOC
> I will run a meter to *make sure the pinouts and screwdowns labels match up*. Never know with the Chinese stuff specially on cabling/markings.


 

 Nice!  That'll solve the pin soldering issue for some folks (as for me just less hassle factor).


----------



## wushuliu

seeteeyou said:


> $350 + $50 shipping for the mod
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f20-buy-and-sell-audio-and-computer-components/oppo-bd-players-improvements-modifications-models-103-103d-105-105d-27695/#post571444
> 
> ...


 
  
 The Oppo and the RedNet are very different animals, meeting different needs and with different upgrade paths. I would not think of them in terms of one beating the other. Although I think it would be great if someone took a shot at replacing the RedNet power supply and looking at the internal clocks as my hunch is there's some performance improvement to be had in that regard. I have rarely come across a smps in an audio component that could not be greatly improved by a good linear supply.
  
 Not interested in a squabble over this, it's not necessary. If anyone has questions or comments they can just PM me.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

I am selling my like new Mutec due to unexpected emergency. I love this device and will be repurchasing one when things settle. I thought people in this thread would appreciate to hear about it so am writing here.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/817060/mutec-mc-3-smartclock-usb


----------



## somestranger26

For anyone interested in the MC-3+ USB for reclocking their Rednet, I found a great deal on ebay for $800 new: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mutec-MC-3-USB-Audio-Re-Clocker-USB-Interface-lowest-Jitter-Master-Clock-/201524320395
  
 This is indeed the USB version and is not a price mistake. I just went and picked it up in person and am currently listening to it. Too early to tell the sonic differences but it does sound better. Currently running DB25 AES > Mutec > RCA > PS Audio DirectStream and upgraded the Mutec to the latest 1.10 firmware.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

somestranger26 said:


> For anyone interested in the MC-3+ USB for reclocking their Rednet, I found a great deal on ebay for $800 new: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mutec-MC-3-USB-Audio-Re-Clocker-USB-Interface-lowest-Jitter-Master-Clock-/201524320395
> 
> This is indeed the USB version and is not a price mistake. I just went and picked it up in person and am currently listening to it. Too early to tell the sonic differences but it does sound better. Currently running DB25 AES > Mutec > RCA > PS Audio DirectStream and upgraded the Mutec to the latest 1.10 firmware.




The price for the item you linked is $1099.


----------



## seeteeyou

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidsLogin&item=201524320395


----------



## somestranger26

Ha maybe it was a price mistake after all? You could try making an offer - I noticed the make an offer button is available now but it wasn't there when I ordered.


----------



## RKML0007

I got an email notification when the sale went live.


----------



## gldgate

Just received the Cybershaft Premium OCXO 10Mhz clock today. Product has nice solid build and comes with certificate of calibration with individual graphs (Allan Deviation and Phase Noise). The recommendation is  (like the Yggy)  to leave the clock on at all times if possible. I will let the clock run for a few hours before doing any listening.  No, I don't normally stack all my equipment like this but this was the best way to get everything in one shot. I am connecting the 10Mhz Cybershaft into the Liveclock via .5M 50-ohm BNC Cable and then running 2 1M 75-ohm cables from Liveclock to RedNet and Mutec. The Atomic clock indicator is lit up on the front  Liveclock display as well as in the Liveclock software which is a good sign that things seem to be working properly. Will provide additional feedback later after some listening sessions.


----------



## gldgate

Here is a tighter pix of the Cybershaft with the Atomic Clock indicator showing on the Liveclock.


----------



## somestranger26

gldgate said:


> Here is a tighter pix of the Cybershaft with the Atomic Clock indicator showing on the Liveclock.


 
 Looking at the phase noise numbers, this is a better buy than that Jackson Labs Fury that was posted a few pages back. Cybershaft Premium is rated -130dB/Hz at 10Hz and the Fury is -125dB/Hz. Both of these values blow away the Antelope 10MX, though, which is rated at only -87dB/Hz (100x as much noise).
  
 The upcoming Mutec Ref 10 is rated for -140dB/Hz, and is rumored to cost 3000 Euro. If the Cybershaft sounds good, it's probably not worth spending so much on something like Ref 10. I think the diminishing return with such an upgrade would be massive.
  
 Looking forward to your impressions.


----------



## gldgate

somestranger26 said:


> Looking at the phase noise numbers, this is a better buy than that Jackson Labs Fury that was posted a few pages back. Cybershaft Premium is rated -130dB/Hz at 10Hz and the Fury is -125dB/Hz. Both of these values blow away the Antelope 10MX, though, which is rated at only -87dB/Hz (100x as much noise).
> 
> The upcoming Mutec Ref 10 is rated for -140dB/Hz, and is rumored to cost 3000 Euro. If the Cybershaft sounds good, it's probably not worth spending so much on something like Ref 10. I think the diminishing return with such an upgrade would be massive.
> 
> Looking forward to your impressions.


 

 ​I'm sure the Mutec Ref 10 will be awesome. In the end I just have a personal hang-up with spending more for a clock than for my DAC. The phase noise of my particular unit was measured at -132.9dB/Hz at 10Hz using a Symmetricom 5115A.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

So I think I've asked this already. What's the sequence on improving your digital transport from USB?

 1) Rednet
 2) Mutec MC3 USB or similar (reclocker)
 3) Word Clock
 4) Atomic Clock
 ??


----------



## somestranger26

gldgate said:


> ​I'm sure the Mutec Ref 10 will be awesome. In the end I just have a personal hang-up with spending more for a clock than for my DAC. The phase noise of my particular unit was measured at -132.9dB/Hz at 10Hz using a Symmetricom 5115A.


 
 Wow that is a really great number. Did you measure it, or did Cybershaft do it before shipping to you?
  


soundsgoodtome said:


> So I think I've asked this already. What's the sequence on improving your digital transport from USB?
> 
> 1) Rednet
> 2) Mutec MC3 USB or similar (reclocker)
> ...


 
 I believe that is the recommendation and what most people have been doing. It sounds like the word clock makes as much of a difference as the Mutec, but to get that large of a difference you need to already have both the Rednet and the Mutec. Atomic clock is unknown, but you definitely need to have either the Mutec or Word Clock before getting that since Rednet does not accept 10MHz.


----------



## gldgate

soundsgoodtome said:


> So I think I've asked this already. What's the sequence on improving your digital transport from USB?
> 
> 1) Rednet
> 2) Mutec MC3 USB or similar (reclocker)
> ...


 

 ​Will get back to you on Atomic Clock. Will put it through it's paces tonight. Here is how I would recommend purchases to others;
  
 1) RedNet (Step one is to get off USB)
 2) Mutec - Reclocking helps and the Mutec versatility is amazing
 3) Antelope LiveClock - IMO it has a better clock than internal  Mutec and RedNet


----------



## gldgate

somestranger26 said:


> Wow that is a really great number. Did you measure it, or did Cybershaft do it before shipping to you?
> 
> I believe that is the recommendation and what most people have been doing. It sounds like the word clock makes as much of a difference as the Mutec, but to get that large of a difference you need to already have both the Rednet and the Mutec. Atomic clock is unknown, but you definitely need to have either the Mutec or Word Clock before getting that since Rednet does not accept 10MHz.


 
  
 Cybershaft sends out a certificate of calibration with each unit that shows Frequency value, Allan Deviation, Output level, Harmonic Distortion and Phase Noise. They also provide a listing of measurement devices used.
  
 My evaluation of the Cybershaft will basically be (a) does the inclusion of the Cybershaft improve sq over Liveclock and (b) if it does do I find it worth the incremental price ($1K).


----------



## jabbr

I'm very much in doubt whether any atomic clock will be able to improve on the Grimm CC1 master clock.

The CC1 has a PLL bandwidth of just 0.1 Hz, meaning that every clock deviation, between internal clock and external 10MHz clock, greater than 0.1 Hz will be rejected and will not be used to adjust the clock frequency.

This give the CC1 an extremely stable clock signal. An additional 10Mhz clock doesn't serve any purpose on the CC1 IMO.


----------



## r11bordo

I have a stupid question : for USB audio, it exits many solutions with renderers based on media servers like LMS, Minimserver, foobar ... But with Audio over IP, what are the soft solutions to manage our audio media libraries ?


----------



## jabbr

r11bordo said:


> I have a stupid question : for USB audio, it exits many solutions with renderers based on media servers like LMS, Minimserver, foobar ... But with Audio over IP, what are the soft solutions to manage our audio media libraries ?




Anything you like, because you need software to play the music into the AOIP (virtual) sound device.
It is not different to USB where you also need software to play into the USB sound device.

The difference between USB and AOIP come into player further in the chain than the playback software.

You can even use your DLNA stuff, as long as it can play into the ASIO driver of your AOIP sound device.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> I'm very much in doubt whether any atomic clock will be able to improve on the Grimm CC1 master clock.
> 
> The CC1 has a PLL bandwidth of just 0.1 Hz, meaning that every clock deviation, between internal clock and external 10MHz clock, greater than 0.1 Hz will be rejected and will not be used to adjust the clock frequency.
> 
> This give the CC1 an extremely stable clock signal. An additional 10Mhz clock doesn't serve any purpose on the CC1 IMO.




Hey jabber,

The CC1 automatically adjusts sample rate to match the incoming signal?

Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Hey jabber,
> 
> The CC1 automatically adjusts sample rate to match the incoming signal?
> 
> Joel




It can do in so called Slave mode.
In master mode it has better specifications though.

Do read the CC1 product page, manual and all white papers to familiarize yourself with the device before making a purchase : http://www.grimmaudio.com/pro-products/master-clocks/cc1/


----------



## r11bordo

jabbr said:


> Anything you like, because you need software to play the music into the AOIP (virtual) sound device.
> It is not different to USB where you also need software to play into the USB sound device.
> 
> The difference between USB and AOIP come into player further in the chain than the playback software.
> ...



Clear, AOIP must be considered as a audio driver. The issue is the lack of drivers on Linux platforms. I saw only drivers for Windows or Apple OS. Perhaps it will be soon...


----------



## jabbr

r11bordo said:


> Clear, AOIP must be considered as a audio driver. The issue is the lack of drivers on Linux platforms. I saw only drivers for Windows or Apple OS. Perhaps it will be soon...




Well, nearly..

AOIP is about the transport from your playback device to the DAC or incase of the Rednets, a digital interface just before the DAC.


----------



## jelt2359

gldgate said:


> Just received the Cybershaft Premium OCXO 10Mhz clock today. Product has nice solid build and comes with certificate of calibration with individual graphs (Allan Deviation and Phase Noise). The recommendation is  (like the Yggy)  to leave the clock on at all times if possible. I will let the clock run for a few hours before doing any listening.  No, I don't normally stack all my equipment like this but this was the best way to get everything in one shot. I am connecting the 10Mhz Cybershaft into the Liveclock via .5M 50-ohm BNC Cable and then running 2 1M 75-ohm cables from Liveclock to RedNet and Mutec. The Atomic clock indicator is lit up on the front  Liveclock display as well as in the Liveclock software which is a good sign that things seem to be working properly. Will provide additional feedback later after some listening sessions.


 
 Can the 10Mhz also directly be connected to Mutec? I wonder how that will work, with Mutec then also be a wclk output to the Rednet.


----------



## jabbr

jelt2359 said:


> Can the 10Mhz also directly be connected to Mutec? I wonder how that will work, with Mutec then also be a wclk output to the Rednet.




Yes, the Mutec will accept a 10MHz reference clock to support its internal word clock generator.
Would indeed be interesting to see how the internal word clock + 10 MHz compares to the Antelope as external word clock for the Mutec.

Everthing depends on the design of each of the PLL and oscilator circuits.
The Grimm white papers are an interesting read, to give you an understanding when external clocks might or might not be helpfull to the clock stability.

Cheers


----------



## gldgate

As many here have done, I purchased an Antelope Liveclock and found it an improvement over internal RedNet and Mutec clocks. I was an external clock newbie so I purchased the Liveclock without any expectations. Given the positive outcome, I became interested in what a 10M clock could do. I know there is no concensus in regards to 10M. On the one hand you have testimony from some studio producers saying they can't live without it. On the other hand you have folks saying it makes no difference what so ever and it might as well be an expensive paper weight. Though I had interest, the expense was prohibitive. The Antelope 10M is over $5K, the Stanford Perf 10 is $3500 and the upcoming Mutec Ref 10 has been rumored to be 3000 Euros. All over my comfort zone financially. A little additional searching brought forth a potential alternative - Cybershaft of Japan. A few US based posters have had positive results (mostly feeding esoteric players) but the sample size is small with majority of users in Japan.
  
 I initially contacted Hasegawa-san and inquired about the various 10M options (He sells both OCXO and Rubidium and even a unit that contains both). He asked what I was going to use the clock with and my musical preferences. He first confirmed that his clocks are compatible with the Antelope Liveclock and then mentioned that his recommendation would be the OCXO Premium for my listening habits (weighted more toward Classical side of things). Payment for clock and 50-ohm bnc cable was via Paypal and unit was shipped out via EMS in a few days. Total charge for clock, cable and shipping with exchange rate was $1K.
  
 Unit arrived yesterday. The OCXO Premium has some real heft to it. It's easily 2x-3x times the weight of the Liveclock. The Cybershaft also has a better overall build quality than the Antelope. As mentioned in prior posts, the unit comes with certificate of calibration that shows individual unit test results with some graphs.
  
 The Cybershaft was connected to the Antelope and the Atomic Clock connection of the Liveclock instantly lit up. The Atomic indicator also was indicated in the Antelope Software. I let the unit warm up for for the afternoon and early evening and started listening in earnest around 8PM. I wrapped around 2AM.
  
 Overall impression is that Cybershaft into Liveclock is preferable to Liveclock on its own. Imaging is more solid and individual musical lines in a complex orchestral piece seem easier to distinguish/follow. One of my  "go to" evaluation recordings is Debussy's three nocturnes conducted by Haitink and the Concertgebouw on Philips. The nocturnes is awash in orchestra color with winds (flutes, piccolo, oboes, clarinets, bassoons), horns (trumpets, trombones, tuba), percussion (timpani, cymbals,snare), two harps and a wordless female choir. The instrumental separation just seemed more prominent with the Cybershaft in the mix.  This opinion remained consistant with just about all other orchestral pieces I played as well.
  
 Any downsides? Well I will say that when I switched genres and listened to some down and dirty garage rock the Cybershaft seemed to have perhaps a little less bite than the Liveclock. The Cybershaft provided the extra bit of clarity/resolution but in some songs I'm not sure if that is the best thing.  A good example is when I first got a Koetsu cartridge and listened to the Stooges "Fun House". The Stooges IMO work best on a primal level when they are bashing you over the head with sonic sledgehammers. Instrumental nuance and line separation is not the game here. A thick and hard hitting wall of sound that kicks you in the gut is. What is interesting is that Hasegawa-san recommended a Rubidium clock if my primary musical interest was rock.
  
 If you already own a Liveclock and listen to a lot of Classical/Jazz and acoustic music I would recommend the Cybershaft Premium OCXO as a nice addition. I think from a musical enjoyment perspective it provides value worth the asking price. 
  
 How does it compare to other clock alternatives? Unfortunately, I can provide no guidance there as I have not heard others in my system. Therefore I can only stick with my direct personal experience which has been that (a) Antelope >Internal Mutec (and RedNet) and (b) Cybershaft/Antelope > Antelope by itself. At $1K I'm not presuming it is the bestest clock in the whole world. What does seem rather unique about the Cybershaft is that via it's direct sales model it seems to serve a pricing niche well below most others. As always, opinions made are mine alone via 50 year old ears and my setup/room. YMMV.


----------



## jabbr

Gldgte
Thank you for your interesting write up.

Inteiguing that a Rubidum 10MHz clock would have a different sound effect than an OCXO 10 MHz clock.
Did they give a further explanation for that effect?
How does their Limited-range of clocks fit in the musical spectrum of Rubidum vs OCXO?

Regarding the Antelope LiveClock, would you describe that as having a fast lock or slow lock when it comes to the speed of getting a lock to the incoming 10MHz signal?
Trying to get a sense of the design parameters of the Antelope clock.

Thx for the write up.

Cheers


----------



## gldgate

jabbr said:


> Gldgte
> Thank you for your interesting write up.
> 
> Inteiguing that a Rubidum 10MHz clock would have a different sound effect than an OCXO 10 MHz clock.
> ...


 
  
 Yes, I was also a little surprised with Hasegawa-san's recommendation. I thought he would clearly steer me toward one clock or another. However, he said the clocks have a different "expression of sound" and provided me the recommendation based on type of music. What is interesting is that they do offer a box that contains both clock types. Someone over at the Audiogon forums (zephyr24069​) has this box and initially used the Rubidum only. When someone asked him about the OCXO he mentioned he had not tried it. When he did he came back and said he much preferred the OCXO to the Rubidium. Small sample size but thought I would pass it along. I thought about buying the combo box but ultimately decided against it because most of my listening is classical and the combo box has a much larger footprint (and space is becoming a premium for me).
  
 The LiveClock seemed to lock onto the 10MHz signal quickly. Once connected the LED's switched instantaneously from "oven" to "Atomic". There is also an Atomic clock calibration mode within the Liveclock. Once you set up an Atomic Clock to the Liveclock and both devices are warmed up you go into Antelope SW and there is a calibration button. Hitting the button provides an initial number that represents the error of the LiveClock related to the Atomic clock. In my case this number was .2HZ. Hitting the calibrate number again compensates for this difference and the new number became 0Hz.
  
 Hope that helps.


----------



## somestranger26

Here is one comparison of the OCXO vs RB version. This poster has the combo unit and tried both outputs.
  
 Quote: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/rubidium-clock
  


> Good Morning! In the way of any update,....the Cybershaft has well over a 1500 hours on it at this point (and the RB and OCXO clock outputs are equally broken in) and I've done a lot of testing over a wide variety of material (CD, XRCD, SACD) and alot of different recordings.  During this time I've spent several days at a time with the Cybershaft Rb and then the OCX outputs; over the past month I have found myself using only the OCX output circuit for 10Mhz 50ohm output as sonically, it is a much better match for the widest variety of recordings and things simply sound their best over and above what the Rb-based 10Mhz output circuit provides.  At this point, I think it is safe to say that assuming no other changes to the system, that *I will be sticking with the current config and using the OCX output over the Rb for playback of 90-95% of all material*.  Questions...please let me know.


----------



## gldgate

Yes, that is the thread and poster I was referring to. He emailed me today. He's still very happy with his purchase.
  
 I also forgot to mention that even though Cybershaft's site is in Japanese, they did reply back to all my inquiries in English so I would not hesitate to contact them if anyone has any questions.


----------



## jelt2359

gldgate said:


> Yes, that is the thread and poster I was referring to. He emailed me today. He's still very happy with his purchase.
> 
> I also forgot to mention that even though Cybershaft's site is in Japanese, they did reply back to all my inquiries in English so I would not hesitate to contact them if anyone has any questions.




Thank you for your impressions. Any chance yet to try the 10 into the Mutec directly, and taking the liveclock out of the chain?


----------



## Luckbad

Can anyone clarify why you would ever need more than one word clock?

Meaning, why would you ever use a master clock to the Rednet then another clock/reclocker after it?

Aren't you discarding the original clock in something like the Mutec?


----------



## somestranger26

luckbad said:


> Can anyone clarify why you would ever need more than one word clock?
> 
> Meaning, why would you ever use a master clock to the Rednet then another clock/reclocker after it?
> 
> Aren't you discarding the original clock in something like the Mutec?


 
 Mutec is not being used as a word clock here. It is only used as an SPDIF reclocker.


----------



## gldgate

jelt2359 said:


> Thank you for your impressions. Any chance yet to try the 10 into the Mutec directly, and taking the liveclock out of the chain?


 
  
 I was curious and did do a quick compare (not extended time period) and much preferred sq with liveclock. However, given the newness of the cybershaft in my system I feel it best if I live with current setup for a while, get used to the new baseline and then try again.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Looking at the phase noise numbers, this is a better buy than that Jackson Labs Fury that was posted a few pages back. Cybershaft Premium is rated -130dB/Hz at 10Hz and the Fury is -125dB/Hz. Both of these values blow away the Antelope 10MX, though, which is rated at only -87dB/Hz (100x as much noise).
> 
> The upcoming Mutec Ref 10 is rated for -140dB/Hz, and is rumored to cost 3000 Euro. If the Cybershaft sounds good, it's probably not worth spending so much on something like Ref 10. I think the diminishing return with such an upgrade would be massive.
> 
> Looking forward to your impressions.


 Apples and oranges. The Ref10 and SRS PERF 10 are Rubidum clocks, the Cybershaft is OXCO. Just a 10Mhz OXCO. Relock the OXCO Antelope with another OXCO?


----------



## rb2013

luckbad said:


> Can anyone clarify why you would ever need more than one word clock?
> 
> Meaning, why would you ever use a master clock to the Rednet then another clock/reclocker after it?
> 
> Aren't you discarding the original clock in something like the Mutec?


These external 10Mhz clocks as a disciplining clock to internal clock, working to reduce the internal clocks variations. The phase noise numbers are not as important, as the internal clock is the final clocker.

This is completely different for an ext clock or spdif reclocker.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> These external 10Mhz clocks as a disciplining clock to internal clock, working to reduce the internal clocks variations. The phase noise numbers are not as important, as the internal clock is the final clocker.
> 
> ....




I don't know if I would agree with this statement.
Phase noise is an indicator of oscilator short term stability and I would imagine this would be just as important for a 10MHz clock as it would be for a word clock.
The word clock is probably locked to the 10MHz signal by a PLL circuit as well. The word clock will then follow the fluctuations of a 10MHz clock signal in generating its word clock, how far it follows will be depending on the PLL circuit design parameters.

How do you view this, why would it for a 10 MHz signal not be important what its phase noise is? Why would it be decoupled?


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> Apples and oranges. The Ref10 and SRS PERF 10 are Rubidum clocks, the Cybershaft is OXCO. Just a 10Mhz OXCO. Relock the OXCO Antelope with another OXCO?


 
 Where do you see that Ref 10 is rubidium? I cannot find anything even hinting at that. In the info sheet for the Ref 10 they even criticize the use of rubidium ("atomic") clocks as unsuitable for digital audio.
   
 Quote:


> http://www.mutec-net.com/downloads/Ref10_InfoSheet_2014_E.pdf
> 
> Our researches have shown that so-called »atomic clocks« perform their high clock stability in a time domain not suitable for digital audio.


 
  
 How do you reconcile your thoughts that Rb > OCXO when the one sample that we have of someone using both (see my previous post) shows that they preferred the OCXO for 90% of their music?


----------



## jabbr

somestranger26 said:


> rb2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Apples and oranges. The Ref10 and SRS PERF 10 are Rubidum clocks, the Cybershaft is OXCO. Just a 10Mhz OXCO. Relock the OXCO Antelope with another OXCO?
> ...




I think the reference to "atomic" clocks is in the general meaning of clocks with long term stability, while saying nothing about short term stability. For digital audio the short term stability is what matters most.

But indeed I have also never seen reported what type of clock is being used inside the Mutec Ref10. My guess would be it is crystal based as that is where their expertise lies.

Cheers


----------



## Tand2016

Hi
  
 First time poster here .
  
 I am very interested in trying a Rednet 16 in my setup.
  
 (which consists of Mac mini 2011 with Amarra iRC > Curious USB 0,8 > Regen with JS-2 PSU > Curious Regen Link > Berkely USB/Spdif converter > Shunyata Anaconca AES 1,5 m > Berkeley Ref Dac)
  
 I got a very good offer on a Rednet 16 R (Redundant). It was pretty much same price as the 16 AES since the dealer had the 16 R on stock and the 16 AES had to be ordered from Focusrite.
  
 After looking at the spesifications, I notice the 16 AES and the 16 R looks the same and the dealer confirmes I do not need to use both PS to use it. Is there any reason I should not go for the R?
  
 Thanks in advance!
  
 Tommy


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I don't know if I would agree with this statement.
> Phase noise is an indicator of oscilator short term stability and I would imagine this would be just as important for a 10MHz clock as it would be for a word clock.
> The word clock is probably locked to the 10MHz signal by a PLL circuit as well. The word clock will then follow the fluctuations of a 10MHz clock signal in generating its word clock, how far it follows will be depending on the PLL circuit design parameters.
> 
> How do you view this, why would it for a 10 MHz signal not be important what its phase noise is? Why would it be decoupled?


 

 Well you have to separate phase noise and frequency stability short term and long term.  The Rubidium clock only acts a reference point for the main clock to discipline to.  In other words it gives a ultimate frequency reference point to the main clock to make small adjustments as it's clock drifts.
  
 I love that calibration feature on the LiveClock - so over time the drift of a TXCO or even a OXCO will be orders of magnitude greater then a Rubidium clock - the Cesium clocks are the best (and insanely expensive - that is what is being used now by the Bureau of Time Standards).
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock



> The master atomic clock ensemble at the​U.S. Naval Observatory​in​Washington, D.C.​, which provides the time standard for the U.S. Department of Defense.​[1]​The rack mounted units in the background are​Symmetricom​(formerly HP) 5071A caesium beam clocks. The black units in the foreground are​Symmetricom​(formerly Sigma-Tau) MHM-2010 hydrogen maser standards.​


 
  
 I disagree with those who say that long term clock drift does not matter for audio.  It's not like the clock somehow  manages to magically re-calibrate itself on each turn on/off.  When a crystal oscillator drifts long term - it moves away from accuracy.  In other words, over time this longer term drift will move the clocks SR frequency away from the absolute std reference frequency - say 192.00000Khz - to something different - either plus or minus.  That ref rate will then have a short term movement or drift around that drifted ref frequency - compounding the problem.  Drift on top of drift.
  
 The magic of digital audio reproduction is based at it's core on the recording, then playback centered on an agreed ref SR.  The more the recording clock and playback clocks differ the greater the inaccuracy of playback of the live event.  So that ref can be 44.100Khz, or 96Khz, or 192Khz, etc...
  
 The Atomic clocks have orders of magnitude (1000's of times) less drift on both the short and long term ref frequency.
  
 Same applies for a 10MHz ref clock - the device accepting this ref freq to discipline to - is designed to work with an exact 10.0000000Mhz freq rate - not more or less.  The internal clock process then uses this ref freq rate to discipline the internal clock to.
  
 The ultimate audio SR is still derived from the internal clock of the device.
  
 In any event the phase noise of the PERF10 is -130db at 10Hz and -155db at 10Khz.
  
 OT - We are so fortunate in the audio community to have ever less expensive precision clocks available to us - curtiosity of the GPS program.  In order to get precise (to 3M) the clocks on the GPS satellites have to adjust the length of a second to account for Einsteinian General Relativity - that is the bending of Time/Space by the Earth's gravitational well and the speed of the satellites (about 8K/MPH) relative to the Earth's surface - taking into account the opposite effect of Einsteinian Special Relativity!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qlLW60wOjo (30 minute marker)


----------



## Iving

tand2016 said:


> Hi
> 
> First time poster here .
> 
> ...


 
  
 See this post: 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/1425#post_12785122
  
 I don't think I have come across anyone owning or using an R (so that you could have first hand advice). I suppose that if you use only one PSU you would not provoke any additional electrical noise. If the price is advantageous to you, I'm not aware of any other significant issues - but I would read the respective specs carefully if I were in your shoes.


----------



## Tand2016

Thanks Iving!
  
 I have sent a mail to Focusrite. As far as I can se the specs are the same.
  
 Tommy


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Where do you see that Ref 10 is rubidium? I cannot find anything even hinting at that. In the info sheet for the Ref 10 they even criticize the use of rubidium ("atomic") clocks as unsuitable for digital audio.
> 
> How do you reconcile your thoughts that Rb > OCXO when the one sample that we have of someone using both (see my previous post) shows that they preferred the OCXO for 90% of their music?


 

 That is interesting - is the Ref 10 using a 1G XCO too?
  
 The SRS PERF10 uses a special cross cut Rubidium crystal to achieve it's remarkable phase noise numbers in a atomic clock.  A very difficult achievement - so ultra, ultra precise and extremely stable (short and long term) clock stability WITH sota low phase noise.
  
 The audio effects can be explained a possible cancellation occurrence - in other words say the clock on his DAC or DDC has long term drifted minus - the OXCO maybe be plus - the net effect closer to absolute ref SR. 
  
 Or the audible effect of the SR drift may produce inaccuracies that he finds pleasing or compensate for other aspects of his system.  Funny he prefers the OXCO only 90% of the time - not 100%.  If it was the best, you would think he would always want to use it.  Audio Ref clock as 'tone control'? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 So you have system peculiarities and personal preferences involved - all totally valid.  Hence the YMMV std.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I think the reference to "atomic" clocks is in the general meaning of clocks with long term stability, while saying nothing about short term stability. For digital audio the short term stability is what matters most.
> 
> But indeed I have also never seen reported what type of clock is being used inside the Mutec Ref10. My guess would be it is crystal based as that is where their expertise lies.
> 
> Cheers


 

 Well they both matter - if the long term drift of an oscillator is then the starting point the short term drift will be +/- from this new increasingly over time inaccurate ref point.
  
 So here are some actual numbers:
  
 Crystek CCHD-957:
 Initial accuracy: Depends on temperature they quote a range of +/- 20ppm to 50ppm
 Long term drift: <3ppm 1st year, <1ppm each yr there after
  
 Antelope LiveClock OXCO:
 Initial accuracy: +/- 0.02ppm
 Long term drift: <1ppm each year
  
 SRS PERF10:
 Initial accuracy: +/- .05ppb
 Long term drift:  <.5ppb 1st year, 5ppb after 20 years!
  
 So here the PERF10 has amazing ST accuracy but the LiveClock actually has better long term drift numbers.
  
 PS Edit the Long term drift of the PERF10 is .5ppb NOT 5ppm.  Sorry I got my scientific notation mixedup.  So the PERF10 is orders of magnitude better then the LiveClock OXCO.
  
 The PERF10 is something like 20,000 time more precise then a CCHD 957 TXCO and 1000 times more precise then the LiveClock OXCO after one year.  Now compound that year after year...


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> That is interesting - is the Ref 10 using a 1G XCO too?
> 
> The SRS PERF10 uses a special cross cut Rubidium crystal to achieve it's remarkable phase noise numbers in a atomic clock.  A very difficult achievement - so ultra, ultra precise and extremely stable (short and long term) clock stability WITH sota low phase noise.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't think they have divulged any details as to what the Ref 10 is using, but there's no mention of "atomic" anywhere in its marketing material and companies scream from the rooftops if their product is "atomic". I am guessing it is OCXO based on the amazing phase noise numbers that are pretty much unmatched except for the PERF10. SRS says they cut that special Rb clock themselves and it still costs $3500, so I doubt Mutec could manage even better phase noise numbers in their $4000 package while using a Rb clock.
  
 Yes, perhaps the PERF10 is the best clock since you get the best of both worlds in terms of short and long term stability, but the same $3500 would pay for my RN3, Mutec MC-3+ USB, future LiveClock, and part of this Cybershaft Premium OCXO. I doubt anyone is willing to spend so much on just a clock; that's more than most people spend on their DAC.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> I don't think they have divulged any details as to what the Ref 10 is using, but there's no mention of "atomic" anywhere in its marketing material and companies scream from the rooftops if their product is "atomic". I am guessing it is OCXO based on the amazing phase noise numbers that are pretty much unmatched except for the PERF10. SRS says they cut that special Rb clock themselves and it still costs $3500, so I doubt Mutec could manage even better phase noise numbers in their $4000 package while using a Rb clock.
> 
> Yes, perhaps the PERF10 is the best clock since you get the best of both worlds in terms of short and long term stability, but the same $3500 would pay for my RN3, Mutec MC-3+ USB, future LiveClock, and part of this Cybershaft Premium OCXO. I doubt anyone is willing to spend so much on just a clock; that's more than most people spend on their DAC.


 

 You are right on - for me $3500 for a PERF10 is insane.  Maybe for a Hedge Fund Manager.
  
 The Cybershaft Prem numbers are stellar - and really hard to believe.  Orders of magnitude better then the PERF10 in stability!
  
 It would have been nice if FocusRite had put a 10M input on the REDNET's - so no need for the Antelope in between.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> somestranger26 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think they have divulged any details as to what the Ref 10 is using, but there's no mention of "atomic" anywhere in its marketing material and companies scream from the rooftops if their product is "atomic". I am guessing it is OCXO based on the amazing phase noise numbers that are pretty much unmatched except for the PERF10. SRS says they cut that special Rb clock themselves and it still costs $3500, so I doubt Mutec could manage even better phase noise numbers in their $4000 package while using a Rb clock.
> ...




I still very much doubt that value of a 10MHz reference clock.
Grimm states eir CC1 master clock will not be bettered by adding a 10MHz reference clock and that many a studio clock based on a 10MHz reference clock will be bettered by adding a very good word clock.

I find the people at Grimm very open and honest about the added/non-added value different types of clocks including their own. And for me they make a strong cases why a very good word clock will not be bettered by an atomic clock that only offers a long term accuracy but not a short term stability perse. If you can find both in one device than, hurray, your lucky. But otherwise Imwould not invest in one if you've got a good word clock already.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I still very much doubt that value of a 10MHz reference clock.
> Grimm states eir CC1 master clock will not be bettered by adding a 10MHz reference clock and that many a studio clock based on a 10MHz reference clock will be bettered by adding a very good word clock.
> 
> I find the people at Grimm very open and honest about the added/non-added value different types of clocks including their own. And for me they make a strong cases why a very good word clock will not be bettered by an atomic clock that only offers a long term accuracy but not a short term stability perse. If you can find both in one device than, hurray, your lucky. But otherwise Imwould not invest in one if you've got a good word clock already.
> ...


 

 Does Grimm give any hard numbers on their clocks?  Besides their opinions?
  
 Not all Atomic clocks are the same of course - but I doubt even their short term stability and accuracy numbers are better then the PERF10. 
  
 Not saying the Grimm is not a fantastic clock.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > I still very much doubt that value of a 10MHz reference clock.
> ...


 
 They give these jitter specifications in their manual:

  
 and their jitter graph (blue trace is the CC1)

  
  
  
 and the phase noise from their clock circuit (red trace is their design):

  
 They use a slow PLL design with a bandwidth of 0.1 Hz and a 0.1Hz cutt-off frequency.
 on the actual oscilator crystal they only say: "The clock PLL is a hybrid analog / digital design, based on a discrete design ultra-low jitter crystal oscillator."


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> They give these jitter specifications in their manual:
> 
> 
> and their jitter graph (blue trace is the CC1)
> ...


 

 Not phase noise numbers - clock stability and accuracy numbers - short and long term.  Antelope does.  Did not see any posted on their website.
  
 The phase noise numbers are good - right in line with the totl clocks.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > They give these jitter specifications in their manual:
> ...




No, they don't disclose anything on their components, just measurements of their circuits and functioning of the complete device.

Their marketing speak only goes thisfar:


> Owing to a radically redesigned discrete crystal oscillator, clock stability betters that of even the best test equipment available.




It is also their PLL design with a 0.1 Hz bandwidth which makes me think a reference clock will not improve this master clock. This bandwidth of 0.1 Hz indicates that any difference between internal oscillator and external reference clock that is greater than 0.1 Hz will be discarded and not applied to correct the internal clock. This means that virtually everything will be discarded, and they can only do that and still have a good master clock when their internal crystal oscillator is extremely good and stable otherwise their master clock would not give good results.


----------



## gldgate

I'm pretty sure the new Mutec Ref10 will not be a Rubidium clock. In a post several months ago I inferred that it was Rubidium and was corrected pretty quickly. My guess is also high quality OCXO.


----------



## Iving

tand2016 said:


> Thanks Iving!
> 
> I have sent a mail to Focusrite. As far as I can se the specs are the same.
> 
> Tommy


 
  
 Good idea!
 See also particularly here (right hand panel for different models): https://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet 
 and other resources:
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb
 https://global.focusrite.com/downloads
 https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard?
 https://www.audinate.com/training-and-tutorials


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> No, they don't disclose anything on their components, just measurements of their circuits and functioning of the complete device.
> 
> Their marketing speak only goes thisfar:
> It is also their PLL design with a 0.1 Hz bandwidth which makes me think a reference clock will not improve this master clock. This bandwidth of 0.1 Hz indicates that any difference between internal oscillator and external reference clock that is greater than 0.1 Hz will be discarded and not applied to correct the internal clock. This means that virtually everything will be discarded, and they can only do that and still have a good master clock when their internal crystal oscillator is extremely good and stable otherwise their master clock would not give good results.


 

 Since the purpose of these devices is clocking - unlike the REDNETs - the clock stability and accuracy is a measure of the functioning of the complete device.  It's just another measure like phase noise.
  
 Does it even have a 10M clock input?


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> I'm pretty sure the new Mutec Ref10 will not be a Rubidium clock. In a post several months ago I inferred that it was Rubidium and was corrected pretty quickly. My guess is also high quality OCXO.


 

 Or basis on the 1G XO like the MC-3+ Smart Clock USB.


----------



## rb2013

Here is an interesting alternative.  Only $149
  
 It's OXCO but one that takes a clock signal from orbiting GPS satellites to act as a disciplining ref rate.  Bet those satellites have some pretty fine atomic clocks.
  
 Note the 10MHz output and GPS antenna hookup.  Ext DC power as well.
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/GPS-Disciplined-Oscillator-Clock-GPSDO-10M-Output-Sinusoidal-Wave/251802969291?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D2f69a02dab9545d8a0afc8e5ce2da852%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D281649576001


----------



## gldgate

Quick update
  
 I took out the Liveclock and tried a direct connection from Cybershaft into Mutec again. Same outcome -  still prefer sq with Cybershaft going into liveclock first. Could be as simple as by going into Liveclock first I can synch both RedNet and Mutec to same clock. Music just seems to have more presence and energy. Direct connection to Mutec does not sound bad by any means but it feels slightly more subdued.
  
 Also, if Antelope owners out there do get a 10M clock, don't jump the gun on the calibration process. When I connect the Cybershaft and LIveclock and hit "calibration" the initial error is around.22Hz or so. Don't do anything for about about 2-3 minutes. The error rate slowly decreases and finally seems to stabilize for me around .005Hz. I then hit the "calibrate" button again to compensate for the difference to get to 0Hz. The first go around I did not provide enough time for the clocks to calibrate on their own. Live and learn.


----------



## gldgate

Yes, I noticed the one above on the Cybershaft webpage as well when I was first browsing around. Lots of interesting options indeed.
  
  
 Quote: 





rb2013 said:


> Here is an interesting alternative.  Only $149
> 
> It's OXCO but one that takes a clock signal from orbiting GPS satellites to act as a disciplining ref rate.  Bet those satellites have some pretty fine atomic clocks.
> 
> ...


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Since the purpose of these devices is clocking - unlike the REDNETs - the clock stability and accuracy is a measure of the functioning of the complete device.  It's just another measure like phase noise.
> 
> Does it even have a 10M clock input?




Now you come to mention it, it does have a clock input but it appears to be only a word clock?!
The manual doesn't mention 10MHz signals. I had assumed (never assume anything  ) that it would accept 10MHz because in their white papers they answered a 'question' whether the CC1 could improve the clock in a studio where the house clock was a 10MHz. I had assumed that meant the CC1 could be connected to the 10MHz, but that doesn't have to be the case.
So probaby it doesn't have a 10MHz signal input, and therefore this case has closed (quite firmly  )


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> Here is an interesting alternative.  Only $149
> 
> It's OXCO but one that takes a clock signal from orbiting GPS satellites to act as a disciplining ref rate.  Bet those satellites have some pretty fine atomic clocks.
> 
> ...


 

 Meh. Phase noise is probably bogus compared to the Cybershaft units.

 I was checking out the user reviews page on google translate. Check out this review - they said the Premium is better than the GPSDO.
  
 Edit: Looks like they are comparing to this http://www.trimble.com/timing/thunderbolt-e.aspx and not the GPSDO offered by Cybershaft. Their datasheet shows -115dB/Hz @ 10Hz. 
  
 Now what is still useful is that they seemed to prefer the holdover (non-GPS) mode on the Thunderbolt GPSDO, so it might be the case that the Cybershaft Premium sounds better than the GPSDO? I don't see any phase noise specs listed for the GPSDO model.
  


> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.cybershaft.jp/a-products/a-products-gps.html&prev=search - 3rd review from the top
> 
> This is the experience you have changed to cyber shaft, Inc. Premium a 10MHz clock from T Inc. Thunderbolt GPSDO. About three years ago, I was reminded of the importance of the clock in the introduction of the Thunderbolt DigitalAudio playback. To pursue the possibility of Digital playback starting with its experience, it has continued its efforts even now. Clock to receive correction from GPS was thought to be the most accurate to date. It is not a mistake at the correct point. But this time, try listening to Premium, necessarily it was now that the thought-provoking about what is appropriate (preferred or not) in the Audio. I have to teach various things over the phone conversation with Mr. Hasegawa of cyber shaft company. The necessary clock in the performance of the in Audio, it can be understood as a theory, which is a short-term stability, also was able to realize it by listening to the sound.
> On the recommendation of Mr. Hasegawa was the next attempt. Is a comparison audition at the Thunderbolt GPS Lock state and HOLDOVER mode. Because to say that compared to the GPS Lock state are listening also another three years on a daily basis, you do not have it, such as the signal-type switching. Listening in HOLDOVER mode only if you feel it. The result, although significant changes, such as it can be said in the words did not feel, taste the atmosphere, such as set foot in one step a quiet forest, I remember feeling as calm. HOLDOVER mode Good !! As a result, *the correction of the GPS of every moment is not necessarily required for the Audio*, is better not to apply a correction to the contrary has led to think that it might than settle. OCXO short-term stability is excellent from this it is thought than preferable returned to the Audio, we decided to try the Premium.
> ...


----------



## r11bordo

Any solutions for Linux platforms, NAS and micro PC included?


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Quick update
> 
> I took out the Liveclock and tried a direct connection from Cybershaft into Mutec again. Same outcome -  still prefer sq with Cybershaft going into liveclock first. Could be as simple as by going into Liveclock first I can synch both RedNet and Mutec to same clock. Music just seems to have more presence and energy. Direct connection to Mutec does not sound bad by any means but it feels slightly more subdued.
> 
> Also, if Antelope owners out there do get a 10M clock, don't jump the gun on the calibration process. When I connect the Cybershaft and LIveclock and hit "calibration" the initial error is around.22Hz or so. Don't do anything for about about 2-3 minutes. The error rate slowly decreases and finally seems to stabilize for me around .005Hz. I then hit the "calibrate" button again to compensate for the difference to get to 0Hz. The first go around I did not provide enough time for the clocks to calibrate on their own. Live and learn.


 

 Great feedback thanks.  Yes in the Live Clock manual they say to allow for time for the clock sync - what a great feature.
  
 So you are using the Live Clock to fed Wclock into the REDNET and the Mutec as SPDIF/AES reclocker right.  Then the Cybershaft (that name gets me chuckling every time) just to the 10M input on the Live Clock.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Now you come to mention it, it does have a clock input but it appears to be only a word clock?!
> The manual doesn't mention 10MHz signals. I had assumed (never assume anything
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Your wallet is quite happy about that!  Great clock in any regards - their jitter management is sota.


----------



## jabbr

r11bordo said:


> Any solutions for Linux platforms, NAS and micro PC included?




I have not yet heared any plans for Linux support on the Dante protocol. You could ask Audinate directly, they reply pretty fast.

On the Ravenna protocol there seems to be an imminent release of also a Linux based virtual sound card {source: forum from Mivera Audio}. I don't know if this will be sold only with Mivera or other Ravenna products or wether it might become available as stand alone app. This new app will be AES67 comoatible, so you could use it to communicate with RedNet devices once they have been upgraded to AES67 too. I don't know how far Focusrite is with releasing AES67 compatibility upgrades, but Audinate has already released the required updates for the Brooklyn firmware.

Availability of a virtual sound card for a NAS platform seems weird to me, as the NAS-es don't have playback software but only DLNA-server software and that is useless without an additional DLNA renderer, in the context of AOIP.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

r11bordo said:


> Any solutions for Linux platforms, NAS and micro PC included?


 

 Unfortunately Linux is not in the AOIP equation right now.  Funny the Dante Brooklyn cards run linux as their OS.


----------



## Tand2016

Well, after gotten assurance from Focusrite Tech Support that the 16 R and the 16 AES are more or less the same, I jumped the Rednet wagon (and the Mutec MC-3 + USB) 
  
 "Apart from the front panel design, the redundant power supply and ethernet there are no notable differences between the D16 and D16R"
  
"Yes, both the D16 and D16R use the Brooklyn II module and the RedNet 3 does use a Brooklyn I module. The only difference for the end user between Brooklyn I and II is the ability to assign a static IP address to the device and in the future, AES67 compatibility. Both devices are purely digital so there is no sonic difference between them. 

I would not anticipate any issues using either the D16 or D16R in a home audio setup, using a mac or pc and Dante Virtual Soundcard. If you did choose the D16R you would only need to have one ethernet cable and one power cable connected to use the device."
  
 Got it working after downloading DVS, Dante Controller, Rednet Controller (do I need this?) and Java (pre 2015) in about 30 minuttes. But shouldnt there be a valid license for DVS included? Nothing in the box so I use the Trial download for now.
  
 Initially the sound is very, very good! I feel I am missing a little inner detail but the "flow" of music is fantastic!  The sound is very close  to my USB chain (Berkeley usb/spdif converter, Regen, Curious Cables) after 10 min. Looking forward getting som hours and playtime on it. And more to come later on..... (the Mutec) 
  
  
 Tommy


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Meh. Phase noise is probably bogus compared to the Cybershaft units.


 
 Well Yeah - $149 vs $1000.  But maybe worth a try.  Might order one up.  Should be even better with a decent LPS instead of the SMPS.


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> Well, after gotten assurance from Focusrite Tech Support that the 16 R and the 16 AES are more or less the same, I jumped the Rednet wagon (and the Mutec MC-3 + USB)
> 
> "Apart from the front panel design, the redundant power supply and ethernet there are no notable differences between the D16 and D16R"
> 
> ...


 

 Good feedback vs a very nice USB rig.
  
 I have a card with the code in my box for the DVS license.
  
 Interesting comments from Focusrite on the SQ equivalency between the RN 3 and RN D16 - that is BK I and BK II cards.
  
 Wait until you try the Mutec.  What AES cable are you using to connect to your DAC?
  
 PS Also try both the 32bit and 24bit setting in DVS and RN controller.  In my system they sound a little bit different.


----------



## Tand2016

rb2013 said:


> Good feedback vs a very nice USB rig.
> 
> I have a card with the code in my box for the DVS license.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for inspiration to try the Rednet. I would never had tried it if it wasnt for this tread and you!
  
 I am using a Shunyata Anaconda AES 1,5 m.


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> Thanks for inspiration to try the Rednet. I would never had tried it if it wasnt for this tread and you!
> 
> I am using a Shunyata Anaconda AES 1,5 m.


 

 Thanks for the kind words - sweet AES cable. 
  
 Of course like most audio gear the RN stuff needs a 100 hours to burnin - same for the Mutec.  They'll open up some more.
  
 Welcome to the future of digital audio


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> Great feedback thanks.  Yes in the Live Clock manual they say to allow for time for the clock sync - what a great feature.
> 
> So you are using the Live Clock to fed Wclock into the REDNET and the Mutec as SPDIF/AES reclocker right.  Then the Cybershaft (that name gets me chuckling every time) just to the 10M input on the Live Clock.


 

 ​Yes, you nailed it. Also agree that I would not have chosen the name Cybershaft as my first choice.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> ​Yes, you nailed it. Also agree that I would not have chosen the name Cybershaft as my first choice.


 

 Maybe some thing lost in the translation.  How much is the dual OXCO and Rubidium unit?


----------



## Tand2016

Thanks! I must say I really like it already


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> Thanks! I must say I really like it already


 

 Going from a really refined USB chain - to the REDNET AOIP - something was different in the SQ.  Like a kind of distortion was removed - certainly the detail improved.  But I think it's in the bass that I heard the most improvement - depth and definition like never before.  I think for some bass heavy systems that might be too much.  But on my Maggies it was perfect.


----------



## Tand2016

The sound feels cleaner, maybe because there is less noise polution....? I have 6 x 10" and 2 x 15" in my system, so hopefully my neighbours will appreciate the better qulity of the sound too


----------



## jabbr

tand2016 said:


> ..... But shouldnt there be a valid license for DVS included? Nothing in the box so I use the Trial download for now.
> 
> .....
> 
> Tommy




Enjoy the new RN16, it is very good and takes another major leap when you add the MC-3+USB as well.

With the Rednet there should be a card to register your Rednet with Focusrite. From there you can download all software and it will give you also a code to use when registering and downloading the DVS from Audinate's site.
So the Focusrite registration will give you a code to use at the Audinate registration wich will give you a valid DVS license code.

A bit strange, this two stage registration, but it has the advantage that you can always check your license codes at Focusrite and at Audinate and both will keep you up to date with the latest releases from software from each.

Yes, you will also need Renet Control. This will allow you to change settings of the Rednet device itself, like activating/deactivating sample rate conversion on digital inputs, to switch between internal and external word clock and most important to update the firmware of the Rednet.
So you'll need:
- Rednet Control from Focusrite
- Dante Control from Audinate
- DVS from Audinate

Cheers


----------



## Tand2016

jabbr said:


> Enjoy the new RN16, it is very good and takes a major leap when you add the MC-3+USB as well.
> 
> With the Rednet there should be a card to register your rednet with Focusrite. From there you can download all software and it will give you a code to use when downloading the DVS from Audinate's site.
> So the Focusrite registration will give you a code to use at the Audinate registration with will give you a valid DVS license code.
> ...


 

 Thanks Jabbr
  
 About 1 hour with playing now and it sounds amazing with Tidal and music from my Nas.
  
 I will check one more time, I got a code but I thougt it was for trial only.
  
 Tommy


----------



## jabbr

tand2016 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoy the new RN16, it is very good and takes a major leap when you add the MC-3+USB as well.
> ...




Tommy

First register your device at Focusrite and start downloading the software from that registration procedure.
It will give you the code and the link for the Audinate registration.
I was a bit confused as well but managed to complete it


----------



## enginedr

jabbr said:


> Enjoy the new RN16, it is very good and takes another major leap when you add the MC-3+USB as well.
> 
> With the Rednet there should be a card to register your Rednet with Focusrite. From there you can download all software and it will give you also a code to use when registering and downloading the DVS from Audinate's site.
> So the Focusrite registration will give you a code to use at the Audinate registration wich will give you a valid DVS license code.
> ...


 

 I pulled the trigger on the Mutec MC3 + USB to add to my RED NET 3 , Antelope Live clock combo . I have the parts to assemble a DB25 to AES cable . There goes another 1000
 hope you guys are right .I should have it before the weekend


----------



## gldgate

rb2013 said:


> Maybe some thing lost in the translation.  How much is the dual OXCO and Rubidium unit?


 
  
 With shipping and exchange rate approximately $1600.


----------



## gldgate

enginedr said:


> I pulled the trigger on the Mutec MC3 + USB to add to my RED NET 3 , Antelope Live clock combo . I have the parts to assemble a DB25 to AES cable . There goes another 1000
> hope you guys are right .I should have it before the weekend


 
  
 Congrats - I'm pretty sure you will be satisfied with your puchase.


----------



## joelha

While I know the Antelope Audio OCXHD - 768kHz Master Clock is $500 more than the Live Clock, I'm told it has the auto sample rate change feature.

The downside is that it can't be powered by a linear power supply.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/OCXHD

Thoughts?

Joel


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> With shipping and exchange rate approximately $1600.


 

 Expensive - not out of this world expensive.  Looks interesting.


----------



## Tand2016

Got the DVS license working. Had to get a new from my dealer. I have start thinking I got a demo/used one instead of a new in box. The DVS token and the Ethernet cable was missing and the display has some very small marks in it. Is it possible to peal of? Is there some protective film on it?

The sound is getting better and better. The bass is still "big" and somewhat less articulate. Guess this will improve after 100 or so hours. 

Tommy


----------



## jabbr

tand2016 said:


> Got the DVS license working. Had to get a new from my dealer. I have start thinking I got a demo/used one instead of a new in box. The DVS token and the Ethernet cable was missing and the display has some very small marks in it. Is it possible to peal of? Is there some protective film on it?
> 
> The sound is getting better and better. The bass is still "big" and somewhat less articulate. Guess this will improve after 100 or so hours.
> 
> Tommy




Yes the front has a plastic film on it. Took me a few days to recognize it. Look at the edges to see if plastic is slightly over the chasis.


----------



## Tand2016

jabbr said:


> Yes the front has a plastic film on it. Took me a few days to recognize it. Look at the edges to see if plastic is slightly over the chasis.


 

 Thanks Jabbr. I will try to remove the film.
  
 I connected the Mutec MC3+ to the chain now. Almost sersory overload!! I know its very eary, but it sounds very, very, very good! 
  
 I used my "better" AES last in the chain, is this how you guys do it? I will of course experiment later on.
  
 The chain now is:
  
 Mac mini 2011 > Rednet ethernet 3 m > 16 R > Straightwire Info Link AES 1,5 m > Mutec MC3+ > Shunyata Anaconda AES 1,5 m > Berkeley Ref dac


----------



## joelha

As long as I'm asking questions, anyone have an opinion between the Grimm CC1 and the Live Clock, aside from the price?
  
 Thanks,
  
 Joel


----------



## RKML0007

Lead time on the Grimm was about 10 days to me as they were made to order when I was looking to purchase. Couldn't find one in stock so I went with the liveclock from sweetwater. I'd probably try one later out of curiosity.


----------



## joelha

Thanks RKML007,
  
 I'm curious about people's opinion regarding sound quality.
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Thanks RKML007,
> 
> I'm curious about people's opinion regarding sound quality.
> 
> Joel



It 's a clock, it doesn't have sound 
But it is, arguably, about the best clock around.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> It 's a clock, it doesn't have sound
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks jabbr,
  
 Have you "listened"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to it or used it yourself?
  
 Joel


----------



## RKML0007

Hey jabbr do you mind sharing clock sync info? This is what LiveClock does for my D16. It would be cool to compare with the Grimm. 

Thanks!


----------



## jabbr

rkml0007 said:


> Hey jabbr do you mind sharing clock sync info? This is what LiveClock does for my D16. It would be cool to compare with the Grimm.
> 
> Thanks!




Using my Grimm it says -30ppm.
I don't realy know what it signifies though.
Haven't read the manual on this.

Would do you think it means?


----------



## joelha

jabbr,
  
 Can you tell me if the Grimm can be set to automatically change sample rates to match the incoming sample rate?
  
 Thanks,
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> jabbr,
> 
> Can you tell me if the Grimm can be set to automatically change sample rates to match the incoming sample rate?
> 
> ...





joelha said:


> jabbr,
> 
> Can you tell me if the Grimm can be set to automatically change sample rates to match the incoming sample rate?
> 
> ...




I already told you it does, it is called Slave mode.
Read the manual at least once please.


----------



## RKML0007

I think it just points out the specific frequency offset applied to sync the Rednet with your Grimm. I think its interesting to see the difference in correction being applied to our particular setups.

So maybe - if Grimm is the superior word clock, my LiveClock is off by ~4ppm hahaha. But that assumes that there aren't any D16 variances to consider.


----------



## jabbr

rkml0007 said:


> I think it just points out the specific frequency offset applied to sync the Rednet with your Grimm. I think its interesting to see the difference in correction being applied to our particular setups.
> 
> So maybe - if Grimm is the superior word clock, my LiveClock is off by ~4ppm hahaha. But that assumes that there aren't any D16 variances to consider.




Well every individual crystal is different and the variation in a batch can be quite large. So I assume this 4ppm difference might be only due to individual variation among the crystals; yours needing 26ppm correction, mine needing 30ppm correction to get back onto the right frequency.

Are you using 192 kHz as well, as that was the setting of my Rednet and Grimm.


----------



## RKML0007

Excellent points, mine is set for 44.1. I'll see if it changes when I sync up at 192.

No change. Frequency offset remained at ~26ppm. Rx utilization went up though from 4mbps to 19mbps.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> I already told you it does, it is called Slave mode.
> Read the manual at least once please.


 
 I did read it, didn't understand it, and that's why I asked.
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > I already told you it does, it is called Slave mode.
> ...




Page 10 which discusses Slave Mode


> 2.AES3 only.Upon selection of slave mode, the CC1 selects the AES3 input. The “aes” dip switch at the rear selects whether the audio data is transmitted (thru) or not (mute). *In thru mode, the AES3 output will obviously run at the same multiple as the AES3 input.* ...




The bold section says that the sample rate of the output signal of AES3 will be the same as the sample rate of the AES3 input. Meaning it follows the input sample rate and the word clock output is of course also the same rate as that.


----------



## joelha

I preferred the way you worded your answer, jabbr.
  
 The related portion of the instruction manual wasn't (and frankly still isn't) clear to me.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> I preferred the way you worded your answer, jabbr.
> 
> The related portion of the instruction manual wasn't (and frankly still isn't) clear to me.
> 
> ...


 
 You have to take into account how this device works and that it is a device for Pro Audio users and familiarise yourself with some of the Pro Audio uses.
  
 It can be a clock in Master mode, i.e. it will generate a word clock based on the manual settings on the front panel.
 The CC1 offers two groups of output that can have separate word clock frequencies based on the same base rate, hence a toggle for group 1 and group 2 and the possibility to set a multiplier for each group.
  
 It can also generate word clocks based on the signal of the AES input in Slave Mode. It can reclock that signal when the dip switch is in thru mode or use that signal to generate a DARS, and will always generate a BNC word clock.
  
 AES input signal can be put through to the AES output (thru mode), but it can also be blocked (mute mode). The purpose of that is that it can take the sample rate from the AES input signal, but not pass an audio signal, but just a "black signal" with the same sample rate (DARS: Digital Audio Reference Signal: check that on wikipedia) on the AES output and also to use it to select the proper rate for the word clock output via the BNC's.
  
 It is actually quite simple when you understand the functions of the CC1:
 - setting 1. "master mode" with manual settings / "slave mode" follows AES input
 - setting 2. "AES thru mode" for reclocking AES input into output / "AES mute mode" for generating a DARS either based on the AES input or on the manual setting (from setting 1)
 - BNC word clocks always follows the result from setting 1. above


----------



## jelt2359

joelha said:


> While I know the Antelope Audio OCXHD - 768kHz Master Clock is $500 more than the Live Clock, I'm told it has the auto sample rate change feature.
> 
> The downside is that it can't be powered by a linear power supply.
> 
> ...




Does it really? That's my main holdup with the LiveClock. (Sampling rate switching)


----------



## joelha

According to Jason Koons at Sweetwater it does.
  
 Would I lie to all of you guys? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Joel


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> You have to take into account how this device works and that it is a device for Pro Audio users and familiarise yourself with some of the Pro Audio uses.
> 
> It can be a clock in Master mode, i.e. it will generate a word clock based on the manual settings on the front panel.
> The CC1 offers two groups of output that can have separate word clock frequencies based on the same base rate, hence a toggle for group 1 and group 2 and the possibility to set a multiplier for each group.
> ...




Thanks for the detailed reply, jabbr.

I appreciate it.

Joel


----------



## jelt2359

joelha said:


> According to Jason Koons at Sweetwater it does.
> 
> Would I lie to all of you guys?
> 
> Joel




Will it be in slave or master mode for this? Awesome!!


----------



## joelha

jelt2359 said:


> Will it be in slave or master mode for this? Awesome!!




You're a cruel man, jelt2359 

Joel


----------



## Tand2016

I just connected a Synergistic Research Copper/Tungsten AC cable to my 16R. The "big" bass got tighter and much better. The music flows with the crispnes and attack which from start was better than my USB chain. Also have an nice older gen Nordost AC cable on my Mutec which also gave a sonic lift!
  
 The fun thing with the 16R is that i can have 2 x AC cables at the same time, this gives an excellent way to test AC cables as there is no need to turn the 16R off.
  
 Tommy


----------



## alubis

Just got the rednet D16AES, my first impression is this is better than my Melco N1A.


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> I just connected a Synergistic Research Copper/Tungsten AC cable to my 16R. The "big" bass got tighter and much better. The music flows with the crispnes and attack which from start was better than my USB chain. Also have an nice older gen Nordost AC cable on my Mutec which also gave a sonic lift!
> 
> The fun thing with the 16R is that i can have 2 x AC cables at the same time, this gives an excellent way to test AC cables as there is no need to turn the 16R off.
> 
> Tommy


 

 Yes a totl power cable will make a significant difference.  I have some of the really amazing Cerious Graphene Extreme Red cords in my system.
  
 Here is how I rank their use by digital device:
  
 1st DAC, 2nd Mutec SPDIF reclocker, 3rd Antelope OCX, 4th the REDNET 3.
  
 So for me the Rednet was the least improved.  As an alternative I use a generic silver power cord with Niobium plugs.
  
 Also attention to AC line conditioning is critical to getting the best out of your digitial source chain.
  
 My current AC power isolation and filtering:
 SR Tesla AC>Audience Response aR1p>Three separate Art Audio PB4X4Pro (one each for PC, DDC & Clocks, DAC)>Cerious Graphene Extreme power cords


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Does the 16r have an smps as well? I thought the power cables didn't make much audible difference on the r3, if any.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Does the 16r have an smps as well? I thought the power cables didn't make much audible difference on the r3, if any.


All three, the RN3, Mutec, and the Antelope have SMPS. But a better power chord does make a difference, no reason it shouldn't. One of the main issues with switching mode power supplies is the high levels of noise they feed back into the AC mains. So at a min they should be isolated from the DAC. The DAC's clocks can be effected by this noise feeding back from the polluted AC power.


----------



## rb2013

This assumes your DAC has some form of linear power. My PC has a fanless low noise SeaSonic PS, but a SMPS, so it gets isolated. But I'd like to get two more PB4X4Pro's, one each for isolating the Mutec and Antelope from the RN and each other.


----------



## classfolkphile

rb2013 said:


> All three, the RN3, Mutec, and the Antelope have SMPS. But a better power chord does make a difference, no reason it shouldn't. One of the main issues with switching mode power supplies is the high levels of noise they feed back into the AC mains. So at a min they should be isolated from the DAC. The DAC's clocks can be effected by this noise feeding back from the polluted AC power.


 

 Absolutely. I even found this to be true with the Uptone Regen. An iFi iPower was better than the stock power supply using either the stock cord or a Pangea AC14SE. But when I tried a Triode Wire Labs PC on the stock supply, it beat the iFi iPower. And this is with them plugged into a PI Audio Digi-Buss.


----------



## alubis

The more I hear the rednet d16, the more impressed I become. Gosh this rednet d16 is really on another level compare to usb. Thank you to @rb2013 and @mhamel for introducing the rednet.


----------



## rb2013

classfolkphile said:


> Absolutely. I even found this to be true with the Uptone Regen. An iFi iPower was better than the stock power supply using either the stock cord or a Pangea AC14SE. But when I tried a Triode Wire Labs PC on the stock supply, it beat the iFi iPower. And this is with them plugged into a PI Audio Digi-Buss.


 

 I have had a similar experience with the TeraDak LPS's - ditching the stock power cord for even a generic silver/niobium chord helped the SQ a lot - with the Cerious Graphene Extreme - major improvement.  The Silver cords I bought new on audiogon for $70 a couple of years back.  The Cerious Graphene list for $500.


----------



## Tand2016

alubis said:


> The more I hear the rednet d16, the more impressed I become. Gosh this rednet d16 is really on another level compare to usb. Thank you to @rb2013 and @mhamel for introducing the rednet.


 

 I totally agree! Is sounds so good already. My usb chain will soon be for sale. But after 100 hours or so I will go back to it just for fun. The Rednet stays!


----------



## rb2013

alubis said:


> The more I hear the rednet d16, the more impressed I become. Gosh this rednet d16 is really on another level compare to usb. Thank you to @rb2013 and @mhamel for introducing the rednet.


 

 Great to hear you experience is similar to our own.  Hat's off to Mike - he's the guy who 'found' the REDNETs and first to try one.
  
 I would begin modding the PS on my REDNET - but may be selling it soon - as the experiments on the BURL B2 Bomber DAC with Dante BKII with mods is turning out pretty amazing.  So I have left my RN3 stock and just used the Art Audio common and differential mode AC isolators and filters to keep it separate from the AC line feeding my DAC, and amp.


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> I totally agree! Is sounds so good already. My usb chain will soon be for sale. But after 100 hours or so I will go back to it just for fun. The Rednet stays!


 

 Kind of amazed at the zero activity on the CA REDNET thread - completely off their radar.  Funny for a site dedicated to computer audio.
  
 After over a decade of hard work to perfect my digital source - this AOIP solution is truly a Sea Change.  Boy are they missing out.


----------



## enginedr

gldgate said:


> Congrats - I'm pretty sure you will be satisfied with your puchase.


 

  I installed the Mutec MC- 3 USB in the chain as a SPDIF re clocker  using the Antelope Live clock as the external clock for the RN3 as well as the Mutec
 All I can say is Harmonic texture overload Wow . I feel it needs to calm down a bit . hope the burn in helps .


----------



## mourip

enginedr said:


> I installed the Mutec MC- 3 USB in the chain as a SPDIF re clocker  using the Antelope Live clock as the external clock for the RN3 as well as the Mutec
> All I can say is Harmonic texture overload Wow . I feel it needs to calm down a bit . hope the burn in helps .


 
  
 I have a similar setup and now just listen to music instead of planning the next upgrade. The tonality, texture, and dynamics are truly remarkable. I may need to turn in my Audiophile card...
  
 Having said that has anyone heard more about the rumor that Dante might be releasing an update that would allow rate changing on the fly? There was a rumor that in August a firmware update might make it possible for the application to determine the rate of the Rednet device. I emailed Audinate(Dante) to ask about this and was told that the rumor was "unfounded."


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

For me the Rednet by itself is more than enough straight to my MHDT Pagoda. Now I'm looking into better speaker amps and possibly better speakers... more the former.


----------



## Youth

Anyone know if they will make a consumer version? As I understand it is designed for studio use and there alot of things we don't really need.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> ......
> 
> Having said that has anyone heard more about the rumor that Dante might be releasing an update that would allow rate changing on the fly? There was a rumor that in August a firmware update might make it possible for the application to determine the rate of the Rednet device. I emailed Audinate(Dante) to ask about this and was told that the rumor was "unfounded."




Hi Mourip

It is not a "rumour", but a statement from FocusRite product development. Read the complete statement again here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/930#post_12697204

It is a change made in the Focusrite Rednet Control software, which is why the answer by Audinate is so confusing, because they are not the company delivering this change.

I you want I can give the name of the person at Focusrite making this statement :rolleyes:

Cheers


----------



## Muziqboy

youth said:


> Anyone know if they will make a consumer version? As I understand it is designed for studio use and there alot of things we don't really need.


 
  
 These RedNet's are mainly geared for Pro/Studio integration and I agree with you that we only need the 2 channel outputs but for audiophiles like us, we are not the target customers of these devices. You may be waiting for a very long time for a consumer version.


----------



## johnjen

youth said:


> Anyone know if they will make a consumer version? As I understand it is designed for studio use and there alot of things we don't really need.


 
 There was talk a ways back that they (Focusrite) would at least consider a 'stripped down' version and the word at the time was the price would drop to ≈75% of the existing RedNet series.
  
 And because there are 2 manufactures involved (Focusrite and Audinate) the prices will tend to remain 'elevated'.
  
 But we figure someone in china might come up with an alternative of some sort.
  
 And this process is what will take some time to 'perfect' seeing that we are talking about 3 separate products (2-s/w, 1-h/w) that need to work together, seamlessly.
  
 JJ


----------



## Roseval

The only “domesticated” version I know is the Merging Technologies NADAC.
 At $10,500 it not only has an audiophile price tag but is more than the double of the pro-version (Hapi). 
 Better stick to the pro-version including all those things we don't need!
 http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/Ravenna.htm


----------



## jabbr

Mivera Audio is going to release a combination of a Streamer and an Interface Box, or interface card to be built into your DAC or a Mivera DAC, that will be using the Ravenna protocol.
Check out their site if your interested in high end devices for consumer use, using Ravenna AOIP protocol.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Hi Mourip
> 
> It is not a "rumour", but a statement from FocusRite product development. Read the complete statement again here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/930#post_12697204
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks. You are right. I asked the wrong folks. Since August is nearly over I was wondering if the plan was still in place...


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mourip
> ...




I'll ask him again when I'll be back from my trip. Will be early September though (don't have his email with me).


----------



## prot

roseval said:


> The only “domesticated” version I know is the Merging Technologies NADAC.
> At $10,500 it not only has an audiophile price tag but is more than the double of the pro-version (Hapi).
> Better stick to the pro-version including all those things we don't need!
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/Ravenna.htm




Thx for reminding me of that welltempered website. One of the best resources for all sorts of computer audio. And cool trivia like: "RAVENNA was named after the Italian town of the same name where the poet Dante died…"


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> For me the Rednet by itself is more than enough straight to my MHDT Pagoda. Now I'm looking into better speaker amps and possibly better speakers... more the former.


 

 Those KEF 105.2's I sold you could benefit from some crossover mods - nothing to expensive and the crossover boards are easy to reach.  Don't overlook the importance of good speaker cables.  That said - I have heard and read so many goods things on the new ELAC speakers - very reasonably priced.  Check out the F6's.  Amp wise - highly recommend going integrated.  Check out the Bada 3.3SE.  Class A to 30 watts then switches to A/B to 145W, Dual output tord trannies, R-core for pre, 12au7 tube output, built like a tank, etc...
 http://www.cattylink.com/purer3309.html
  
 I think that's a good call - as the refinement of the downstream will help discern the upstream improvements.


----------



## rb2013

roseval said:


> The only “domesticated” version I know is the Merging Technologies NADAC.
> At $10,500 it not only has an audiophile price tag but is more than the double of the pro-version (Hapi).
> Better stick to the pro-version including all those things we don't need!
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/Ravenna.htm


 

 Not true - the BURL B2 Bomber DAC has Dante BK2 slot built right in, only $250 for the Dante BK2 card.  DAC is $2300.
  
 This is one killer good setup with a few PS mods.  NO need for a SPDIF relcocker - as the AOIP AES67 is built in at board level.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Not true - the BURL B2 Bomber DAC has Dante BK2 slot built right in, only $250 for the Dante BK2 card.  DAC is $2300.
> 
> This is one killer good setup with a few PS mods.  NO need for a SPDIF relcocker - as the AOIP AES67 is built in at board level.


 
 Vintage King has it for $2049 currently...
  
 How does it sound stock with the Dante card compared to the RN3?


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Vintage King has it for $2049 currently...
> 
> How does it sound stock with the Dante card compared to the RN3?


 

 The B2 DAC fed by SPDIF from the Mutec is very good.  The Dante direct makes this one of the best DAC's I've heard (bypass stock PS and using a custom LPS).
  
 I love my tube DAC's but this baby really has me thinking.
  
 The class A discrete solid state opamp output stage of the B2 DAC is very 'tube' like with a rich natural tonality.  Still exploring bypassing the SS with a true tube regulated tube output stage.
  
 Ideally it would be great to have the choice or either.  Looking at using a B2 DAC board + Dante BK2 card in a ground up design.
  
 Kinda of what Bill Hobba did in his 'Killer DAC' project
 http://killerdac.com/index.php?topic=932.20


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> The B2 DAC fed by SPDIF from the Mutec is very good.  The Dante direct makes this one of the best DAC's I've heard (bypass stock PS and using a custom LPS).
> 
> I'm love my tube DAC's but this baby really has me thinking.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Any idea what DAC chip it uses?


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Any idea what DAC chip it uses?


 

 Good question - one of the best D-S multi segment DAC chips made - the AKM 4399.  Same as the ones APL uses in their $25K NWO DAC (in a multi DAC configuration) - and in my APL NWO jr.
  
 The BURL B2 DAC has compared very favorably with the $10K+ DCS R2R Ladder DAC.  Without the recent Dante BK2 board upgrade.
  
 http://www.masteringmansion.com/common/reviews_d/reviewd_1007.pdf


> One of the things I immediately like about Burl as a company is that they openly embrace that fact. Check out what the Burl literature says. “The B2 Bomber DAC delivers sonic purity and dynamics thus far unheard of. As a complement to the B2 ADC, the B2 DAC punches you in the chest with low end while the 3D spaciality and stereo spread give you amazing detail throughout the spectrum. Add to that a sweet tone that is easy on your ears, and you have a unit that you will instantly fall in love with.” Sweet tone? Easy on your ears? Falling in love? This is not the kind of language one usually finds when reading about a pro-audio DAC, yet Burl is claiming that they can do sonic purity and sweet tone at the same time. It’s an unconventional and gutsy claim more likely to be pitched at the home audiophile market.


 


> Next the B2 DAC travelled uptown to the mastering room of Howie Weinberg at Masterdisc to spend time with Matthew Agoglia. Matt ran the Burl through its paces against their DCS DAC, which they clock off of an Antelope Audio 10M (Tape Op #68). Keep in mind that the DCS cost about $10,000 fifteen years ago and has been a standard in mastering studios for well over a decade. (Many of your favorite records from the CD era have likely been mastered on DCS converters.) On top of that, the Antelope system runs close to $8000. Considering that the Burl B2 DAC sells for $2500, Matthew’s feedback is particularly interesting. Here’s what he has to say: “Overall, the Burl (whether clocked to the 10M or internally) has a more neutral, smooth and transparent character compared to our DCS. The DCS has a color in its midrange, a tightness in the bass, and a subtle crispness in the highs. We could say that the DCS is more curvy, sounding different in different areas of the frequency spectrum, while the Burl is very smooth and linear, sounding very similar throughout the frequency spectrum. In particular, the Burl’s low end was actually a bit more extended, with sub frequencies a bit clearer, while the DCS had a very pleasant low end focused around 80–120 Hz. The Burl also sounds a bit wider than the DCS. “When clocking the DCS off the Antelope 10M, we get that larger-than-life sound that some describe as “hype” — not necessarily a bad thing in mastering because you don’t end up adding too much EQ or other processing to achieve your results. I wondered if I might be inclined to EQ/process more


 
  
 http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/burl-b2-bombers


> My overriding impression of the Bomber converters is that they really do sound a lot more 'analogue' than most. We're talking about the deliberate inclusion of some 'nice' and subtle distortion artifacts, but there's also something smoother and more natural‑sounding about the top end, while the bottom end is very tightly controlled but still larger than life, and the mid-range gives the impression of being slightly more expansive and dynamic than expected. None of these subtle characteristics were revealed in my bench tests, but they add up to a very nice style of presentation that addresses the 'sterile' nature of ultra‑clean digital systems rather well. First and foremost 'musical' rather than 'transparent' converters, they have a kind of tape‑like ability to handle transients in a very flattering way, and the power to make a mix sound glued together in a way that I usually associate with top‑flight analogue systems.


 
  
 The B2 uses a unique Class A transformer-less - capacitor-less discrete opamp output stage:


> Internal construction is very similar to the A‑D, with the same Powdec universal PSU module and a large main PCB. Digital inputs are handled by AKM 4115 transceivers, while the D‑A converter is the AKM 4399 chip. The analogue stages are transformerless and employ one of Burl's proprietary BOPA1 all‑discrete op‑amp modules. Again, the circuitry is all class‑A, with no capacitors in the signal path, and it runs surprisingly hot. Good ventilation above the Bomber D‑A is probably a must.


 
  
  
 More info on the AKM4399:
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/totaldac2/2.html
 http://www.akm.com/akm/en/file/datasheet/AK4399EQ.pdf
  
 I much prefer these DAC chips to the ones Merging Tech uses in the NADAC (ESS Sabre).


----------



## jabbr

How do you 'handle' the 4dBU output level? Or is your pre-amp made for that kind of signal level?
If not, how do you reduce the signal level without compromising the DAC design which doesn't contain capacitors and transformers in its output stages?

You need to like the sound of the the Burl though, as every DAC has its own sound. On a Tape-Op review I've seen it described as follows
"





> "The sibling B2 DAC sounds great too — very full and thick. Next to my Dangerous DAC and my Lavry DA10, I would characterize its sound as “warm” or even “analog” — round and present in the mids, with a really nice, wide stereo image."




Does this description match your preferences?


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> How do you 'handle' the 4dBU output level? Or is your pre-amp made for that kind of signal level?
> If not, how do you reduce the signal level without compromising the DAC design which doesn't contain capacitors and transformers in its output stages?
> 
> You need to like the sound of the the Burl though, as every DAC has its own sound. On a Tape-Op review I've seen it described as follows
> ...


 

 I'm running XLR to RCA adapters and can attentuate the level is need be - I haven't found that needed.
  
 Yes I like analog sounding DACs as opposed to those harsh, bright, brittle sounding ones.  Now the that review was done using AES - not AOIP.  And let me say AOIP Dante direct - no SPDIF transmitters, receivers and cables in between is like night and day.  The direct Ethernet Dante feed far superior then fed by the RN3/Mutec by AES.
  
 Comes for my many decades long love of vinyl.  I have two tube DACs right now.  As always YMMV.
  
 Would not have a Sabre DAC if you paid me - and yes I have owned them in the past - sold them not long after.
  
 It does need to get rid of the SMPS Powdec universal PSU 
  
For the money one killer great DAC with the Dante card (the Brooklyn II card is only $250).  Buyer beware the previous version does not have the Dante slot or Ethernet input.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > How do you 'handle' the 4dBU output level? Or is your pre-amp made for that kind of signal level?
> ...




I'm definitely no fan of Sabre chips either, but like to have a wide bandwidth, so with a proper top end and bottom end. A focus too much on the middle area puts me off somewhat.

Your XLR to RCA adapters are they just cables or is it a passive or active device?
I have been looking at the Jensen PC-2XR for example but am cautious if this compromises the sound quality obtained by using the output stages that are built without capacitor and transformers.

Cheers


----------



## mourip

> Originally Posted by *rb2013* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I much prefer these DAC chips to the ones Merging Tech uses in the NADAC (ESS Sabre).


 
  
 Thanks for all of the detail. I think that my Schitt Yggy uses an AKM DAC chip. I have owned three Saber DACs and I would not get another. I liked my Vega(Sabre) but the Yggy is much more musical.


----------



## mbusby

mourip said:


> Thanks for all of the detail. I think that my Schitt Yggy uses an AKM DAC chip. I have owned three Saber DACs and I would not get another. I liked my Vega(Sabre) but the Yggy is much more musical.


 
  
 The Yggy uses four AD5791BRUZ (Analog Devices) multibit DAC chips. They are $100 a piece in quantity.
  
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD5791.pdf


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> I have been looking at the Jensen PC-2XR for example but am cautious if this compromises the sound quality obtained by using the output stages that are built without capacitor and transformers.


 
  
 I tried the Jensen PC-2XR with my Vega and thought it added a veil. Sold them quickly.


----------



## mourip

mbusby said:


> The Yggy uses four AD5791BRUZ (Analog Devices) multibit DAC chips.


 
  
 Oops! Your are correct. It uses an AKM chip as input receiver.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> It does need to get rid of the SMPS Powdec universal PSU


 
  
 If replacing the SMPS what voltage DC do you need?


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I'm definitely no fan of Sabre chips either, but like to have a wide bandwidth, so with a proper top end and bottom end. A focus too much on the middle area puts me off somewhat.
> 
> Your XLR to RCA adapters are they just cables or is it a passive or active device?
> I have been looking at the Jensen PC-2XR for example but am cautious if this compromises the sound quality obtained by using the output stages that are built without capacitor and transformers.
> ...


 

 Passive XLR to RCA adapters - Cardas.
  
 Well I do not hear this middle band emphasis - the sound seems very wide band and evenly acentuated across the frequency spectrum.
  
 Remember none of these reviewers did not heard the Dante AOIP version. 
  
 http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CRFXLFRC&gclid=CK_p3YjB1s4CFQxmfgod6b0MdQ
  
 BTW Here are the FR stats:


> Frequencty resonse at 48kHz sample rate is 12Hz to 22kHz, +/- 0.1dB
> Frequencty resonse at 96kHz sample rate is 15Hz to 46kHz, +/- 0.1dB
> Frequencty resonse at 192kHz sample rate is 18Hz to 94kHz, +/- 0.1dB


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Thanks for all of the detail. I think that my Schitt Yggy uses an AKM DAC chip. I have owned three Saber DACs and I would not get another. I liked my Vega(Sabre) but the Yggy is much more musical.


 
 We agree on the Sabre DAC chips.  The Yggy uses R-R chips.  My DAC60 very heavily modded uses the R-R PCM7104U-K chips.
  


mbusby said:


> The Yggy uses four AD5791BRUZ (Analog Devices) multibit DAC chips. They are $100 a piece in quantity.
> 
> http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD5791.pdf


 
 Yes - beautiful technology on those filters - now they need to build in a Dante board socket.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> If replacing the SMPS what voltage DC do you need?


 

 I don't want to go into too much detail - as I may be working with a friend to offer a heavy duty mod package to the BURL.
  
 LPS power supply, upgraded Neutron Star clock, and maybe a tube output version - and some other very special mods we are working on.
  
 So far the results are stellar!
  
 PS I have some very favorable experience in modding DACs
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
  
 PSS If you are looking to get a BURL B2 DAC - be sure to order the right one.  There two versions at the big ProAudio shops being offered.  One with Dante AOIP capability and one without.  You want the one that says DANTE capable - like this one:
 http://vintageking.com/burl-audio-b2-bomber-dac-with-dante-connectivity?gclid=COf-uejG1s4CFYhqfgodm3MDxg
  
 NOT THIS ONE:
 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/B2BomberDAC?adpos=1o2&creative=54989979481&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=CO683_nG1s4CFYqPfgody4ALRQ


----------



## rb2013

By the way the components to make the DB25 to AES/EBU cable arrived today for RN3.  Very nice - I like the SQ very much. 
  
 Thanks to those who posted their info and links.


----------



## mbusby

rb2013 said:


> We agree on the Sabre DAC chips.  The Yggy uses R-R chips.  My DAC60 very heavily modded uses the R-R PCM7104U-K chips.
> 
> Yes - beautiful technology on those filters - now they need to build in a Dante board socket.


 
  
 ...and rack mount ears.


----------



## REXNFX

alubis said:


> The more I hear the rednet d16, the more impressed I become. Gosh this rednet d16 is really on another level compare to usb. Thank you to @rb2013 and @mhamel for introducing the rednet.


 
 What is the D16 connected to, a PC?, then SPDIF out to your DAC? Cheers


----------



## alubis

Yes, standard windows pc-ethernet cable-d16-spdif coax-chord hugo tt. This setup so far beats usb device:melco n1a with or without usb/spdif converter (melodious audio mx u8). Really glad to leave usb madness. 

Even desktop qobuz streaming app under windows improved significantly by the rednet d16aes setup. 



rexnfx said:


> What is the D16 connected to, a PC?, then SPDIF out to your DAC? Cheers


----------



## REXNFX

alubis said:


> Yes, standard windows pc-ethernet cable-d16-spdif coax-chord hugo tt. This setup so far beats usb device:melco n1a with or without usb/spdif converter (melodious audio mx u8). Really glad to leave usb madness.
> 
> Even desktop qobuz streaming app under windows improved significantly by the rednet d16aes setup.


 
 Thanks! so they fixed the Qobuz app? used to be buggy city


----------



## alubis

Running perfect under windows 10, no dropouts no hiccups with the d16. 



rexnfx said:


> Thanks! so they fixed the Qobuz app? used to be buggy city


----------



## REXNFX

alubis said:


> Running perfect under windows 10, no dropouts no hiccups with the d16.


 
 I usually prefer the Qobuz WAV downloads, maybe I should try their FLAC streaming service again...


----------



## alubis

Well it depends on what are you using as transport for qobuz streaming. Even with melco n1a, qobuz streaming is far behind its wav download. The rednet is the game changer. 



rexnfx said:


> I usually prefer the Qobuz WAV downloads, maybe I should try their FLAC streaming service again...


----------



## REXNFX

alubis said:


> Well it depends on what are you using as transport for qobuz streaming. Even with melco n1a, qobuz streaming is far behind its wav download. The rednet is the game changer.


 
 Now that is interesting, if Qobus streaming beat CD rips (WAV) too i'd be a very happy to just stick to streaming.


----------



## mourip

alubis said:


> Yes, standard windows pc-ethernet cable-d16-spdif coax-chord hugo tt. This setup so far beats usb device:melco n1a with or without usb/spdif converter (melodious audio mx u8). Really glad to leave usb madness.
> 
> Even desktop qobuz streaming app under windows improved significantly by the rednet d16aes setup.


 
 How are you directing Qobuz sound out through the Dante Virtual Soundcard? I would like to use Pandora on occasion but I have not found an easy way to divert it through the ASIO driver. Seems to need Windows Sound.


----------



## alubis

Fortunately, under the preference setting in qobuz desktop app, the ASIO DVS popped up and I just need to select it. 

But if I remember correctly, one member here (I think kewlona) suggested to use virtual cable (I don't remember the exact app name) to route audio for YouTube and the likes to ASIO DVS. 



mourip said:


> How are you directing Qobuz sound out through the Dante Virtual Soundcard? I would like to use Pandora on occasion but I have not found an easy way to divert it through the ASIO driver. Seems to need Windows Sound.


----------



## rb2013

rexnfx said:


> What is the D16 connected to, a PC?, then SPDIF out to your DAC? Cheers


 
 Yes from the PC Ethernet port (or you can add a nice PCIe Intel GB card to maintain your open port) to the REDNET then AES/EBU Digital or SPDIF coax to DAC
  


alubis said:


> Yes, standard windows pc-ethernet cable-d16-spdif coax-chord hugo tt. This setup so far beats usb device:melco n1a with or without usb/spdif converter (melodious audio mx u8). Really glad to leave usb madness.
> 
> Even desktop qobuz streaming app under windows improved significantly by the rednet d16aes setup.


 
 The Chord Hugo TT has a really good USB input - beating that is quite an accomplishment.  But you do give up DSD native and +192k PCM SR's.


----------



## rb2013

rkml0007 said:


> Hey jabbr do you mind sharing clock sync info? This is what LiveClock does for my D16. It would be cool to compare with the Grimm.
> 
> Thanks!


 
 Checking mine last night with the Antelope OCX and Oyaide BNC cable +2ppm  on the offset. 
  
 On another note I am able to get 150us latency setting to work with the RN3 - I understand the lowest the RN16d will only do is 250us. The 150us setting sounds the best - funny the BK2 card does not seem to be able to offer this (I believe it's grayed out on the 16D).


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> How are you directing Qobuz sound out through the Dante Virtual Soundcard? I would like to use Pandora on occasion but I have not found an easy way to divert it through the ASIO driver. Seems to need Windows Sound.


 
   
 https://www.audinate.com/solutions/dante-overview
 Quote:


> Fully Integrated with Windows and Mac OS X With Dante Virtual Soundcard, your computer becomes a Dante audio interface for multitrack recording and media playback, using the computer’s existing Ethernet port — no additional hardware is required.  Digital Audio Workstations, software-based media players, Skype, iTunes, Pandora, Spotify and other applications are easily integrated into your network via Dante Virtual Soundcard.
> Ask for the Dante. Dante is easy to integrate, easy to install, and easy to use.


 
  


alubis said:


> Fortunately, under the preference setting in qobuz desktop app, the ASIO DVS popped up and I just need to select it.
> 
> But if I remember correctly, one member here (I think kewlona) suggested to use virtual cable (I don't remember the exact app name) to route audio for YouTube and the likes to ASIO DVS.


 
 You can also use the WDM driver if your program requires it - but not ASIO and WDM at the same time.  Good that Qobuz uses ASIO.
  
 Or use a Virtual VB bridge
 http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/
 http://www.jdm12.ch/Audio/2016_Windows-DSP.asp


----------



## alubis

To my ears, interface/transport is more important to final SQ than hires or dsd files. I would rather listen 16 bit 44.1 khz files via d16 rather than dsd via usb. My usb transport which is Melco N1A has received lots of excellent reviews. In fact, hifi news did a measurement on the Melco N1A and showed reduced jitter and higher a-weighted s/n ratio on Chord Hugo. However, SQ wise the d16 beats the Melco N1A significantly.

The Hugo TT spdif is capable up to 32-bit/384kHz and I've tested the d16 using foobar to Chord Hugo TT for 24bit 192khz files and it's working fine with no dropouts or hiccups. 



rb2013 said:


> Yes from the PC Ethernet port (or you can add a nice PCIe Intel GB card to maintain your open port) to the REDNET then AES/EBU Digital or SPDIF coax to DAC
> 
> The Chord Hugo TT has a really good USB input - beating that is quite an accomplishment.  But you do give up DSD native and +192k PCM SR's.


----------



## rb2013

alubis said:


> To my ears, interface/transport is more important to final SQ than hires or dsd files. I would rather listen 16 bit 44.1 khz files via d16 rather than dsd via usb. My usb transport which is Melco N1A has received lots of excellent reviews. In fact, hifi news did a measurement on the Melco N1A and showed reduced jitter and higher a-weighted s/n ratio on Chord Hugo. However, SQ wise the d16 beats the Melco N1A significantly.
> 
> The Hugo TT spdif is capable up to 32-bit/384kHz and I've tested the d16 using foobar to Chord Hugo TT for 24bit 192khz files and it's working fine with no dropouts or hiccups.


 

 Completely agree on that about SQ vs Hi Res and DSD.
  
 Great feedback - the Melco N1A is a very sweet unit - so to top that is pretty amazing.


----------



## alubis

Well, I have to say a big thanks to you. I started following your journey since the gustard u12 onward. Since following your thread, I've bought gustard u12, melodious audio mxu8, and now focusrite rednet d16 aes. You hurt my wallet. 


rb2013 said:


> Completely agree on that about SQ vs Hi Res and DSD.
> 
> Great feedback - the Melco N1A is a very sweet unit - so to top that is pretty amazing.


----------



## rb2013

alubis said:


> Well, I have to say a big thanks to you. I started following your journey since the gustard u12 onward. Since following your thread, I've bought gustard u12, melodious audio mxu8, and now focusrite rednet d16 aes. You hurt my wallet.


 

 Sorry about that!  You missed a few in between - my wife has shredded my wallet.  But my ears are very happy


----------



## somestranger26

alubis said:


> Fortunately, under the preference setting in qobuz desktop app, the ASIO DVS popped up and I just need to select it.
> 
> But if I remember correctly, one member here (I think kewlona) suggested to use virtual cable (I don't remember the exact app name) to route audio for YouTube and the likes to ASIO DVS.


 
 I use the "Hifi cable / ASIO Bridge" from here: http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/. Don't get the 'regular' cable as it doesn't do what you want.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> mourip said:
> 
> 
> > If replacing the SMPS what voltage DC do you need?
> ...




Hi Rob

I have been reading some about the B2 and I have the impression, the DAC isn't automatically setting the sample rate of the incoming signal but needs to be set manually.
Is that indeed the way B2 works?

Cheers


----------



## somestranger26

jabbr said:


> Hi Rob
> 
> I have been reading some about the B2 and I have the impression, the DAC isn't automatically setting the sample rate of the incoming signal but needs to be set manually.
> Is that indeed the way B2 works?
> ...


 
 Yes, just look at the front panel which has a sample rate selector


----------



## mourip

somestranger26 said:


> I use the "Hifi cable / ASIO Bridge" from here: http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/. Don't get the 'regular' cable as it doesn't do what you want.


 
  
  


rb2013 said:


> You can also use the WDM driver if your program requires it - but not ASIO and WDM at the same time.  Good that Qobuz uses ASIO.
> 
> Or use a Virtual VB bridge
> http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/
> http://www.jdm12.ch/Audio/2016_Windows-DSP.asp


 
  
 Thanks for the tip. I got it up and working. Perfect for doing a little music exploration using Pandora.
  
 I just need to remember to turn off the ASIO Bridge before going back to JRiver...


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Hi Rob
> 
> I have been reading some about the B2 and I have the impression, the DAC isn't automatically setting the sample rate of the incoming signal but needs to be set manually.
> Is that indeed the way B2 works?
> ...


Yes there is a front panel knob to set the SR. Since Dante does not allow SR following not a big deal.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rob
> ...




Dante may not do SR following, but Focusrite is apparently on the brink of releasing an update of the Rednet Control that will implement SR following. A choice for Burl DAC would probably be a dead end choice in that respect.

The Cardas XLR/RCA adapters look to be well made. They seem to bee non-attenuating so the full signal level will be passed on.
I wonder what input sensitivity your pre-amp has, as mine is very sensitive and too hot a signal will leave barely any allowance for volume control. 
So just wondering what kind of / signal level pre-amps you guys are using.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Dante may not do SR following, but Focusrite is apparently on the brink of releasing an update of the Rednet Control that will implement SR following. A choice for Burl DAC would probably be a dead end choice in that respect.
> 
> The Cardas XLR/RCA adapters look to be well made. They seem to bee non-attenuating so the full signal level will be passed on.
> I wonder what input sensitivity your pre-amp has, as mine is very sensitive and too hot a signal will leave barely any allowance for volume control.
> ...


 
 I think you are confusing Vrms to dBU.
  
 Here is a neat calculator to do the conversion.
 http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm
  
 Most DAC's output between 2Vrms and 3V on their SE outputs..
  
 The BURL DAC outputs 3Vrms set at the -8db setting putting out +12dBu.  But can be set to incrementally higher output levels - all the way up to the -18db setting, putting out +21.3dBu or +8.99 Vrms.
  


> The front-panel controls start with the familiar output-level rotary switch, offering options from ‑18 to ‑8dBu. A 0dBFS digital input generates +21.3dBu at the analogue output when set to the 18dB position, and +12dBu when at the 8dB position, the other positions giving 2dB increments in peak level. The scale numbering is indicating headroom above a nominal +4dBu reference level — hence the 8dB position giving a peak output 8dB above +4dBu. The maximum output should be +22dBu, but there appears to be some minor attenuator misalignment at the very high end.


 
  
 This is very useful as most DACs put out +4Vrms or higher on their XLR outputs.  For example the Gustard X20 DAC:
*Analog output:*​​ RCA output level: 2.3 Vrms @0dBFS​​ XLR Output Level: 4.6 Vrms @0dBFS (XLR interface definition: 1Ground, 2Hot, 3Cold)​  
 http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/why-are-dac-output-levels-so-high.436973/
  
 PS These Rothwell RCA and XLR attenuators are the best made so if your pre-amp has issues with high input levels they would solve it.
  
 http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/attenuators.html


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > Dante may not do SR following, but Focusrite is apparently on the brink of releasing an update of the Rednet Control that will implement SR following. A choice for Burl DAC would probably be a dead end choice in that respect.
> ...




Hi Rob

Thanks for the extensive answer.

You say the Burl outputs 3Vrms at its lowest gain setting.
My pre-amp idealy should not get more than a 2.1V input signal to work with, my current DAC I set to an even lower output signal of 134mV (-27dB on 3V = 0 dBFS).

I have to be carefull with these pro signal levels apparently, if they will work at all.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Hi Rob
> 
> Thanks for the extensive answer.
> 
> ...


 

 Well 3Vrms is low for a XLR output (see the Gustard X20 puts out almost 5Vrms on the XLRs).  So when using XLR to SE adapters you need to be mindful of this.  My Pre-amp has XLR Balanced inputs as well as SE inputs so not an issue.  Generally balanced inputs will give you a lower noise floor.
  
 The Rothwell line attenuators are available in many values and work great - with many fine reviews.  $50/pr.
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rothwell-RCA-In-Line-Attenuators-Pair-10dB-For-Source-/391478062219?hash=item5b25e92c8b:g:0bAAAOSwZd1VfX5P
  
 Just do a Ebay search for the other values.
  
 134mV is an extraordinarily low output.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ....
> 134mV is an extraordinarily low output.




My pre-amp has an input sensitivity of 75mV so requires quite low input levels.
My current DAC offers 3Vrms as default output level. For the pre-amp this is too much, best sounding level for me is at -27dB.


----------



## jazzfan

I joined the RedNet 3 club earlier this week. After struggling for half a day with getting the RN3 up and running, I was finally able to get sound from the RN3 yesterday.  It's too soon for me to form a meaningful opinion about the RN3 (I'm currently experiencing occasional dropouts), so I'll withhold detailed comments until I've had more time with the unit. I will say, for the brief time I've had the RN3 in my system, I'm initially pleased with the differences I've heard.
  
 PC --> Ethernet UTP --> RN3 --> ASE/EBU --> Yggy
  
 I'd like to pose a Tidal/DVS WDM setup question to the group, but before I ask my question I must thank the OP and everyone else who have shared their RedNet setup experiences in this thread. I'd also like to give special thanks to @wushuliu for consolidating his installation instructions on another external forum. I found all of these post immensely helpful as I navigated the sometimes confusing RN3 installation process.
  
 Now concerning Tidal, I able to stream Tidal to the RN3 by selecting the DVS Transmit 1-2 (Dante Virtual Soundcard) WDM driver as the Sound Output device and unchecking the Use Exclusive Mode option (see below). However, if I check the Use Exclusive Mode option, all sound stops from Tidal.
  

  
 Has anyone successfully used DVS in exclusive mode with Tidal?


----------



## somestranger26

jazzfan said:


> Has anyone successfully used DVS in exclusive mode with Tidal?


 
 If Tidal doesn't allow ASIO output, then I recommend using the Hifi Audio Bridge linked on the last page.


----------



## jazzfan

somestranger26 said:


> If Tidal doesn't allow ASIO output, then I recommend using the Hifi Audio Bridge linked on the last page.


 
  
 Tidal does not directly support ASIO. However, when I initially tried DVS ASIO w/ASIO Bridge, I experienced a rather high dropout rate of a few times an hour. Switching to WDM directly from Tidal, dropouts slowed to approximately one an hour. My hope is by getting Exclusive mode to work, the dropout rate might even be further reduced, or would that not be the case?


----------



## TV Man

rb2013,
  
 How does the sound of your modded DAC-60 compare with the B2 DAC?
  
 Thanks!


----------



## rb2013

tv man said:


> rb2013,
> 
> How does the sound of your modded DAC-60 compare with the B2 DAC?
> 
> Thanks!


Oh man that is a good question. Well I would say with both at the current stage of modding, the edge has to go to the B2 Bomber. But that is before the new clock, tube output stage and better LPS for it. My thinking is the B2 with these further mods it's the winner by a long shot.

Already the detail has to go with the B2, same for SS width and depth. The DAC60 wins in the liquidity and warmth department.

My goal is to come up with a AOIP DAC that blows away DAC's 5 times more expensive, for under $3k total. FAR Less than a Yggy + RN3 + Mutec

PS Look at what Modwright did with the Oppo 105.


----------



## TV Man

Thanks for the detailed answer rb2013.
  
 I have the previous generation Lite Audio DAC-50 in the form of a Monarchy M-24. It uses PCM63 chips for conversion and is a really good DAC. A Rednet 3 feeding it would be sweet! 
  
 I wonder if Burl will make an upgraded B2 using the newest generation AK4490/AK4495/AK4497 family of chips. They are said to sound even better than the AK4399 does. Could raise the bar even further as far as sound quality goes.


----------



## TV Man

Also, wonder if there is a way to tap i2s lines on Burl's ethernet card?
  
 That would be a nice hack for the DIY types to get ethernet>i2s>whatever their favorite DAC is via a $250 card.
  
 If possible it would be so tempting I'd lay down the cash right away!


----------



## TV Man

<My goal is to come up with a AOIP DAC that blows away DAC's 5 times more expensive, for under $3k total. FAR Less than a Yggy + RN3 + Mutec>
  
 Put a nice DHT output stage on that bad boy and come up with a Lampizator killer for less than half the price!


----------



## cursto

I am interested in getting an Antelope Audio Live clock to further improve my setup. Could someone be so kind to give an example of how to connect this into my current configuration. Both my DAC and Rednet 3 have wordclock in and out via BNC connectors. Does one need an incoming signal going into the Live clock? Where would this come from?
  
 My current setup is: laptop and Rednet 3 connected to managed switch, digital out from Rednet 3 to DAC via AES/EBU  using db25 cable.
  
 I have never used a master clock and would appreciate any help advice on implementing into my setup. Thanks in advance.


----------



## rb2013

tv man said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer rb2013.
> 
> I have the previous generation Lite Audio DAC-50 in the form of a Monarchy M-24. It uses PCM63 chips for conversion and is a really good DAC. A Rednet 3 feeding it would be sweet!
> 
> I wonder if Burl will make an upgraded B2 using the newest generation AK4490/AK4495/AK4497 family of chips. They are said to sound even better than the AK4399 does. Could raise the bar even further as far as sound quality goes.


 
 I don't know - I have the AK4399 in my APL DAC (6 DACs per channel) and have compared it to the new Schiit BiFrost MB (which uses the AK4490) - way prefer the APL.  The 4490 will handle higher sample rates.
  
 I see Schiit still uses the AK4399 in the latest GUMBY.
  


tv man said:


> Also, wonder if there is a way to tap i2s lines on Burl's ethernet card?
> 
> That would be a nice hack for the DIY types to get ethernet>i2s>whatever their favorite DAC is via a $250 card.
> 
> If possible it would be so tempting I'd lay down the cash right away!


 
 Don't want to spill any beans on that here right now...more to come, much more.
  


tv man said:


> <My goal is to come up with a AOIP DAC that blows away DAC's 5 times more expensive, for under $3k total. FAR Less than a Yggy + RN3 + Mutec>
> 
> Put a nice DHT output stage on that bad boy and come up with a Lampizator killer for less than half the price!


 
 That's the plan.
  
 Modwright's Oppo 105 Mod ext PS  - sweet!


----------



## rb2013

cursto said:


> I am interested in getting an Antelope Audio Live clock to further improve my setup. Could someone be so kind to give an example of how to connect this into my current configuration. Both my DAC and Rednet 3 have wordclock in and out via BNC connectors. Does one need an incoming signal going into the Live clock? Where would this come from?
> 
> My current setup is: laptop and Rednet 3 connected to managed switch, digital out from Rednet 3 to DAC via AES/EBU  using db25 cable.
> 
> I have never used a master clock and would appreciate any help advice on implementing into my setup. Thanks in advance.


 

 Very simple - run separate BNC cables from Liveclock Wclock outputs (there are 4) to RN and DAC Wclock input.  Set the RN to ext clock - not sure on your DAC but should be a switch or jumper.
  
 You are good to go.   No input needed on the Live Clock.


----------



## Cornan

jazzfan said:


> somestranger26 said:
> 
> 
> > If Tidal doesn't allow ASIO output, then I recommend using the Hifi Audio Bridge linked on the last page.
> ...



Hi Larry!
I am not into AOIP just yet...but I know a thing or two about Asio Bridge. I had similar issues with Asio Bridge & JplayStreamer a year or two ago and it was solved by changing the Asio Bridge buffer to a higher value. Asio Bridge buffer should be the inteded buffer roughly times 4, ie. 64 samples equals 256 samples in Asio Bridge...but could sound better with an even higher sample rate (more relaxed). Also make sure that Hi-fi cable is chosen as both input and output.
BTW. Please share your first impressions by AOIP. I am all ears and do trust your opinion!


----------



## InsanityOne

Hello Everyone,
  
 Many thanks for all of the great work and research that is going on in this thread. However, for new-comers to the AOIP scene, I think it would be very helpful for someone to put a very simple (and I mean cut and dry, no details, no frills) thread on how to purchase a RedNet product, how to get it setup and working within your system, and what software and software settings are required to get it functioning optimally. Also including a FAQ would probably be a very nice benefit.
  
 Something like this would be a _very _helpful resource for users like me (and most likely many others) who really want to get into the AOIP hardware scene but don't exactly have the time to read through 109 pages of research.
  
 Thanks Again!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## cursto

rb2013 said:


> Very simple - run separate BNC cables from Liveclock Wclock outputs (there are 4) to RN and DAC Wclock input.  Set the RN to ext clock - not sure on your DAC but should be a switch or jumper.
> 
> You are good to go.   No input needed on the Live Clock.


 
 Thank you!


----------



## jazzfan

cornan said:


> Hi Larry!
> I am not into AOIP just yet...but I know a thing or two about Asio Bridge. I had similar issues with Asio Bridge & JplayStreamer a year or two ago and it was solved by changing the Asio Bridge buffer to a higher value. Asio Bridge buffer should be the inteded buffer roughly times 4, ie. 64 samples equals 256 samples in Asio Bridge...but could sound better with an even higher sample rate (more relaxed). Also make sure that Hi-fi cable is chosen as both input and output.
> BTW. Please share your first impressions by AOIP. I am all ears and do trust your opinion!


 
  
 Hi Cornan, Thanks for the buffer tuning suggestion!  That seems to have helped, but it didn't completely ameliorate the issue. I've also been removing unused background programs that may also be interfering with the network. The problem on my Windows 10 system appears to be with ndis.sys, the Windows NIC driver. After a number of changes, the ASIO latency issue is slowly improving, but I'm afraid I still have more troubleshooting ahead. I've decided to stick with ASIO, as I prefer its sound over the slightly harder sounding WDM driver. It might take a while longer, but I hope to have everything sorted soon.


----------



## johnjen

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for all of the great work and research that is going on in this thread. However, for new-comers to the AOIP scene, I think it would be very helpful for someone to put a very simple (and I mean cut and dry, no details, no frills) thread on how to purchase a RedNet product, how to get it setup and working within your system, and what software and software settings are required to get it functioning optimally. Also including a FAQ would probably be a very nice benefit.
> 
> ...


 
 This is a rather tall request.
  
 Since there are many possibilities and possible configurations.
  
 Some of the steps are simple enough, but the overall connectivity sequence can vary by quite a bit depending upon what gear is being used and what might need to be added (ie 2nd ethernet port), what the OS is etc.
 Not to mention when something doesn't go as planned.
  
 I'd say it would be best to ask in this thread for help with specific issues as needed, as it would be much more 'efficient' in the long run.
  
 JJ


----------



## Cornan

jazzfan said:


> Hi Cornan, Thanks for the buffer tuning suggestion!  That seems to have helped, but it didn't completely ameliorate the issue. I've also been removing unused background programs that may also be interfering with the network. The problem on my Windows 10 system appears to be with ndis.sys, the Windows NIC driver. After a number of changes, the ASIO latency issue is slowly improving, but I'm afraid I still have more troubleshooting ahead. I've decided to stick with ASIO, as I prefer its sound over the slightly harder sounding WDM driver. It might take a while longer, but I hope to have everything sorted soon.



You are welcome Larry!  Removing back ground programs and doing some minor pc tweaks to speed up the performance is ok. However, instead of manually removing processes and digging yourself in to deep in pc tweaking I would personally recommend to buy Fidelizer Pro and possibly Process Lasso as well. It will work much better than your own tweaks and you will be able to revert back as well. After too many tweaks it is impossible to remember all the settings you have done in the past.

On a personal note Kernel Streaming with high latency settings beats Asio if used with Jplay...which is another "must have" program in pc audio in my book. Using JplayStreamer with Tidal controlled by BubbleDS Next (Android) or Kazoo (iOS) is the best sounding option IMO.

/Micael


----------



## jabbr

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for all of the great work and research that is going on in this thread. However, for new-comers to the AOIP scene, I think it would be very helpful for someone to put a very simple (and I mean cut and dry, no details, no frills) thread on how to purchase a RedNet product, how to get it setup and working within your system, and what software and software settings are required to get it functioning optimally. Also including a FAQ would probably be a very nice benefit.
> 
> ...




You only need to read the manuals from the RedNet on Focusrite website and the Dante Controler and Virtual Sound Card on Audinate website.

Cheers


----------



## johnjen

An update on my RN3 setup step-up.
  
 Today I installed a LPS (Linear Power Supply for those who may be abbreviation deprived 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).
 I added just one on the 'end' of the Fiber Media Converter (FMC) which feeds the RN3.
  
 With this setup there is ABSOLUTELY no galvanic interaction between the computer and the RNS, since there is no metal wire connecting them together in any way.
  
 And by adding this non-SMPS (switch mode power supply) a whole nuther dimension just came into focus.
 By another dimension I mean being able to hear into duets and other closely matched 'voices' such that each can be more easily heard/focused upon/differentiated from its twin.
 This also helps in more complex (ie massed 'voices', like orchestral sections), and even down to special effects (echo, reverb etc.).
 This change in being able to more easily be able to hear 'into' duets has been improving of late, ever since the RN3 was introduced into my system.
  
 But this is a whole nuther dimension of this capability and there is more to this than just hearing duets in more focus, there are other acoustic effects as well.
  
 I'll take some pictures of the voltage being fed the FMC and compare it to the wall wart voltage picture I posted before.
  
 JJ


----------



## ccschua

Sept is just around the corner, I wonder if focusrite could just release the bare bones boards for DIYer.


----------



## wushuliu

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for all of the great work and research that is going on in this thread. However, for new-comers to the AOIP scene, I think it would be very helpful for someone to put a very simple (and I mean cut and dry, no details, no frills) thread on how to purchase a RedNet product, how to get it setup and working within your system, and what software and software settings are required to get it functioning optimally. Also including a FAQ would probably be a very nice benefit.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a very basic guide on installing here.


----------



## mourip

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for all of the great work and research that is going on in this thread. However, for new-comers to the AOIP scene, I think it would be very helpful for someone to put a very simple (and I mean cut and dry, no details, no frills) thread on how to purchase a RedNet product, how to get it setup and working within your system, and what software and software settings are required to get it functioning optimally. Also including a FAQ would probably be a very nice benefit.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Glad to see interest growing in AOIP. For those of us who have embarked upon it we will never look back. Right now it is a small band of early adopters who are still tweaking their systems while smiling in disbelief at their good fortune. 
  
 I would suggest that you take time to read the links that jabbr listed and as your time permits read this thread from the beginning. What you will learn will put you in a good position to troubleshoot once you have made your purchases and are getting set up. I should also add that most of us have called Focusrite, Sweetwater, or Audinate at least once even having read through all of the material we could find. As someone mentioned above everyone's system is different and I will add that home networking can be a can of worms. This may be state of the art but is nowhere near plug'n pray yet.
  
 Basically by the time someone here takes their own time to put something together that is comprehensive enough for anybody at any level to follow you could easily read through the existing information. Besides the chase is 80% of the fun. Right?
  
 Believe me the effort you put in will be well worth it!


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> An update on my RN3 setup step-up.
> 
> Today I installed a LPS (Linear Power Supply for those who may be abbreviation deprived
> 
> ...


 

 Nice!  I have heard similar inprovements on the BURL B2 Bomber/Dante BK2 DAC.  Yes pictures and details on which LPS would be very helpful.
  
 Me and my friend are working on adding an DC socket to power the BURL - so different LPS's could be used.  May need to have Paul Hynes build me one.


----------



## rb2013

ccschua said:


> Sept is just around the corner, I wonder if focusrite could just release the bare bones boards for DIYer.


 

 Not going to happen - you can buy a Dante Brooklyn II board from BURL for $185.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> .... May need to have Paul Hynes build me one.




You may have to put in an order now and be prepared to wait for a while 

His SR3 models are build by a larger company under his license.
His SR5 and SR7 models are still hand-build by Paul himself, but can have a serious lead time, though I must say that he had some serious medical issues that denied him working normally during my waiting time.

His PSUs are TOTL though so worth the wait.

Do you know what DC voltage a Burl B2 requires and what power it draws?


----------



## NWRain

I have a small form factor computer with one ethernet port, and no extra pci express slots.  Is it possible to direct connect to the internet with ethernet while also connecting to the rednet 3?


----------



## jazzfan

I've made progress with resolving the latency issues I've been experiencing with the RN3 on my Windows 10 system. Updating to the latest RealTek LAN driver used by my ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 motherboard resulted in a significant improvement in performance. Dropouts are now only occasionally present with my multi-use medium tower PC. Before and After latency results are shown below.
  
 Now I can change my focus from troubleshooting to listening to the music coming from my computer. Will be working on RN3 impressions as time permits.  
  
*Before LAN driver update*
  

  
  
*After LAN driver update*
  
 Peak latency was reduced by almost 70% from 52.4 msec to just under 16 msec, and the average latency went from 2.3 msec to 1.9 msec.  While monitoring latency with the DPC Latency Checker tool, I also discovered peaks below 6 msec, which appear in red on the DPC Latency Checker display, are not audible.


----------



## rb2013

nwrain said:


> I have a small form factor computer with one ethernet port, and no extra pci express slots.  Is it possible to direct connect to the internet with ethernet while also connecting to the rednet 3?


 

 Yes with a GB LAN switch


----------



## mourip

nwrain said:


> I have a small form factor computer with one ethernet port, and no extra pci express slots.  Is it possible to direct connect to the internet with ethernet while also connecting to the rednet 3?


 
  
 Yes as Rob replied but you might consider using your built in ethernet to connect to the RN3 and then getting a $20 USB ethernet card to connect to the Internet. That is what I did on one of my two PC's that only had one ethernet port. You could also get a second PCIe ethernet card.


----------



## marcblux

Hi, first of all, many thanks for the information shared here, it gives lots of hope that digital can provide full musical satisfaction !

I did follow the 2 main threads here (this one and the usb-spdif one) as well as the microrendu ones on CA.
I bought a microrendu and a NAS and have a very first basic installation with a qnap hs-251 nas directly connected to the micro-rendu, I don't even need to run my mac pro to listen to music (lumin app on ipad controlling minimserver on qnap). Convenient and sounds good. 
I have a second bigger system that I need to equip with a new source : same nas-micro rendu + spdif converter (xu1) + power supplies + + (seems never ending), I would use an old imac to connect & debug from time to time. Or build a Dante network as recommended here. (Or third option : some interest for the dante dac ...)

I have therefore a question : in such a Dante based system, is it still critical to have a powerfull optimized PC ? Is it a prerequisite or could it work well with my old imac ? Any idea of the score gap in the rb2013 scoring scale ? 
Somehow I tend to conclude from my reading that Dante would be so much less influenced by computing & electrical issues on the PC (compared to USB), to a point that any PC/mac would work similarly ??

Many thanks


----------



## NWRain

rb2013 said:


> Yes with a GB LAN switch


 
  
  


mourip said:


> Yes as Rob replied but you might consider using your built in ethernet to connect to the RN3 and then getting a $20 USB ethernet card to connect to the Internet. That is what I did on one of my two PC's that only had one ethernet port. You could also get a second PCIe ethernet card.


 
  
 Thanks for the information..  Unfortunately I can't get a second PCIe ethernet card because ITx boards don't have them.


----------



## johnjen

nwrain said:


> I have a small form factor computer with one ethernet port, and no extra pci express slots.  Is it possible to direct connect to the internet with ethernet while also connecting to the rednet 3?


 
 One additional possibility is to use WiFi for the internet and the ethernet port for the Dante network.
  
 I remember someone a ways back saying it worked for him.
  
 JJ


----------



## alubis

IMO you don't need any optimization for dante, just make sure your processor is powerful enough. I'm using a general purpose core I5 pc where I'm browsing the internet and doing other stuff while simultaneously using it with dante. I don't find it affecting any sq at all, which is a huge advantage of dante aoip solution compare to usb. 



marcblux said:


> Hi, first of all, many thanks for the information shared here, it gives lots of hope that digital can provide full musical satisfaction !
> 
> I did follow the 2 main threads here (this one and the usb-spdif one) as well as the microrendu ones on CA.
> I bought a microrendu and a NAS and have a very first basic installation with a qnap hs-251 nas directly connected to the micro-rendu, I don't even need to run my mac pro to listen to music (lumin app on ipad controlling minimserver on qnap). Convenient and sounds good.
> ...


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> One additional possibility is to use WiFi for the internet and the ethernet port for the Dante network.
> 
> I remember someone a ways back saying it worked for him.
> 
> JJ


 
  
 This is indeed another option although there has been the idea early on that you want to keep WiFi as far away from audio equipment as possible. Given that he has no space for an additional PCIe card I vote for a USB ethernet card. That is working well for me on my headphone rig which uses a very small HDPlex case with no external PCIe slot.


----------



## mourip

alubis said:


> IMO you don't need any optimization for dante, just make sure your processor is powerful enough. I'm using a general purpose core I5 pc where I'm browsing the internet and doing other stuff while simultaneously using it with dante. I don't find it affecting any sq at all, which is a huge advantage of dante aoip solution compare to usb.


 
  
 +1. Many of us have found that with AOIP the tweaking of our PC makes far less of a difference. Since he already has the Mini he can try without losing anything. I have used Audiophile Optimizer for a couple of years but now find that it makes little difference with AOIP
  
 Actually now that I am familiar with the brilliant AOIP SQ I am about to start doing a bit of testing by putting my old SMPS supply brick back in place. It is entirely possible that one could use a normal PC and still get great results but I want to try it before running out and claiming success. That would certainly be a money saver.
  
 By the way I believe that the Dante unit does the lion's share of the processing relieving that from the PC. Perhaps Rob or jabbr will correct me. In my HP rig I am using an i3 processor without issues.


----------



## marcblux

Thanks for your feedback, I am more interested in optimizing the chain starting from the Rednet than the PC itself.


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Hi, first of all, many thanks for the information shared here, it gives lots of hope that digital can provide full musical satisfaction !
> 
> I did follow the 2 main threads here (this one and the usb-spdif one) as well as the microrendu ones on CA.
> I bought a microrendu and a NAS and have a very first basic installation with a qnap hs-251 nas directly connected to the micro-rendu, I don't even need to run my mac pro to listen to music (lumin app on ipad controlling minimserver on qnap). Convenient and sounds good.
> ...


 

 Some folks have had issues with older laptops and running Dante DVS.  So it appears CPU processing power is important.  Remember the DVS is a digital virtual sound card and needs processing power.  My Haswell iCore 7 WIN10 server works great, with super low latency (Seasonic fanless high PSSR PS, Elfidfelity SATA filters, etc...).  You may not have issues running 44k or 96k - but get issues at 196k.
  
 The ratings 'gap' is just the tremendous SQ leap of AOIP over my uber USB rig.


----------



## marcblux

rb2013 said:


> Some folks have had issues with older laptops and running Dante DVS.  So it appears CPU processing power is important.  Remember the DVS is a digital virtual sound card and needs processing power.  My Haswell iCore 7 WIN10 server works great, with super low latency (Seasonic fanless high PSSR PS, Elfidfelity SATA filters, etc...).  You may not have issues running 44k or 96k - but get issues at 196k.
> 
> The ratings 'gap' is just the tremendous SQ leap of AOIP over my uber USB rig.




Indeed, I was forgetting this extra requirement for DVS. 

Btw, you compared uber usb and AOIP, how do you position both compared to a CD drive ?
I have a resolution audio cantata that works a bit better with the integrated drive than with pure music on a mac + pont neuf + ethernet.

Many thanks


----------



## gldgate

For those experiencing AOIP latency issues there is always the option of Rednet PCIe card. Yes, it's not cheap ($1K retail - seen some $800 "b-stock") and completely overkill for consumer audio. However, I would imagine this would likely be the most optimal solution. 
  
 Just a reminder for newbies. In order to get 192Khz sound, make sure you set Dante latency in DVS to 4ms.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

What about those $100-$300 server pci-e gigabit (even 10gbit) cards?



gldgate said:


> For those experiencing AOIP latency issues there is always the option of Rednet PCIe card. Yes, it's not cheap ($1K retail - seen some $800 "b-stock") and completely overkill for consumer audio. However, I would imagine this would likely be the most optimal solution.
> 
> Just a reminder for newbies. In order to get 192Khz sound, make sure you set Dante latency in DVS to 4ms.


----------



## mourip

soundsgoodtome said:


> What about those $100-$300 server pci-e gigabit (even 10gbit) cards?


 
 I added this card to the server in my speaker rig and it works flawlessly. No dropouts at all. I use it for the DVS connection and the onboard NIC for LAN access.
  
 Intel Gigabit CT PCI-E Network Adapter EXPI9301CTBLK 
  
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001CY0P7G/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 $27.80
  
 ...but I would experiment with latency settings first.


----------



## mourip

marcblux said:


> Thanks for your feedback, I am more interested in optimizing the chain starting from the Rednet than the PC itself.


 
  
 Not sure if I am understanding you. Do you mean AFTER the Rednet device? Some of the next big gains are adding a Mutec MC3+ USB as a reclocker after the RN3/D16 and then a bit more refinement by adding a wordclock master device such as the Antelope to control both the Rednet device and the Mutec.


----------



## marcblux

mourip said:


> Not sure if I am understanding you. Do you mean AFTER the Rednet device? Some of the next big gains are adding a Mutec MC3+ USB as a reclocker after the RN3/D16 and then a bit more refinement by adding a wordclock master device such as the Antelope to control both the Rednet device and the Mutec.




Yes indeed, I meant after the rednet in the flow.
I had well noted the benefit of the mutec, and find somehow more logical to invest there than in the pc itself, but what counts is anyhow the resulting sq. so I rely on your experiences.

Thanks


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Indeed, I was forgetting this extra requirement for DVS.
> 
> Btw, you compared uber usb and AOIP, how do you position both compared to a CD drive ?
> I have a resolution audio cantata that works a bit better with the integrated drive than with pure music on a mac + pont neuf + ethernet.
> ...


 

 Well when you say 'CD Drive' that can mean allow of different things from the PC spinner to a totl CD transport.
  
 My APL DAC was built around a Denon 3910 - transport remained the rest of circuits removed.  But it can play CD,s SACD's and DVD-A's.  I can switch on the fly to the external SPDIF coax digital input by remote on the fly.  So can do real time A/B comparisons.
  
 I would rate the CD's at 60 and SACD's at 75 on my scale.  So even with a decent spinner the SQ of AOIP or even a uber USB chain crushes it.  Now a really fine CD transport like Esoteric P-2 or a Wadia WT-2000 - now that is likely to be a whole other question.  But they run $4k to $5k.  And you don't have the convenience and min footprint (when you consider racks and racks of CD's, LP's, SACD's, etc...) of a music server set-up.  I still doubt they can beat the better AOIP set ups.  Decoding CD pits to bits in realtime is no mean feat.
  
Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
 
Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
 
REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)           270
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB/Audience au24 se digital cable                               250
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF reclocker)/AS Sliver Statement dig cable        240
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                               220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB               170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                        155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                   145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                               135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                   135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                      130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                    125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                          110
Singxer F-1  Stock feed                                                                                          110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                   109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                      108
  Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                              100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                                 95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                    92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                             85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                          81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                    76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                   72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                      65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                      65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                              60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                         50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                         40
  
  
Note the two major leaps - one by adding the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso Audio USB Extender into the chain.  Then the bigger leap away from USB completely to the REDNET3 Dante AES67 AOIP.  The Mutec 3+ did not help as an ext Word Clock to the RD3 - but after the RD3 as a SPDIF reclocker - excellent.


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Yes indeed, I meant after the rednet in the flow.
> I had well noted the benefit of the mutec, and find somehow more logical to invest there than in the pc itself, but what counts is anyhow the resulting sq. so I rely on your experiences.
> 
> Thanks


 

 I do think you are right here - although some experiments on the PC have yielded good results (like putting a separate AC line filter & isolator on the PC alone).


----------



## jazzfan

mourip said:


> I added this card to the server in my speaker rig and it works flawlessly. No dropouts at all. I use it for the DVS connection and the onboard NIC for LAN access.
> 
> *Intel Gigabit CT PCI-E Network Adapter EXPI9301CTBLK *
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm using this NIC which is directly connected to the RN3. I'm still experiencing occasional intermittent latency issues. Although, I have seen a marked improvement after updating to the latest MB LAN, NIC, video card drivers, and adjusting Windows 10 Power Management settings.


----------



## TRiN

Maybe of use, Focusrite has a guide (specific to the RedNet PCIe but can apply to all PC's in general) for Optimising a PC for low latency audio:-
  
https://global.focusrite.com/optimising-a-pc-for-low-latency-audio


----------



## jazzfan

trin said:


> Maybe of use, Focusrite has a guide (specific to the RedNet PCIe but can apply to all PC's in general) for Optimising a PC for low latency audio:-
> 
> https://global.focusrite.com/optimising-a-pc-for-low-latency-audio


 
  
 Thanks for posting the link to the article. I've seen this guide and have tried many of the recommendations. However, there are a few items mentioned in the article that I haven't tried which may be worth investigating.
  
 It's my belief that I'm encountering more issues than most because I'm using a multi-function workstation used more for Internet access, rather than a dedicated server optimized for music. I have a feeling I wouldn't have as many issues if I had access to a bare-bones machine with a just clean Windows install. Having a dedicated PC for music may be a factor to consider if you are looking to go down the RedNet path. Hopefully, I'll find a magic bullet to fix my DPC latency issues because I do like the sound I'm hearing from the RN3 when I'm not experiencing latency issues.


----------



## mourip

jazzfan said:


> Thanks for posting the link to the article. I've seen this guide and have tried many of the recommendations. However, there are a few items mentioned in the article that I haven't tried which may be worth investigating.
> 
> It's my belief that I'm encountering more issues than most because I'm using a multi-function workstation used more for Internet access, rather than a dedicated server optimized for music. I have a feeling I wouldn't have as many issues if I had access to a bare-bones machine with a just clean Windows install. Having a dedicated PC for music may be a factor to consider if you are looking to go down the RedNet path. Hopefully, I'll find a magic bullet to fix my DPC latency issues because I do like the sound I'm hearing from the RN3 when I'm not experiencing latency issues.


 
  
 I would tend to agree. My machine is dedicated as a music server. I even try to do remote desktop while I am listening.
  
 Definitely hang in there. It is worth it!


----------



## jabbr

To improve the latency of your network:
1. Disable background updates of your library, e.g. when using jRiver. Do it manualy whenever your not listening. These background tasks can give a massive burst of network traffic.
2. Change the settings of your network adapter, they are lousy for low latency applications. Follow these guide lines:
- http://steamcommunity.com/app/353380/discussions/0/405690850599636269/
- https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc558565(v=bts.10).aspx


----------



## Skogkatt

Hi there, I’m a happy new owner of a D16 AES configured to connect multiple DACs in a multi-amplified loudspeaker system.
  
 I wanted to report that Focusrite posted a new version of REDNET CONTROL (1.10) which requires SW 3.10.0.19/ FW 4.0.2.1
  
 The version 1.10, although dated 07/07/2016, is time-stamped 08/25/2016 and allows the change on the fly the sample rate: I use JRiver 22 and sample rate changes as a function of the track SR.
  
 In the main configuration screen there is a button named “SR Follow”: when pressed it allows the sample rate change on the fly.
  
 Sound quality is beyond my expectations as I’m coming from an isolated USB interface. However, I’m not able to determine whether it improved vs version 1.9.2


----------



## johnjen

"In the main configuration screen there is a button named “SR Follow”"
  
 Which main config screen?
  
 JJ


----------



## Ysound (Aug 27, 2017)

I'm also a very satisfied owner of the D16 and it's the best digital playback for me so far.
 Sounds quality is beyond my expectation and for only $1,500 it's a bargain.
 Also added the AQ Diamond to the system and it brought out even more details and separations.


----------



## Skogkatt

johnjen said:


> "In the main configuration screen there is a button named “SR Follow”"
> 
> Which main config screen?
> 
> JJ


 

 This one:


----------



## joelha

OK, I'll risk embarrassing myself here.

Where do I go to check the software and firmware versions I have?

Thanks for the great information about the updated file.

Joel


----------



## Skogkatt

joelha said:


> OK, I'll risk embarrassing myself here.
> 
> Where do I go to check the software and firmware versions I have?
> 
> ...


 

 Here:


----------



## johnjen

skogkatt said:


> This one:


 
 Ah yes a win screen…
 I'm running on mac…
  
 Looks like a e-mail to focusrite is in order…
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

ysound said:


> I'm also a very satisfied owner of the D16 and it's the best digital playback for me so far.
> Sounds quality is beyond my expectation and for only $1,500 it's a bargain.
> Also added the AQ Diamond to the system and it brought out even more details and separations.


 
  
 I have also added the little running shoes to my system 
  
 What comes along with them is life changing ... and diaper changing!


----------



## mourip

It works!
  
 I set JRIVER to leave 44.1 at 44.1 and not upsample to 192K. I played a 44.1K track. My Yggy clicked and changed rate. Even RedNet Control shows 44.1 while playing the track whereas it had previously shown 192K.
  
 Now to see how the SQ changes!


----------



## RKML0007

JJ - Mac requires a command line terminal argument to enable the SR follow feature, however DVS isn't supported at this time. Only works for the the PCIe card for now.


----------



## rb2013

ysound said:


> I'm also a very satisfied owner of the D16 and it's the best digital playback for me so far.
> Sounds quality is beyond my expectation and for only $1,500 it's a bargain.
> Also added the AQ Diamond to the system and it brought out even more details and separations.


 

 Nice gear!  Love those AR amps.  Is the AQ Diamond a Ethernet,AES or SPDIF?
  
 My Mutec MC-3+ USB is going up for sale on the classifieds today - just a heads-up if someone is looking for one at a great price.


----------



## Tand2016

Hi
  
 After 2 weeks burn in I started to think something was wrong with my Rednet 16R. The bass was still boomy, kind of  "hollow" and sounded worse than the first 100 hours or so.
  
 Today I got a 3 meter 6a ethernet cable from Focusrite since my 16 R was delivered without. My delear gave me a 5a UTP ethernet cable the day after I picked up the 16R. Now the bass is articulate, tight and hard hitting. I am using FMC with optical cable so the Focusrite 6a is connected between the end FMC and Rednet.
  
 Just ordered 2 x 1 foot Blue Jeans Cable 6a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 Tommy


----------



## InsanityOne

Would someone mind giving me a very brief run-down on why someone would need / use a "Fiber Media Converter" in their audio system or in conjunction with a RedNet 3 or D16? What piece of gear accepts TX / RX connections? Am I just missing something incredibly simple here?
  
 Thanks!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

rb2013 said:


> Nice gear!  Love those AR amps.  Is the AQ Diamond a Ethernet,AES or SPDIF?
> 
> My Mutec MC-3+ USB is going up for sale on the classifieds today - just a heads-up if someone is looking for one at a great price.


 

 Don't know if I missed it but was there a new finding that caused you to sell the Mutec?


----------



## mourip

So far so good with the new Rednet Control(RC) app and the firmware that allow sample rate following.
  
 There is one "undocumented feature" however.
  
 If you enable SRC then you need to leave RC open. If you close it the rate stops following. Also when you reopen RC you must choose SRC once again. I have contacted Focusrite Support US and they will run this by Support UK.
  
 I see it as a minor inconvenience, not a deal breaker. It is great to have Rednet follow the native sampling rate of the file being played and it is working well. For now you just need to remember to launch RC and choose SRC if you reboot.
  
 BTW. When you run the update you will need to roll back Audiophile Optimizer if you are using it. OA turns off a service needed for the install. You can re-enable it later.


----------



## joelha

skogkatt said:


> Here:


 
 Thanks a lot, Skogkatt,
  
 And as it's been a while since I did my firmware upgrade, would you or someone be good enough to remind me of where to find the firmware upgrade software?
  
 Joel


----------



## mourip

insanityone said:


> Would someone mind giving me a very brief run-down on why someone would need / use a "Fiber Media Converter" in their audio system or in conjunction with a RedNet 3 or D16? What piece of gear accepts TX / RX connections? Am I just missing something incredibly simple here?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
  
 It interrupts the copper CAT6 ethernet path with an optical connection which adds another form of isolation for the Rednet device from the computer or switch.
  
 You have a transmitter(FMC) on one end and a receiver(FMC) on the other with optical fiber in between.


----------



## Skogkatt

joelha said:


> Thanks a lot, Skogkatt,
> 
> And as it's been a while since I did my firmware upgrade, would you or someone be good enough to remind me of where to find the firmware upgrade software?
> 
> Joel


 

 Once you install and start Rednet Control 1.10 it should automatically download and update the firmware: once it starts updating *DO NOT STOP* the process till it ends.


----------



## Ysound

rb2013 said:


> Nice gear!  Love those AR amps.  Is the AQ Diamond a Ethernet,AES or SPDIF?
> 
> My Mutec MC-3+ USB is going up for sale on the classifieds today - just a heads-up if someone is looking for one at a great price.


 
 The Diamond Ethernet. I was skeptical if it would really makes any noticeable differences and it sure did.


----------



## Tand2016

mourip said:


> So far so good with the new Rednet Control(RC) app and the firmware that allow sample rate following.
> 
> There is one "undocumented feature" however.
> 
> ...


 

 I am using a Mac mini and I can not find the SRC function. I downloaded the RedNet Control 1.10 this afternoon. Is it only on Win?
  
 Tommy


----------



## johnjen

rkml0007 said:


> JJ - Mac requires a command line terminal argument to enable the SR follow feature, however DVS isn't supported at this time. Only works for the the PCIe card for now.


 
 So it isn't a matter of needing a Brooklyn II card vs the Brooklyn I?
 So my RN3 can still do sample rate following?
  
 And a command line terminal is doable.
  
 What is the code string?
  
 JJ


----------



## RKML0007

Not sure about RN3. I was told that SR follow works for Mac only when using PCIe card to interface with D16. Mac DVS doesn't support the SR Follow at present. I will see if the string is still in my terminal history. BRB.

Edit: sorry JJ, I closed out the terminal window and didn't think to save the string. Focusrite walked me through it over the phone. He apologized for not mentioning that it wouldn't work with DVS at this time prior to having me set the argument. Also, it isn't persistent. Subsequent restart of RN Control requires having to redo the argument.


----------



## johnjen

Thanks for the effort.  :thumb
  
 My guess is the SR following may need the Brooklyn II card and not work on the Brooklyn I (which the RN3 has) as well.
  
 Well I guess I'm gunna hafta stay with the SR changes within Media Center for now.
  
 Just another example of the early adapter blues…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

skogkatt said:


> Once you install and start Rednet Control 1.10 it should automatically download and update the firmware: once it starts updating *DO NOT STOP* the process till it ends.


 
 Thanks for your help, Skogkatt.
  
 I completed the upgrade and it works great.
  
 Very excited.
  
 Thanks again.
  
 Joel


----------



## rb2013

ysound said:


> The Diamond Ethernet. I was skeptical if it would really makes any noticeable differences and it sure did.


 

 Thanks - that is interesting.  I tried a few nice CAT6 cables against the stock one - could not hear a difference.  Which was not the case on my Startech GB LAN Ethernet USB extender.
  
 Expensive cable that Diamond Ethernet - $695
  
 What are you using for SPDIF or AES cable to your DAC?  There I have heard huge differences here.  My top two are the Audience au24 se digital and the Synergistic Research Element Copper Active shielding.  The edge goes to the SR with a Galileo MPC.  But with a move to a Modded BURL B2 Bomber DANTE DAC I no longer need it and will list it in the classifieds tomorrow.


----------



## jazzfan

johnjen said:


> Thanks for the effort.  :thumb
> 
> My guess is the SR following may need the Brooklyn II card and not work on the Brooklyn I (which the RN3 has) as well.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 FYI... SR Follow does work with the RN3 (sort of).
  
 I upgraded to RedNet Control v1.10 today, but ran into an issue with SR Follow feature. Automatic Sample Rate switching worked with JRiver until I selected a 192 file at which point automatic switching ceased. As a workaround, manually switching to 192 with RedNet Control or Dante Control would allow automatic switching to resume. I only tested switching between 44.1, 88.2, 96 and 192 files.
  
 Louie, with US Focusrite Support, worked with me on this issue and was extremely helpful. A case has been opened to inform UK Support of this issue.
  
 On a related note, after the v1.10 upgrade, if you repeatedly receive the following error when starting RedNet Control,
  


 you will need to manually update the RN3 firmware to v3.7.2.
  

  
 Contact Focusrite Support for the appropriate RedNet *.dnt firmware update file for your device.


----------



## Ysound

mourip said:


> I have also added the little running shoes to my system
> 
> What comes along with them is life changing ... and diaper changing!


 
 Yes indeed, for the better.


----------



## Ysound

rb2013 said:


> Thanks - that is interesting.  I tried a few nice CAT6 cables against the stock one - could not hear a difference.  Which was not the case on my Startech GB LAN Ethernet USB extender.
> 
> Expensive cable that Diamond Ethernet - $695
> 
> What are you using for SPDIF or AES cable to your DAC?  There I have heard huge differences here.  My top two are the Audience au24 se digital and the Synergistic Research Element Copper Active shielding.  The edge goes to the SR with a Galileo MPC.  But with a move to a Modded BURL B2 Bomber DANTE DAC I no longer need it and will list it in the classifieds tomorrow.


 
 I have the WW Platinum Starlight AES and their Platinum Eclipse 1 XLR for the rest of the system.
 About the Diamond AES, when I first plugged it in, it sound exactly as if I just switched out one of my IC to a not yet broken in silver IC, a little harsh on the high but you could definitely tells there's more information. 
 As times passed, it tamed the harshness is disappearing just like an analog cables being broken in.


----------



## johnjen

Thanks!
  
 I too have installed 1.10 and already have S/W v.3.7.2.1 and F/W v.3.3.8.13 installed as well.
  
 But according to Focusrite tech support the RN3 doesn't have SR follow option, which suggests the Brooklyn I card may be the limiting factor.
  
 JJ
  


jazzfan said:


> FYI... SR Follow does work with the RN3 (sort of).
> 
> I upgraded to RedNet Control v1.10 today, but ran into an issue with SR Follow feature. Automatic Sample Rate switching worked with JRiver until I selected a 192 file at which point automatic switching ceased. As a workaround, manually switching to 192 with RedNet Control or Dante Control would allow automatic switching to resume. I only tested switching between 44.1, 88.2, 96 and 192 files.
> 
> ...


----------



## jelt2359

johnjen said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I too have installed 1.10 and already have S/W v.3.7.2.1 and F/W v.3.3.8.13 installed as well.
> 
> ...


 
 Strange. I'm using a RN3 with the SR follow option. After installing the latest 1.10, the firmware update was automatic for me and very smooth. Granted I have next to no 192 files so I haven't tried that yet, but 44.1 to 96 (and vice versa) works great for me.
  
 I am using Windows.


----------



## johnjen

jelt2359 said:


> Strange. I'm using a RN3 with the SR follow option. After installing the latest 1.10, the firmware update was automatic for me and very smooth. Granted I have next to no 192 files so I haven't tried that yet, but 44.1 to 96 (and vice versa) works great for me.
> 
> I am using Windows.


 
 That's good to know, thanks!
  
 So it may not be a Brooklyn card 'problem' but an OS issue.
  
 Ah, as the thought plickens indeed.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

So I just received an email from Focusrite with the script to use in a terminal window to 'activate' SR Follow, and it runs successfully, but now Media Center chokes.
  
 And they say that either of the Brooklyn cards should work with SR Follow.
 So it's an OS thing, or perhaps a Jriver - Media Center thing.
  
 Hmmmmmm…
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

Another AO gotcha.
  
 Once you reapply AO you may find that DVS will stop working and prompt you to reapply your license key. Audinate said that DVS verifies authenticity based upon a hardware profile that can get changed by something as simple as a software patch. If you get an error stating that you have run out of license attempts you can just call them and they will add a few more.
  
 BTW. I thought that along with bringing remarkable sound quality that AOIP/Dante made server tweaks mostly unnecessary however I am finding that AO does make a very nice difference and this is just using GUI mode.
  
 Icing on the cake!


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Another AO gotcha.
> 
> Once you reapply AO you may find that DVS will stop working and prompt you to reapply your license key. Audinate said that DVS verifies authenticity based upon a hardware profile that can get changed by something as simple as a software patch. If you get an error stating that you have run out of license attempts you can just call them and they will add a few more.
> 
> ...




What would be your explanation for this improvement from AO?
Do you use any fibre connections between RedNet and PC?
I know for fact that ethernet CAT-connections are not immune to electrical effects.

Not back from my trip yet so no opportunity to test.

Cheers


----------



## rb2013

ysound said:


> I have the WW Platinum Starlight AES and their Platinum Eclipse 1 XLR for the rest of the system.
> About the Diamond AES, when I first plugged it in, it sound exactly as if I just switched out one of my IC to a not yet broken in silver IC, a little harsh on the high but you could definitely tells there's more information.
> As times passed, it tamed the harshness is disappearing just like an analog cables being broken in.


 

 Yes I have had the same experience in terms of burnin on digital cables.  Good info thanks.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> What would be your explanation for this improvement from AO?
> Do you use any fibre connections between RedNet and PC?
> I know for fact that ethernet CAT-connections are not immune to electrical effects.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a fiber connection between my switch and my PC but have CAT6 going from the PC to the D16. I intend to test using fiber between the D16 and the PC but have not gotten there yet.
  
 So the only reason I can guess for AO helping is that I have not yet received the benefit of isolation between the PC and D16.
  
 I will do so and report back. I am hoping that it will make AO moot as AO makes it hard to make changes on the server.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> I have a fiber connection between my switch and my PC but have CAT6 going from the PC to the D16. I intend to test using fiber between the D16 and the PC but have not gotten there yet.
> 
> So the only reason I can guess for AO helping is that I have not yet received the benefit of isolation between the PC and D16.
> 
> I will do so and report back. I am hoping that it will make AO moot as AO makes it hard to make changes on the server.


 

 ​Well, it's audio so I'm guessing we will never get a consensus. Too many variables. I think my experience is a bit contrarian to the group. I'm also just north of 50 so it also may be that my hearing is not as keen as many others on the forum. For what it is worth, I have tried my AOIP set up with CAPS Pipeline Audio PC decked out with Bakoon Battery (for O/S), AO, Fidelizer and  FMC's to my multi use Control PC that has neither. I could hear no meaningful difference. With USB set up everything seemed to matter in my system. With AOIP the stuff that has mattered (so far) is Mutec and Liveclock/Cybershaft.


----------



## gldgate

Just a random observation.
  
 Over the last month or so I've gotten into some some music production DAW software (FL Studio, Ableton Live) along with Midi Keyboard/Controller and various vst plug-ins (including full orchestra).
  
 While AOIP has been a revelation in listening to recorded music, it is maybe even more of a revelation putzing around trying to produce your own. I'm a beginner but it's pretty amazing the sounds you can dial up these days through software and it really provides a window into the accuracy of your equipment. You are never more critical than when you are trying to produce your own "music".
  
 I mention this because in many ways the DAW environment is RedNet and Mutec and Antelope's "home base". If they don't sound good in the production houses they are out the door as peoples livelihood's are involved. Makes me appreciate these guys even more.


----------



## mourip

mourip said:


> There is one "undocumented feature" however.
> 
> If you enable SRC then you need to leave RC open. If you close it the rate stops following. Also when you reopen RC you must choose SRC once again. I have contacted Focusrite Support US and they will run this by Support UK.
> 
> I see it as a minor inconvenience, not a deal breaker. It is great to have Rednet follow the native sampling rate of the file being played and it is working well. For now you just need to remember to launch RC and choose SRC if you reboot.


 
  One more undocumented feature that I am speaking to Focusrite about.
  
I use my audio PC as headless, meaning without a monitor, because it is tucked away in a cabinet. I remotely access it via RDP(Microsoft remote desktop). This allows me to make changes, add music, and change what is playing. I use JRiver Media Center to play music and the OS is Windows Server 2012 R2.
  
I am finding that if I RDP into the server it causes Rednet Control app to close/exit. Once this happens I can no longer play music and of course SRC does not work. Before this last update Rednet Control worked fine when closed. I chose the one sample rate I wanted to use, closed RC and all was well. Now since in order to use SRC I must leave RC open then each time I RDP to the server it causes RC to exit and I must restart it and JRiver also. Once this is done SRC works fine.
  
The good news is that RC exits when I log *in* using RDP but not when I *exit* the RDP session. So once I get everything working again I can log off and use JRiver’s remote iPhone app to change tracks/albums. The bad news is that if I use RDP again then I must reset everything again.
  
I am pretty sure that this is not expected behavior...


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> ​Well, it's audio so I'm guessing we will never get a consensus. Too many variables. I think my experience is a bit contrarian to the group. I'm also just north of 50 so it also may be that my hearing is not as keen as many others on the forum. For what it is worth, I have tried my AOIP set up with CAPS Pipeline Audio PC decked out with Bakoon Battery (for O/S), AO, Fidelizer and  FMC's to my multi use Control PC that has neither. I could hear no meaningful difference. With USB set up everything seemed to matter in my system. With AOIP the stuff that has mattered (so far) is Mutec and Liveclock/Cybershaft.


 
 Just curious. What ethernet cable are you using to connect your RN to your server? CAT or fiber?


----------



## Skogkatt

mourip said:


> One more undocumented feature that I am speaking to Focusrite about.
> 
> I use my audio PC as headless, meaning without a monitor, because it is tucked away in a cabinet. I remotely access it via RDP(Microsoft remote desktop). This allows me to make changes, add music, and change what is playing. I use JRiver Media Center to play music and the OS is Windows Server 2012 R2.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm also having problems when I start RDP from my Surface: the positive thing is that once RDP session is started I can reopen Rednet control and it stays open.
  
 Maybe I missed the point but, my understanding is that SRC works on the input channels and not when JRiver reproduces music. Did you mean "SR Follow" instead?


----------



## mourip

Yes. Thanks for the correction. I meant "SR Follow".


----------



## jelt2359

Strange. I use rdp without a problem. My "server" is a converted gaming laptop, though.


----------



## TV Man

Check your RDP settings and try disabling audio settings. RDP can forward audio to the computer making the RDP connection. It seems that might break your current audio setup when the RDP session is established.
  
 On Server 2012 R2 it may not be easy to disable the audio forwarding. It's been a long time since I looked into this issue on Server 2008 and Server 2012 so my memory about it is fuzzy, but it's worth a try. I do remember Server 2008 RDP was difficult to get to stop forwarding audio.


----------



## mourip

jelt2359 said:


> Strange. I use rdp without a problem. My "server" is a converted gaming laptop, though.


 


tv man said:


> Check your RDP settings and try disabling audio settings. RDP can forward audio to the computer making the RDP connection. It seems that might break your current audio setup when the RDP session is established.
> 
> On Server 2012 R2 it may not be easy to disable the audio forwarding. It's been a long time since I looked into this issue on Server 2008 and Server 2012 so my memory about it is fuzzy, but it's worth a try. I do remember Server 2008 RDP was difficult to get to stop forwarding audio.


 
  
 Thanks for the replies. It was working fine before the Rednet Control update. I am aware of the audio forwarding issue as I stummbled over it when I first went headless.
  
 It could be either a 2012r2 issue or an AO issue in this case although I have two systems with an RN16 and one has AO enabled while the other does not and I see the same issue on both. Odd!


----------



## occamsrazor

Have been away from this thread for a while... is there any word on whether any companies are planning to introduce a smaller 2-channel, 192khz-capable, Dante converter box?


----------



## mourip

mourip said:


> Thanks for the replies. It was working fine before the Rednet Control update. I am aware of the audio forwarding issue as I stummbled over it when I first went headless.
> 
> It could be either a 2012r2 issue or an AO issue in this case although I have two systems with an RN16 and one has AO enabled while the other does not and I see the same issue on both. Odd!


 
  
 Have not heard of any although RB2013 has been suspiciously quiet regarding his "Franken-Burl" exploration.


----------



## Skogkatt

tv man said:


> Check your RDP settings and try disabling audio settings. RDP can forward audio to the computer making the RDP connection. It seems that might break your current audio setup when the RDP session is established.
> 
> On Server 2012 R2 it may not be easy to disable the audio forwarding. It's been a long time since I looked into this issue on Server 2008 and Server 2012 so my memory about it is fuzzy, but it's worth a try. I do remember Server 2008 RDP was difficult to get to stop forwarding audio.


 

 I've discovered that Rednet Control stops only if "SR Follow" was already ON before RDP session was initiated. It seems audio forwarding setting makes no difference.


----------



## mourip

skogkatt said:


> I've discovered that Rednet Control stops only if "SR Follow" was already ON before RDP session was initiated. It seems audio forwarding setting makes no difference.


 
  
 That is my experience also...


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Just curious. What ethernet cable are you using to connect your RN to your server? CAT or fiber?


 

 ​I can go either way. I have SFP PCIe cards in both my Audio PC and Control PC so I can use fiber or CAT . When I want to go fiber I use single mode and when I use CAT I'm using a blue jeans 5e. I find I switch up.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> ​I can go either way. I have SFP PCIe cards in both my Audio PC and Control PC so I can use fiber or CAT . When I want to go fiber I use single mode and when I use CAT I'm using a blue jeans 5e. I find I switch up.


 
  
 Have you updated your D16 to the new software and firmware yet?


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Have you updated your D16 to the new software and firmware yet?


 

 ​Yes, thanks to the folks on the Forum I updated as soon as I knew about it. Works fine. However, I still need to change the Antelope liveclock rate manually. Not a big burden. I grew up listening to LP's and having to change sides every 15-20 minutes. One manual mouse click is not bad at all. In a weird way, I kind of like the extra engagement.


----------



## alubis

I just finished up the upgrading process of the rednet control and firmware. Using foobar, the sampling rate automatically changed and working smoothly. Thanks for the info on the new firmware, this forum is very useful.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> ​Yes, thanks to the folks on the Forum I updated as soon as I knew about it. Works fine. However, I still need to change the Antelope liveclock rate manually. Not a big burden. I grew up listening to LP's and having to change sides every 15-20 minutes. One manual mouse click is not bad at all. In a weird way, I kind of like the extra engagement.


 
  
 Boy. I forgot about my Antelope!  I have pretty much the same setup as you but I kept my Antelope at 192K. The odd thing is that I have seen my Yggy change sample rate as I move to different pieces at different rates. Go figure!
  
 I will need to do a bit of experimentation.


----------



## jelt2359

Are you saying the antelope changes sampling rate automatically too? Or is it jus clocking suboptimally...


----------



## jabbr

jelt2359 said:


> Are you saying the antelope changes sampling rate automatically too? Or is it jus clocking suboptimally...




I think it will the last. It will have clocked the signal with the wrong word clock.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> I think it will the last. It will have clocked the signal with the wrong word clock.


 
  
 Boy. Not sure how I missed this. So much for "on the fly" rate changing. I often switch between tracks on albums and seldom listen to a whole album straight through so I will probably not be jumping up to toggle the Antelope to match the current sample rate. Makes me long for a high quality "no hold barred" single chassis AOIP solution...
  
 The good news is that everything sounds wonderful with just setting it all to 192K even though RedBook 44.1K should probably be overclocked at a multiple such as 176K.
  
 ...And still much better than USB.


----------



## mourip

Ok. One more mystery that came with the upgrade. Previously I had 176K as a choice from the dropdown box in Rednet Control.
  
Now it is gone. 
  
I know that the RN3 did not support 176K but my D16 did previously.
  
If you have a D16 and upgraded do you see 176K as a choice in Rednet Control?


----------



## johnjen

Word back from Focusrite about the SR Follow issue on Mac.
  
 It seems that the mac version of DVS has an issue of some sort WRT working properly on Mac in Media Center.
  
 This issue has/will be passed along to Audante for evaluation etc.
 I also hope that this can lead to the correction of other minor but frustrating issues I'm seeing as well.
  
 Ah, the trails and tribulations of being an early adopter…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> Boy. Not sure how I missed this. So much for "on the fly" rate changing. I often switch between tracks on albums and seldom listen to a whole album straight through so I will probably not be jumping up to toggle the Antelope to match the current sample rate. Makes me long for a high quality "no hold barred" single chassis AOIP solution...
> 
> The good news is that everything sounds wonderful with just setting it all to 192K even though RedBook 44.1K should probably be overclocked at a multiple such as 176K.
> 
> ...And still much better than USB.




This is probably the key reason I'm waiting on the ref10. I'm hoping it does the sampling rate change. 



mourip said:


> [COLOR=1F497D]Ok. One more mystery that came with the upgrade. Previously I had 176K as a choice from the dropdown box in Rednet Control.[/COLOR]
> 
> [COLOR=1F497D]Now it is gone.[/COLOR]
> 
> ...




Wow. Seems the RN3 is really the likely better buy for most, then...


----------



## mourip

Well, I spend a some time trying to wrap my head around how this equipment now hangs together. I have Rednet D16 to Mutec MC3+ USB to DAC. An Antelope LiveClock connects to both the D16 and the Mutec to provide external wordclock. The Mutec re-samples whatever is sent to it.
  
 For some reason it never crossed my mind that the Antelope provided one rate at a time and did not change as the output rate of the music server changed. Since it is pro gear I guess that this makes sense as they probably choose one rate for a session and keep everything at that rate. What this means to me however is that even with the D16 now able to change rates then as JRiver sends different rate the Antelope must be manually changed to match. Compounding this problem is he discovery that for some reason 176K was dropped after applying the update. The only reason this really matters to me is that I found that upsampling from 44.1 to 176K sounded really great. I could do this manually however it is sort of a pain and needs to be done by using RDP to access the server which then causes Rednet Control to close.
  
 I have to admit that I am now a bit at a loss to see how to conveniently let JRiver determine the rate that the DAC finally sees. As I said before the good news is that if I set everything to 192K the sound is still wonderful.
  
 Any ideas, tips, or educational input will be gratefully received...


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I just set everything to 24/96 as my music is about 70% 24/96... no reclock or liveclock. Foobar 24/96 and hit play - enjoy. I also just set the 24/96 because it's all my system can handle at the moment until I get on a 5th or 6th gen i5/i7 boat. Until then I'll save the frustration for when my computer is capable and just enjoy the Rednet 3 by itself to the dac.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Well, I spend a some time trying to wrap my head around how this equipment now hangs together. I have Rednet D16 to Mutec MC3+ USB to DAC. An Antelope LiveClock connects to both the D16 and the Mutec to provide external wordclock. The Mutec re-samples whatever is sent to it.
> 
> For some reason it never crossed my mind that the Antelope provided one rate at a time and did not change as the output rate of the music server changed. Since it is pro gear I guess that this makes sense as they probably choose one rate for a session and keep everything at that rate. What this means to me however is that even with the D16 now able to change rates then as JRiver sends different rate the Antelope must be manually changed to match. Compounding this problem is he discovery that for some reason 176K was dropped after applying the update. The only reason this really matters to me is that I found that upsampling from 44.1 to 176K sounded really great. I could do this manually however it is sort of a pain and needs to be done by using RDP to access the server which then causes Rednet Control to close.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 My mind is kind of fuzzy but I could have sworn a few months ago (well before this update but not sure what version it was) not seeing 176K in my RedNet Control app (and beginning to panic) but instead seeing it and being able to set it in the Dante Controller instead.
  
 As far as the Antelope is concerned, not a big deal for me but I can see how it could confuse people because you will get playback whether you manually reset the sample rate or not. As you mentioned, most Pro studios likely set one rate per session and do not switch things  track by track. Perils of using Pro  gear.
  
 I know several people set Jriver to 192K and upsample everything. I tried that for a while but switched back and actually prefer using native sample rate with the Yggy.  Does upsampling everything bypass the Schiit Mega-Burrito Filter?


----------



## jazzfan

In researching my latency issue, I came across the following from the AES67 Config section of Audinate's _Dante Controller Users Guide_:
  
_For supported devices (Brooklyn II v3.9.x devices and up), the Device View also includes an AES67 Config tab. The AES67 Config tab allows the selection of AES67 mode for the device._
_AES67 is a standard for audio over IP interoperability._
_Devices in AES67 mode are able to transmit and receive AES67 multicast flows to/from non-Dante AES67- enabled devices._
_Between Dante devices, Dante's native audio transport protocol is used instead (even when AES67 is enabled for both devices)._
  
 Based on this information, I concluded the following:

The RedNet 3, being a Brooklyn I type device, does not support AES67.
Dante's native audio transport protocol (not AES67) is used for AoIP communication between the DVS and the RN3.
  
 Can someone correct me, if I've misstated anything?


----------



## gldgate

jazzfan said:


> In researching my latency issue, I came across the following from the AES67 Config section of Audinate's _Dante Controller Users Guide_:
> 
> _For supported devices (Brooklyn II v3.9.x devices and up), the Device View also includes an AES67 Config tab. The AES67 Config tab allows the selection of AES67 mode for the device._
> _AES67 is a standard for audio over IP interoperability._
> ...


 

 ​Correct. My understanding is your point #2 is also true for those with Brooklyn II (D16). The default setting is the Dante  transport protocol. However, for those with Brooklyn II they can switch to AES67 if they have a need (environment with mixed Ravenna and Dante gear for example)


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> My mind is kind of fuzzy but I could have sworn a few months ago (well before this update but not sure what version it was) not seeing 176K in my RedNet Control app (and beginning to panic) but instead seeing it and being able to set it in the Dante Controller instead.
> 
> As far as the Antelope is concerned, not a big deal for me but I can see how it could confuse people because you will get playback whether you manually reset the sample rate or not. As you mentioned, most Pro studios likely set one rate per session and do not switch things  track by track. Perils of using Pro  gear.
> 
> I know several people set Jriver to 192K and upsample everything. I tried that for a while but switched back and actually prefer using native sample rate with the Yggy.  Does upsampling everything bypass the Schiit Mega-Burrito Filter?


 
  
 You are right. I do see 176.4k listed in the Dante Controller app under Device view. If I choose it I am prompted with a warning that I will not be able to receive or send 192K however. Unfortunately I have a fair amount of 192K downloads now as that is my preference when available.
  
 You are also right about the setting on the Antelope being confusing as even with it set to 192K I still get music when SRC Follow is set and using a slower rate than 192K.
  
 Oh well. Such is the price of the bleeding edge...


----------



## rb2013

jazzfan said:


> In researching my latency issue, I came across the following from the AES67 Config section of Audinate's _Dante Controller Users Guide_:
> 
> _For supported devices (Brooklyn II v3.9.x devices and up), the Device View also includes an AES67 Config tab. The AES67 Config tab allows the selection of AES67 mode for the device._
> _AES67 is a standard for audio over IP interoperability._
> ...


 
 Yes you have that right.  The AES67 compatibility was later added to DANTE in the BK2 card.  For direct connection - that is PC>REDNET>DAC (or Mutec>DAC) this makes no difference. AoIP refers to AVB, AES67 and other protocols that use Ethernet packet audio (and video) delivery over a LAN.  Many proprietary systems came into existence for transporting high-quality audio over IP based on TCP, UDP or RTP,  So I refer to only AOIP, a term I coined here on this thread, meaning DANTE and RAVENNA - AES67 or not.  This is to avoid confusion when referencing these particular audio over internet protocols.
  
 AOIP AES67 is a new standard and as time progresses will allow new devices developed to 'speak' to each other over a LAN.  But at this stage the AES67 std is pretty minimal - such as needing to support only up to 96K SR's.  This is why the REDNET AM2 is included.  Ravenna which is AES67 compliant - far exceeded it's min std supporting SR up to 384K PCM and DSD.  DANTE has a 192K SR limit.
  
 Bottomline - no need for AES67 activation for a direct connection.
  


gldgate said:


> ​Correct. My understanding is your point #2 is also true for those with Brooklyn II (D16). The default setting is the Dante  transport protocol. However, for those with Brooklyn II they can switch to AES67 if they have a need (environment with mixed Ravenna and Dante gear for example)


 
 Correct.   But only interoperability to 96k SR is required to be AES67 compliant.


----------



## rb2013

Here is a great comparison matrix of the current AoIP protocols.
  
 Note only AES67, Dante, Ravenna, Q-LAN and UMAN use an 'IP' based protocol.  Livewire is now part of the AES67 collaboration.
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_network_protocols


----------



## jazzfan

gldgate said:


> Correct. My understanding is your point #2 is also true for those with Brooklyn II (D16). The default setting is the Dante  transport protocol. However, for those with Brooklyn II they can switch to AES67 if they have a need (environment with mixed Ravenna and Dante gear for example)


 
  
  


rb2013 said:


> Yes you have that right.  The AES67 compatibility was later added to DANTE in the BK2 card.  For direct connection - that is PC>REDNET>DAC (or Mutec>DAC) this makes no difference. AoIP refers to AVB, AES67 and other protocols that use Ethernet packet audio (and video) delivery over a LAN.  Many proprietary systems came into existence for transporting high-quality audio over IP based on TCP, UDP or RTP,  So I refer to only AOIP, a term I coined here on this thread, meaning DANTE and RAVENNA - AES67 or not.  This is to avoid confusion when referencing these particular audio over internet protocols.
> 
> AOIP AES67 is a new standard and as time progresses will allow new devices developed to 'speak' to each other over a LAN.  But at this stage the AES67 std is pretty minimal - such as needing to support only up to 96K SR's.  This is why the REDNET AM2 is included.  Ravenna which is AES67 compliant - far exceeded it's min std supporting SR up to 384K PCM and DSD.  DANTE has a 192K SR limit.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate your helpful responses.


----------



## johnjen

So I looked at the wave forms at the input power connector to the FMC (Fibre Media Converter) with both the stock SMPS wall wart and a $46 LPS (Linear Power Supply) from China.
  
 And while there are observable differences in ‘noise’ it is all ‘riding on top’ of the added’ noise’ that is being fed back into the power supply itself, by the active circuit under load (the FMC).
  
 Describing it would be much more problematic than showing pictures, but even that would be problematic, so I figured I’d measure the ‘static’ noise into a 25KΩ resistor and use that as a baseline set of measurements and then show what the scope displays.
  
 So I ignored the 9volts of dc and just looked at the amount and types of noise, of the ac signal riding on top of the 9vdc.
  
 The Tek scope I’m using (468) has 3 ways of measuring the peak to peak voltages, which are Norm, Average and Envelope.
  
 So here is a brief description of what they measure and why their numerical results are so different.
  
*Norm* is a short duration semi-frozen version of the waveform that shows the fast and more long term voltage spikes and hi-frequency noise.
*Average* is a sample of a medium time window view of the waveform that ignores ‘random’ voltages (the fast spikes), since it is looking for the average voltage (repetitive frequencies).
*Envelope* is a long term sample display of all of the voltages fast and slow, repetitive and random showing the sum total of all of it.
 And these measurements were made at low frequency sweeps so I’d see all of the low and the higher freqs as well.
  
 IOW the *Norm* is a fast snapshot of all of the voltages and frequencies including the spikes and fast transients but the displayed waveform is VERY dynamic and is constantly changing, faster than we can keep up with the flow of information.
 The *Average* slows down the pace of change and focuses on where most of the noise resides but tends to ignore the fast spikes and transients.
 The *Envelope* slows everything way down and shows all of everything in a cumulative display, but looses all the detail of the waveforms themselves, but it does show the maximal voltages.
  
 So these are the numbers from the ‘static’ (P-P) measurements.
                  SMPS        LPS        ≈ %        multiplier
 Norm         20mv        7.3mv      36%        x2.7
 Average     3.54mv    1.26mv     36%        x2.8
 Envelope   197mv     40mv        20%        x4.9
  
 IOW you could say that the LPS is from 3 to 5 times less noisy, at least in this set of tests.
  
 But that is only looking at peak to peak voltages and not the frequencies, nor the periodicity of this noise.
 Put another way it is giving us the amounts of noise as a voltage but not the ‘quality’ of the noise.
 That requires a personal evaluation and assessment, because there are no tests that directly relate a measurement of the noise to the SQ that results.
  
 So I listen for audible changes that result from using the LPS vs. the SMPS.
 And what I hear are SQ improvements very similar to those that the RN3 has made.
 Specifically there is an increase in focus, especially where 2 (or more) ‘voices’ share very similar sonic attributes, such as background vocals, duets, and massed instruments, etc.
 This increase in focus allows being able to differentiate between them and follow one or an other much more easily.
  
 Now granted the improvement of using the LPS vs the SMPS isn’t anywhere near the same magnitude as when the RN3 was introduced into my system.
 But that they exhibit nearly the same type of sonic improvement is telling in and of itself.
  
 So this is the power supply I used, it’s a cheapy…
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/External-Linear-Power-Supply-DC-for-CM6631-XMOS-DAC-USB-converter-led-display/131034415051?_trksid=p2047675.c100009.m1982&_trkparms=aid%3D888007%26algo%3DDISC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D38828%26meid%3D1c6ed440b70b4896ba764695308d87d3%26pid%3D100009%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D162096079417
  
 And it has massive over capacity compared to the power draw of the FMC, so it’s loafing along, even though the LPS is only rated at 1.66 amps.
  
 JJ


----------



## jelt2359

I see there's an upgraded Talema transformer version, have you tried that?
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Talema-transformer-External-Linear-Power-Supply-PSU-for-DAC-with-digital-display-/131737843438?ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> So I looked at the wave forms at the input power connector to the FMC (Fibre Media Converter) with both the stock SMPS wall wart and a $46 LPS (Linear Power Supply) from China.
> 
> And while there are observable differences in ‘noise’ it is all ‘riding on top’ of the added’ noise’ that is being fed back into the power supply itself, by the active circuit under load (the FMC).
> 
> ...


 

 Great post.  I would say the TeraDak DC-30W is a far superior Chinese LPS - R-Core transformer, better and more capacitors - they should have even lower noise.  I have taken the stock DC-30W and replaced the caps with Nichicon HW's for better performance.  The HW's have a 10,000 hr life, low impedance and high PSRR.  This is what I'm using to power the BURL B2 Bomber DAC/Dante board.


 I then added a iFi DC Purifier - which reduces the noise down by 300 to 100,000 times lower .  This filter plugs right on to the DC cable.  So with this combination - extremely low noise both on the DC and feeding back into the AC line.  This is the other major issue with SMPS's they feed a lot of high frequency noise back into the local AC grid.

  
  


> Ultra wide-band design, effective from 1Hz to above 5GHz
> iFi leaves no stone unturned; the DC iPurifier is a ground-up, ultra-wide band design.
> Effective from 1Hz all the way up to 5GHz. Crucially the strongest performance is in the audible range of 20Hz to 20KHz.


 
  
 On my FMC I used the cheaper TeraDak X1/X2 with the caps replaced with Nichicon HW's.  I heard an immediate improvement over the SMPS's.
  

  
 When i was using the REDNET 3 and Mutec MC-3+ USB - both with internal SMPS's I had them on a separate AC line isolator and filter from my DAC and a separate one for my PC (using a high PSRR Seasonic fanless PS).
  
 All of this attention to power isolation and filtering has yielded great sonic improvements - noted by a blacker noise floor, increased clarity and transparency, and greater detail.


----------



## johnjen

jelt2359 said:


> I see there's an upgraded Talema transformer version, have you tried that?
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Talema-transformer-External-Linear-Power-Supply-PSU-for-DAC-with-digital-display-/131737843438?ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT


 
 I saw that option but elected to go the low cost route instead, mostly to see how a 'bare bones' LPS would fair against a comparably priced SMPS.
 And the power rating for the 'enhanced' transformer goes up, which is also unnecessary, due to the low power draw of the FMC.
  
 And granted the SMPS wall wart that come stock with the FMC is way cheaper, but this was the cheapest LPS I could find.
 It's even cheaper than the ifi ipower wall wart.
  
 And it's interesting to note that the ifi ipower rates their 1µv noise rating only in the audio band, not broadband.
  
 I see this as a bit disingenuous seeing as how SMPS create noise well outside of the audio band (20-20KHz).
 And this LPS is being used to power a digital, not an analog circuit to begin with.
  
 All in all I'd say even a cheap LPS provides an audible improvement over a cheap SMPS, and probably not even a cheap SMPS at that.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> I saw that option but elected to go the low cost route instead, mostly to see how a 'bare bones' LPS would fair against a comparably priced SMPS.
> And the power rating for the 'enhanced' transformer goes up, which is also unnecessary, due to the low power draw of the FMC.
> 
> And granted the SMPS wall wart that come stock with the FMC is way cheaper, but this was the cheapest LPS I could find.
> ...


 
  
 I added fiber to my setup a week or so ago but started with it between my switch and my PC. My PC has two ethernet ports with one dedicated to DVS. I cannot say this made a difference.
  
 A couple of days ago I moved the two FMC's and the fiber connection to the link between my PC and my D16. This made a difference although it was subtle.
  
 This afternoon I replace the supplied SMPS to the FMC that is on the D16 end of the link with 9V from my HDPlex LPS. This made a noticeable positive difference, giving me a cleaner sound and more distinct instrument positioning.
  
 Thanks for letting us know about your own experimentation.


----------



## johnjen

My setup is very simple.
 My Mac Pro feeds my RN3 directly from it's 2nd ethernet port, and there is nothing else involved (except for the 2 FMC's inline between the Mac and the RN3).
 No switches, routers etc.
  
 The difference this setup makes, while close to the ToP (Threshold of Perceptibility ≈15%) was easily discernible in my system and the addition of the FMC and LPS bumps that ≈15% up to ≈20-25%.
  
 But numbers don't really tell the tale as in it's the sonic and acoustical changes that make for compelling differences.
 Being able to more easily differentiate 2 (or more) similar 'voices' from each other tells me that the timing of the reconstructed analog signal is closer to the original with less 'smearing', and more individuation of each 'voice'.
 This isn't something where numbers can be assigned, or be used to reveal such differences.
  
 Yes it's subtle or can be depending upon the systems overall degree of focus and inner and micro detail, and how familiar we are to these changes in our systems.
  
 This is really what these RedNet boxes are revealing, at least for me, is to be able to hear 'into' the music and pick out any voice and focus upon it enough to follow it independently of all the rest of the voices, no matter what else is going on, musically.
  
 That these FMC's and associated gear helps in this, is just more evidence of what is going on and what is 'important' in cleaning up the digital pathway from source to dac.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> When i was using the REDNET 3 and Mutec MC-3+ USB - both with internal SMPS's I had them on a separate AC line isolator and filter from my DAC and a separate one for my PC (using a high PSRR Seasonic fanless PS).
> 
> All of this attention to power isolation and filtering has yielded great sonic improvements - noted by a blacker noise floor, increased clarity and transparency, and greater detail.


 
  
 Speaking about "When I was using the Rednet 3" how about an update on your experience with the Burl B2 DAC with Dante.
  
 Where would you place the unmodified Burl with Dante on your DDC list?


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Speaking about "When I was using the Rednet 3" how about an update on your experience with the Burl B2 DAC with Dante.
> 
> Where would you place the unmodified Burl with Dante on your DDC list?


 

 I really wish I could say more right now. 
  
 When I have started many of my threads - speaking about major audio finds - I initially received outright dismissal and often scathing and unfair flame attacks.  Sometimes personal - accusing me of 'hyping' some of the audio stuff I found. 
  
 Since generally these were either previously completely undiscovered , like the Russian vintage 6N23P tubes I referred to as my 'Holy Grail' tube http://www.head-fi.org/t/761078/6922-tube-review-17-top-6922-6n23p-e88cc-cca-7308-e188cc-tubes.  Or cutting edge computer audio stuff like the Singxer F-1 http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived. 
  
 And of course this thread  - much of these battles were deleted and at times I have been banned (still banned from the Lyr Tube thread where I first started posting about the Russian tubes to great early rebuke) and then reinstated.  Many of the attacks were from members of the audio industry - so had strong credibility - funny one of those from my old Gustard U12 thread days (leading to that thread being locked) - is now in the audio business SELLING F-1's and SU-1's and promoting them on my XU208 thread!  How we've come full circle...
  
 But time has proven my findings legitimate and they have all gathered a popular following.  This only came after a long period and others eventually trying these audio finds and reporting good results.  So giving me credibility.  But the battles were unnecessary and not good for anyone, least of all me.
  
 I'm a bit smarter now...so I'm going to do this BURL thing differently.  I will not post about it (other then to say I HAVE sold my REDNET and Mutec - that you can see from the closed classifieds - so you can make your own assumptions about the SQ of the BURL/Dante post mods). So no possibility of accusations of me 'hyping' anything.
  
 Do this guerrilla style.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> I'm a bit smarter now...so I'm going to do this BURL thing differently.  I will not post about it (other then to say I HAVE sold my REDNET and Mutec - that you can see from the closed classifieds - so you can make your own assumptions about the SQ of the BURL/Dante post mods). So no possibility of accusations of me 'hyping' anything.


 
  
 That's a shame. I for one would really like to hear more about the Burl B2 Bomber DAC with Dante. And as you have a number of reference points to compare it to, you are in a good position and it would be useful to hear more. But up to you of course...


----------



## InsanityOne

occamsrazor said:


> That's a shame. I for one would really like to hear more about the Burl B2 Bomber DAC with Dante. And as you have a number of reference points to compare it to, you are in a good position and it would be useful to hear more. But up to you of course...


 
 I agree, if just buying the Burl B2 does the trick so that one does not need to buy any other components (RN3, Mutec, Etc.) then that would be a really great cost savings to share with fellow Head-Fi'ers that are interested in this topic of "getting the best audio from your PC".
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> That's a shame. I for one would really like to hear more about the Burl B2 Bomber DAC with Dante. And as you have a number of reference points to compare it to, you are in a good position and it would be useful to hear more. But up to you of course...


 
 I want to flesh out the mods first - I will get to post about it at some point.  I just hope that BURL keeps making them. 
  


insanityone said:


> I agree, if just buying the Burl B2 does the trick so that one does not need to buy any other components (RN3, Mutec, Etc.) then that would be a really great cost savings to share with fellow Head-Fi'ers that are interested in this topic of "getting the best audio from your PC".
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
 Well you are right the BURL DAC plus a DANTE card is around $2700 - the RN3+Mutec is around $2200 - that is without the DAC.  Then factor in a decent SPDIF or AES cable so maybe you're between $2400-$2600 (unless you want to connect these multi $K boxes with a $50 cable - whatever works for you.  My experience is that the SPDIF/AES cable does make a significant difference).  Add in another decent BNC/AES cable between the RN3 and the Mutec...it all adds up.  Upgraded power cables - you need three for the RN/Mutec/DAC - versus one for the BURL,etc...
  
 If the RN D16 is chosen then you are well past the BURL cost before adding in the DAC...


----------



## occamsrazor

The main disadvantages I see with the Burl for home use are:
  
 - Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.
  
 - For those who like a DAC/Pre combined unit, the Burl doesn't have volume control.


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Well you are right the BURL DAC plus a DANTE card is around $2700 - the RN3+Mutec is around $2200 - that is without the DAC.  Then factor in a decent SPDIF or AES cable so maybe you're between $2400-$2600 (unless you want to connect these multi $K boxes with a $50 cable - whatever works for you.  My experience is that the SPDIF/AES cable does make a significant difference).  Add in another decent BNC/AES cable between the RN3 and the Mutec...it all adds up.  Upgraded power cables - you need three for the RN/Mutec/DAC - versus one for the BURL,etc...
> 
> If the RN D16 is chosen then you are well past the BURL cost before adding in the DAC...


 
  
 Indeed, you are right. The price of having a RedNet chain versus just the Burl is significantly higher. But just to be clear, the $999 Focusrite RedNet PCIe network card is recommend / required now? Or for users like me who have a high-end motherboard with multiple NICs, can we just stick to using the virtual soundcard software? I have not heard any definitive comments on if the Focusrite PCIe card adds a significant performance increase over an quality Intel NIC or not.
  
 Also, another thing to take into account that I didn't think of earlier is whether or not the Burl benefits from an external WCLK (like the RN3 / D16 and the Mutec) which would also significantly increase the price, unless of course the internal clock on the Burl does not benefit from an external clock.
  
 Edit: Another thing I noticed is that when looking at the Burl B2 DAC on Sweetwater, the photos must be of an older model because none of the inputs are the same and there is definitely not an Ethernet / Dante port on the back. If you bought yours from Sweetwater was it the newer model?
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## jazzfan

iving said:


> Update on RedNet > Yggdrasil direct via spdif failure by way of information summary referring to my post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668123 and this reply: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/555#post_12668224 ...
> 
> Known user instances of RedNet " DAC via spdif(coax/Phono=RCA) *OK*
> 
> ...


 
  
 I just realized my Yggy is a victim of this issue as well. I started a product page for the RedNet 3 here, and I added a Guide section to document these issues.
  
 If anyone is aware of a fix from Focusrite, please fell free to update the _Troubleshooting/Known Issues_ section in the new RedNet 3 Guide.
  
 Thanks!


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> The main disadvantages I see with the Burl for home use are:
> 
> - Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.
> 
> - For those who like a DAC/Pre combined unit, the Burl doesn't have volume control.


True on both counts.


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Indeed, you are right. The price of having a RedNet chain versus just the Burl is significantly higher. But just to be clear, the $999 Focusrite RedNet PCIe network card is recommend / required now? Or for users like me who have a high-end motherboard with multiple NICs, can we just stick to using the virtual soundcard software? I have not heard any definitive comments on if the Focusrite PCIe card adds a significant performance increase over an quality Intel NIC or not.
> 
> Also, another thing to take into account that I didn't think of earlier is whether or not the Burl benefits from an external WCLK (like the RN3 / D16 and the Mutec) which would also significantly increase the price, unless of course the internal clock on the Burl does not benefit from an external clock.
> 
> ...


Good questions. I doubt a $1000 Rednet PCIe card is worth the money, certainly a slightly lower latency over DVS. I would recommend a newer and powerful PC for running DVS. I use a Haswell iCore 7/WIN10 with lots of memory. 

On the external clock issue, the costs I mentioned above did not factor in an external OCXO clock for the Rednet chain. That would be an add-on for either path. The Mutec I referred to was for AES/Spdif reclocking, not needed in the BURL. The BURL bypasses the need for connecting by AES or Spdif coax, as the Dante Brooklyn II card is directly connected on the board.

I bought the Dante version of the BURL, it is sightly more expensive. The nonDante version is not convertible as far as I'm aware.

I hope one day every DAC has a mini PCIe Dante slot on it's board.


----------



## mourip

insanityone said:


> Edit: Another thing I noticed is that when looking at the Burl B2 DAC on Sweetwater, the photos must be of an older model because none of the inputs are the same and there is definitely not an Ethernet / Dante port on the back. If you bought yours from Sweetwater was it the newer model?


 
  
 I contacted Sweetwater as I was considering trying the Burl in my headphone rig. They do not have the Dante version yet but Aric from Sweetwater emailed me to say that he has pricing now. I missed him today but hope to have more information tomorrow. The newer version has an obvious ethernet port in the rear panel.
  
 I love the D16 in my speaker setup but I tallied up the dollar damage yesterday and realized that I had a bundle invested inbetween my PC and my DAC: D16 + Mutec USB + Antelope LiveClock + cables. This is the reason that I am so curious to find out where the stock Burl fits in "The Big List" and how much is needed to modify it to surpass what I have.
  
 The other issue is that I really like my Yggy which I currently use in my HP rig with just a D16 and no other add-ons so the Burl would need to beat it. Too many unknowns for me to take the plunge yet.


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Good questions. I doubt a $1000 Rednet PCIe card is worth the money, certainly a slightly lower latency over DVS. I would recommend a newer and powerful PC for running DVS. I use a Haswell iCore 7/WIN10 with lots of memory.
> 
> On the external clock issue, the costs I mentioned above did not factor in an external OCXO clock for the Rednet chain. That would be an add-on for either path. The Mutec I referred to was for AES/Spdif reclocking, not needed in the BURL. The BURL bypasses the need for connecting by AES or Spdif coax, as the Dante Brooklyn II card is directly connected on the board.
> 
> ...


 
 Some very good information here. I will be patiently awaiting your thread on the Dante version of the Burl B2 Bomber DAC and its modifications. I truly believe that it could be _the "_end-game" DAC until another technology comes along that is even better than Dante, (If that ever happens.) I just find the idea of a simplified audio chain so appealing. Just running three devices, a PC, a DAC, and an amp, but still getting the very best audio reproduction possible.
  
  


mourip said:


> I contacted Sweetwater as I was considering trying the Burl in my headphone rig. They do not have the Dante version yet but Aric from Sweetwater emailed me to say that he has pricing now. I missed him today but hope to have more information tomorrow. The newer version has an obvious ethernet port in the rear panel.
> 
> I love the D16 in my speaker setup but I tallied up the dollar damage yesterday and realized that I had a bundle invested inbetween my PC and my DAC: D16 + Mutec USB + Antelope LiveClock + cables. This is the reason that I am so curious to find out where the stock Burl fits in "The Big List" and how much is needed to modify it to surpass what I have.
> 
> The other issue is that I really like my Yggy which I currently use in my HP rig with just a D16 and no other add-ons so the Burl would need to beat it. Too many unknowns for me to take the plunge yet.


 
  
 Thanks for posting this, be sure to let every one know when you find out about the pricing / availability of the Dante equipped B2 Bomber DAC from Sweetwater. I am _very _curious to find out where the modified Burl B2 fits into "the big list" too. I am hoping it sits right at the top! As for the Burl B2 vs. the Yggy, the overall sound may come down to personal preference, but for me it is no contest because of Dante and the lack of a need for extra devices like Mutec, LiveClock, etc. with the Burl B2.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## jabbr

jazzfan said:


> I just realized my Yggy is a victim of this issue as well. I started a product page for the RedNet 3 here, and I added a Guide section to document these issues.
> 
> If anyone is aware of a fix from Focusrite, please fell free to update the _Troubleshooting/Known Issues_ section in the new RedNet 3 Guide.
> 
> Thanks!




It is not a Focusrite issue but an Yggy issue. 
Schiit used off-spec SPDIF connectors (50 Ohm instead of 75 Ohm) for a batch of Yggy's. You should send your Yggy back to Schiit and have it fixed.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Good questions. I doubt a $1000 Rednet PCIe card is worth the money, certainly a slightly lower latency over DVS.
> 
> ...




Don't get hung up on this Dante latency as it is irrelevant imho, for how we use the Rednets.

This Dante latency is only important where multiple Dante chains are used in parallel and need to in-sync.
This Dante latency is the latency between the Dante source device and the Dante receiver device. When using multiple receivers you can imagine how different latencies in each of the chains can have an effect. Dante protocol makes sure all chains remain in sync by applying the longest latency to all the chains.

When using a single chain like we do, it is not too relevant how long a Dante latency is when kept in reasonable margins and it will have no effect on the sound result, except when it becomes too long for the buffer size/sample rate and dropouts will occur. This situation causing dropouts is then a network issue and not so much an issue of DVS vs PCIe-card. I can imagine that with bad network configuration and management you can create dropouts with a PCIe-card as well.

The main features of the PCIe-card is that it supports 128 channels and has 3usec latency, both of which are not particularly useful for us.


----------



## johnjen

What he said^^^^^
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

Update on the Focusrite/Audinate DVS on Mac behavioral 'quirks'.
  
 Since DVS is an Audinate program they are now 'looking into it' along with Focusrite and Jriver.
  
 There are additional behavioral quirks I've been noticing in Media Center that may or may not be related to the Dante network, but I added this additional layer as well just in case they are related.
  
 I have no idea how long it will take Audinate to come back with a response.
  
 And I also raised the issue about the persistence of the Sample Rate Follow feature on Mac and how it differs from the pc.
 They are sending this up the chain of command to see what can be done…
 It would be nice if they were able to arrive at a 'set and forget' function instead of having to run RedNet Control all the time…
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

jazzfan said:


> I just realized my Yggy is a victim of this issue as well.


 
  


jabbr said:


> It is not a Focusrite issue but an Yggy issue.
> Schiit used off-spec SPDIF connectors (50 Ohm instead of 75 Ohm) for a batch of Yggy's. You should send your Yggy back to Schiit and have it fixed.


 
  
 Just to point out that atomicbob's interesting findings (red cells in quoted post) re RedNet/Yggy failure (ostensibly because of obedience to a Copy Prohibited flag) via spdif *RCA/Coax* and BNC (not AES/XLR which is unaffected) got confounded with the eventual discovery that the spdif *RCA/Coax* input (not AES/XLR and don't know about BNC) of my new Yggy was faulty per se (and it got returned - I now use a Convert-2 like @mhamel). gldgate also experienced RedNet/Yggy failure via RCA presumably without the same fault; however, I'm not sure to what extent we established that Yggy always baulks at RedNet via RCA/BNC - since **Focusrite benchtested with a demo Yggy via RCA (not my faulty one) and asserted firmly that it worked**. (This being so it is unlikely that Focusrite will pursue the *putative* Yggy communication failure with any vigour at all.)


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> everything sounds wonderful with just setting it all to 192K even though RedBook 44.1K should probably be overclocked at a multiple such as 176K.


 
  


mourip said:


> Ok. One more mystery that came with the upgrade. Previously I had 176K as a choice from the dropdown box in Rednet Control.
> 
> Now it is gone.
> 
> ...


 
  


mourip said:


> if I set everything to 192K the sound is still wonderful.


 
  


gldgate said:


> not seeing 176K in my RedNet Control app (and beginning to panic) but instead seeing it and being able to set it in the Dante Controller instead.


 
  


mourip said:


> You are right. I do see 176.4k listed in the Dante Controller app under Device view.


 
  
 Yes - on the D16 AES (but not the RedNet 3 I understand) 176 is available in Dante Controller not RedNet Control. It is easy to (Upsample) x4 redbook in foobar (Sox) and make it work. My head told me it should be better than 192 (maths etc). But I changed back thinking 192 fuller and more polished. But I am not yet convinced and will experiment further. I can't at the moment as my system is in a second phase of suspension - last time speaker repair - this time PC replacement. (And I haven't updated firmware lately.) Will try to remember to post back whether 176 trumps 192 for redbook. Would like to hear other views. Interested in the mojo not the smoothness!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Interesting on the Burl B2 DAC, that they chose to use strictly an smps instead of linear. Is the idea of linear power strictly audiophile? While the guys recording our music are using stepped power units?


----------



## occamsrazor

I'd love to see an updated Burl, let's call it the B3 - half-width case, Brooklyn II Dante, auto-sensing inputs, and DAC/PRE volume control.
 Yeah I know it'll never happen, but....


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> Update on the Focusrite/Audinate DVS on Mac behavioral 'quirks'.
> 
> Since DVS is an Audinate program they are now 'looking into it' along with Focusrite and Jriver.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a service request in for the Rednet Control issue also and it has been passed along to Focusrite UK.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Don't get hung up on this Dante latency as it is irrelevant imho, for how we use the Rednets.
> 
> This Dante latency is only important where multiple Dante chains are used in parallel and need to in-sync.
> This Dante latency is the latency between the Dante source device and the Dante receiver device. When using multiple receivers you can imagine how different latencies in each of the chains can have an effect. Dante protocol makes sure all chains remain in sync by applying the longest latency to all the chains.
> ...


 

 Oh not hung up on it at all.  I'm getting extremely low latency with DVS right now.  Using an Intel NIC that cost $50, never considered a RN PCIe - just answering a question someone asked.


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Some very good information here. I will be patiently awaiting your thread on the Dante version of the Burl B2 Bomber DAC and its modifications. I truly believe that it could be _the "_end-game" DAC until another technology comes along that is even better than Dante, (If that ever happens.) I just find the idea of a simplified audio chain so appealing. Just running three devices, a PC, a DAC, and an amp, but still getting the very best audio reproduction possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yes I agree.  Just want to say I compared the BURL with a AES and a SPDIF feed from the RN3/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as reclocker) to the built in Dante connection.  The difference in SQ was pretty significant.
  
 To beat my current totl DACs with the RN/Mutec combination - the BURL needs a PS change from SMPS to LPS, and some critical component upgrades.  We are working on trying a dual LPS configuration that would run separate LPS feeds for the digital and analog stages. 
  
 The Rednet responds very well to the Antelope OCX clock - as does the BURL but no where near the same degree after the PS and other mods.  In fact, the modded BURL may sound better running on it's internal clocks - the SQ is a bit more focused.  The BURL with 'clean' power is really a major step up in SQ.  This makes sense as the clocks on the Dante and BURL board are being fed much less noise.  These femto clocks are extremely sensitive to noise on the DC and ground plane.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> occamsrazor said:
> 
> 
> > The main disadvantages I see with the Burl for home use are:
> ...




With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.

When using an external word clock the Burl B2 will follow the sample rate of the external word clock. This opens opportunities to implement an auto-switching setup using an auto-switching word clock.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.
> 
> When using an external word clock the Burl B2 will follow the sample rate of the external word clock. This opens opportunities to implement an auto-switching setup using an auto-switching word clock.


 

 How would the ext clock know what SR to change to - if the BURL is not changing it's SR - and then syncing to it?  The BURL has a Wclock input  and output - but as a DAC it needs to be manually switched.  This is different with other DACs.  This I confirmed with the BURL technical people regarding the Dante version.  I suppose you could change the SR on the ext Wclock manually - but that then defeats the autoswitching I suppose.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 In any event this auto-switching thing is immaterial to me.  It's the vastly superior SQ of a built in Dante Brooklyn II card to a AES/SPDIF route, that I find most compelling.
  
 The known jitter on AES/SPDIF receivers is avoided. Better then I2S.


----------



## Clemmaster

The Focusrite 4Pre is at the same price, with dual Thunderbolt and a ****-ton of analog I/O (+ the Dante, of course).
  
 Was very interested in this one, but feel like paying for a ton of extra I don't need.
 If only the Burl had volume control...


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> jabbr said:
> 
> 
> > With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.
> ...




The 'trick' would be using the fact that it is all AOIP. One could set up a parallel chain with a second Dante device purely for detecting the SR and use the output of that as a signal into the auto-switching Word Clock to select the right SR and use that word clock as external word clock into the Burl B2.

I didn't say it is a 'neat' or cheap solution  But as I may be looking to buy a new DAC anyhow and am in the possesion of both a D16 and CC1, it is a setup I could try at some point.


But for me the main issue with the Burl B2 is that its output signal is a very high Pro-level output, while I have an extremely sensitive consumer level Pre-amp. I would likely need about 30dB attenuation to match the two. And what would that mean for the sound quality?? An expensive trial !!


----------



## jazzfan

jabbr said:


> It is not a Focusrite issue but an Yggy issue.
> Schiit used off-spec SPDIF connectors (50 Ohm instead of 75 Ohm) for a batch of Yggy's. You should send your Yggy back to Schiit and have it fixed.


 
  
 Yes, you're correct. There was an issue with the Yggy's BNC connectors, and I still haven't sent my Yggy back yet since I've not had a need to use BNC.
  
 The issue I'm experiencing, however, is with S/PDIF from the RCA output of the RN3. My Yggy refuses to recognize the signal from the RN3 via RCA coax. I also tested sending S/PDIF via RCA coax from the RN3 to two other DACs, an iFi micro iDSD and a Benchmark DAC1Pre. Both DACs worked which suggests the issue is related to the Yggy's ability to handle the S/PDIF data stream from the RN3.
  
 To further test the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input, I sent a S/PDIF signal from the iFi micro iDSD and this worked as well. So the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input appears to be functional given an acceptable signal.
  


iving said:


> Just to point out that atomicbob's interesting findings (red cells in quoted post) re RedNet/Yggy failure (ostensibly because of obedience to a Copy Prohibited flag) via spdif *RCA/Coax* and BNC (not AES/XLR which is unaffected) got confounded with the eventual discovery that the spdif *RCA/Coax* input (not AES/XLR and don't know about BNC) of my new Yggy was faulty per se (and it got returned - I now use a Convert-2 like @mhamel). gldgate also experienced RedNet/Yggy failure via RCA presumably without the same fault; however, I'm not sure to what extent we established that Yggy always baulks at RedNet via RCA/BNC - since **Focusrite benchtested with a demo Yggy via RCA (not my faulty one) and asserted firmly that it worked**. (This being so it is unlikely that Focusrite will pursue the *putative* Yggy communication failure with any vigour at all.)


 
  
 I believe the issue I'm seeing is in line with the issue surfaced by atomicbob because of the results of my tests as described in my response to jabbr.  If Focusrite decides not take action, I'll need to turn to Schiit for resolution of this problem.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The 'trick' would be using the fact that it is all AOIP. One could set up a parallel chain with a second Dante device purely for detecting the SR and use the output of that as a signal into the auto-switching Word Clock to select the right SR and use that word clock as external word clock into the Burl B2.
> 
> I didn't say it is a 'neat' or cheap solution
> 
> ...


 

 I think you are right with the new Dante Control release - have not tried it.  Funny in the BURL manual they don't show how the B2 DAC would act as the master with an ext clock.  They just show it as Slave to the B2 ADC with the ext clock - but then say all the devices must be set to the same SR in the Dante Control.  Generally in a studio setup the DAW would be the master and all other deviced slaved to it.
  
 Your pre-amp situation is rather unique.  Maybe time for a different one?


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ....
> Your pre-amp situation is rather unique.  Maybe time for a different one?




That would also require a new power amp because that relies on certain frequency 'filtering' performed by the pre-amp, and would make obsolete 3 power supplies to the power-/pre-amp combo. Costs: ca £22,000
Bit expensive just to change a pre-amp  and BTW I love its sound

So thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks


----------



## Iving

> Originally Posted by *jazzfan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> My Yggy refuses to recognize the signal from the RN3 via RCA coax ... To further test the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input, I sent a S/PDIF signal from the iFi micro iDSD and this worked as well. So the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input appears to be functional given an acceptable signal.


 
  
 Yes - it would appear that the RCA/Coax input to your Yggy is not faulty per se. Your problem is like gldgate's and seems to be explained by atomicbob's analyses; i.e, the Yggy (unlike the Gungnir) baulks at (or respects) the Copy Prohibited flag (unlike a number of "unfussy" DACs as can be determined reading the whole thread and from other user experiences). The caveat is Focusrite's very firm and repeated assertion that a demo Yggy works fine with a D16 AES via RCA/Coax on the bench. So there is a conundrum.
   
 Quote:


> If Focusrite decides not take action, I'll need to turn to Schiit for resolution of this problem.


 
  
 I dare say Focusrite will not decide not to take action! Good luck with Schiit.


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Yes I agree.  Just want to say I compared the BURL with a AES and a SPDIF feed from the RN3/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as reclocker) to the built in Dante connection.  The difference in SQ was pretty significant.
> 
> To beat my current totl DACs with the RN/Mutec combination - the BURL needs a PS change from SMPS to LPS, and some critical component upgrades.  We are working on trying a dual LPS configuration that would run separate LPS feeds for the digital and analog stages.
> 
> The Rednet responds very well to the Antelope OCX clock - as does the BURL but no where near the same degree after the PS and other mods.  In fact, the modded BURL may sound better running on it's internal clocks - the SQ is a bit more focused.  The BURL with 'clean' power is really a major step up in SQ.  This makes sense as the clocks on the Dante and BURL board are being fed much less noise.  These femto clocks are extremely sensitive to noise on the DC and ground plane.


 
  
 Another good set of information here:
  

Wow that is very impressive to hear that a modified (or was this pre-modification?) Burl B2 was able to beat out an RN3 + Mutec MC-3+ Chain, but the less connections the better, so I am not surprised one bit by this outcome. 
Would the Burl B2 still require an SMPS to LPS (or dual, separate LPS) if you used it (un-modded) in conjunction with an upgraded power cable and a PS Audio P3 or a similar regeneration product? Or is it truly how the power is delivered / transported once inside of the B2 that makes a difference?
During my research on the Burl B2 I have discovered that it has absolutely zero capacitors or transformers. So, that does not leave many easy "critical parts" to upgrade. I would assume that you upgraded the fuse, but what other parts are lacking within the B2?
I find it very interesting that you think the B2 sounds better (or very close to the same) without the use of an "upgraded" external WCLK. That is another very significant cost savings versus a RedNet / Mutec chain.
  
 Thanks again for your very insightful comments!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## joelha

This is a question I've wanted to ask for a while.

I've read that one of the issues with traditional digital audio playback (PC’s and cd players for example) is that the data is processed in real time, not allowing for corrections. Typically computers, when they detect that a packet isn’t accurate, go back and get the packet again until it gets the correct data.

Is one of the benefits of using Dante/Focusrite products that we’re now getting the same “go back and get the correct data packet” benefits of general computing?

In addition to great electrical isolation, is that one of the reasons the sound of this system is so good?

I’m not a technical guy (which to some might be obvious by now), so please do correct anything I’ve mis-stated.

Thanks,

Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> This is a question I've wanted to ask for a while.
> 
> I've read that one of the issues with traditional digital audio playback (PC’s and cd players for example) is that the data is processed in real time, not allowing for corrections. Typically computers, when they detect that a packet isn’t accurate, go back and get the packet again until it gets the correct data.
> 
> ...


Yes the IP protocol, I believe called RTP does have error correction. Unlike some USB audio protocols. And yes AOIP offers Ethernet's inherent galvanic isolation.


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Yes the IP protocol, I believe called RTP does have error correction. Unlike some USB audio protocols. And yes AOIP offers Ethernet's inherent galvanic isolation.




Thanks Rob.

So I have to wonder how much of what we're all hearing is due to error correction?

I ask because in the past, I've seen how different ethernet cables and even ethernet to optical devices can improve the sound.

Joel


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Another good set of information here:
> 
> 
> Wow that is very impressive to hear that a modified (or was this pre-modification?) Burl B2 was able to beat out an RN3 + Mutec MC-3+ Chain, but the less connections the better, so I am not surprised one bit by this outcome.
> ...




Ok - well to your questions:

1) The stock BURL power supply - just like the Rednet and Mutec boxes - is a SMPS (Switching Mode Power Supply). These when well designed can be quite good - but due to the switching - create high frequency noise. A well designed LPS (linear power supply) would produce orders of magnitude less noise - both in the system and back into the AC line. Someone recently did some measurements and posted them here on the noise levels of a very inexpensive Chinese LPS vs the stock SMPS. The BURL with it's stock PS is very good (read the stellar reviews - and the reviews were before the DANTE version became available), but is really at a whole new level with a decent LPS. Remember this cleaner power is feeding the BURL digital section, analog section and the Dante BK2 card. So three birds killed with one LPS - I have not yet had a chance to try it with a really fine LPS like the Paul Hynes SR3 or Uptone JS-2. I hope to in the near future.

2) Although AC line filtering is important (I use a two stage chain - an Audience R1p and a Art Audio PB 4X4Pro), it will not change a SMPS into a LPS at the device level. If you have SMPS's in your system - you would be well advised to isolate them from your DAC.

3)You are correct in the analog section of the BURL they use discrete opamps without coupling capacitors or transformers - a very direct signal path. But that is only in the analog section - there are many components that benefit from upgrading. I won't go into any detail here - but just take my word the benefits are cumulative and substantial.

4)Yes the DAC, Dante board and digital section all have sensitive femto clocks - these are highly sensitive to SMPS noise. Reducing the DC power and ground plane noise to negligible levels is a huge benefit.

Our goal is to take the BURL to world class levels of performance - at real world costs. Remember against almost all DACs it has a huge advantage -a board level- AOIP Dante as it's computer interface. This is a far superior audio protocol over USB and UpNP/DLNA - and without the limitations and jitter of a AES/SPDIF conversion/delivery of AOIP to the DAC.

This project has far exceeded my expectations for SQ. But this is only the beginning - much trial and error to go.

Exciting times for audio.

Cheers


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Ok - well to your questions:
> 
> 1) The stock BURL power supply - just like the Rednet and Mutec boxes - is a SMPS (Switching Mode Power Supply). These when well designed can be quite good - but due to the switching - create high frequency noise. A well designed LPS (linear power supply) would produce orders of magnitude less noise - both in the system and back into the AC line. Someone recently did some measurements and posted them here on the noise levels of a very inexpensive Chinese LPS vs the stock SMPS. The BURL with it's stock PS is very good (read the stellar reviews - and the reviews were before the DANTE version became available), but is really at a whole new level with a decent LPS. Remember this cleaner power is feeding the BURL digital section, analog section and the Dante BK2 card. So three birds killed with one LPS - I have not yet had a chance to try it with a really fine LPS like the Paul Hynes SR3 or Uptone JS-2. I hope to in the near future.
> 
> ...




Thanks for catching us up. I think that you will find those of us who still follow this thread to be eager and supportive.

I read CA these days and find folks going around and around about the same old topics. Not a lot of true innovation there right now and way too much contention.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Thanks for catching us up. I think that you will find those of us who still follow this thread to be eager and supportive.
> 
> I read CA these days and find folks going around and around about the same old topics. Not a lot of true innovation there right now and way too much contention.


I wonder when the Chinese manufacturers will get on board the Dante express?


----------



## Clemmaster

I suggested to Schiit to make a AES-67 expansion card for the Jotunheim. Hope they go that route!


----------



## InsanityOne

clemmaster said:


> I suggested to Schiit to make a AES-67 expansion card for the Jotunheim. Hope they go that route!


 
 I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
  
 Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
> 
> Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 

 Or at least put the slot on the board - so folks could add the Dante card immediately or down the road.  Like what BURL has done.
  
 One other note of interest on the BURL DAC is has the option of not only an ext Wclock - but has the option of taking the clock from the Dante board.
  
 We are looking at the possibility of upgrading that clock to a better one that the DAC could also use.


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Or at least put the slot on the board - so folks could add the Dante card immediately or down the road.  Like what BURL has done.
> 
> One other note of interest on the BURL DAC is has the option of not only an ext Wclock - but has the option of taking the clock from the Dante board.
> 
> *We are looking at the possibility of upgrading that clock to a better one that the DAC could also use.*


 
  
 Hey now that is a cool idea. Speaking of all these modifications to the Burl, is there any chance at all that someone like me (who has never soldered in their life) could perhaps pay someone to do all of these mods to a Burl B2 when everything is all tested and "standardized"?
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## Clemmaster

insanityone said:


> I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
> 
> Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
 I'm not talking about Dante, but AES-67.
 If it's widely adopted you can be sure people like X-MOS will have a dedicated chip for it that doesn't take so much space...


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Hey now that is a cool idea. Speaking of all these modifications to the Burl, is there any chance at all that someone like me (who has never soldered in their life) could perhaps pay someone to do all of these mods to a Burl B2 when everything is all tested and "standardized"?
> 
> - InsanityOne


 

 Well I'm hoping that would be the case - I have someone who is very skilled in electronics - and I have done some modding myself.
  
 Of course we could wake up one morning and see a turnkey $800 Chinese DAC with AOIP built in.


----------



## gldgate

clemmaster said:


> I'm not talking about Dante, but AES-67.
> If it's widely adopted you can be sure people like X-MOS will have a dedicated chip for it that doesn't take so much space...


 
  
 One thing I'm not sure about (not many data points) is how generic AES-67 implementation compares to Dante. How much of the sq benefit is AOIP in general vs something unique to Dante? I'm following the thread by Torq (he's comparing a boat load of DAC's vs the Yggy) and he was not exactly bowled over by the nearly $10K NADAC.


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Well I'm hoping that would be the case - I have someone who is very skilled in electronics - and I have done some modding myself.
> 
> Of course we could wake up one morning and see a turnkey *$800 Chinese DAC with AOIP built in.*


 
  
 I am glad that you hope to offer a "modding service" so to speak. But, being an American there is just something about the "made in the USA" factor of the Burl that makes me want to buy it. Plus the B2 has already proven itself several times over in the professional world, unless someone could prove that this Chinese DAC could stomp the B2 in terms of sound quality, I would stick with the B2 personally!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> One thing I'm not sure about (not many data points) is how generic AES-67 implementation compares to Dante. How much of the sq benefit is AOIP in general vs something unique to Dante? I'm following the thread by Torq (he's comparing a boat load of DAC's vs the Yggy) and he was not exactly bowled over by the nearly $10K NADAC.


 

 Good point - there is no stand alone reasonably priced Ravenna (the AOIP version of AES67 in the NADAC).  So it's difficult to compare Ravenna to Dante in a audiophile application using one's own DAC.   The upcoming Mivera Audio Superstream Pro (will implement Ravenna AOIP) should allow that comparison.
  
 There is no 'generic' AES67 implementation per se.  Remember AES67 is a compatibility standard - much  like AES - so that devices can work together on a LAN in a studio, or at a concert for example.  Both Ravenna and Dante far exceed AES67's current min SR std of 96k.  I guess Audinate's Optimo might be considered a bare bones version of Dante that meets this min std.  Have not heard anyone comment on the Rednet AM2 - this device uses the Dante Optimo chip version versus Audinates Dante Brooklyn I or II cards.
  
 The NADAC is ridiculously overpriced - and unfortunately uses those ESS Sabre DAC chips. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Talk about not much there - here are some NADAC board shots.  Could not find a clock crystal?  Just uses a PLL from the FPGA?
  
 SMPS power supply as well.  Looks like the just took a Horus card and ran some cables to the ext socket on the case - then added in a DAC board with what looks like ES9008's
  
 Not impressive to me.


----------



## cursto

Okay... the madness continues!
 I have had a Rednet 3 for awhile now (love the sound quality). The posts here about external clocking piqued my interests, so today the UPS lady brought my latest box to add to my growing list of "audio devices". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My name is cursto, and I am an addict. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  I am now running a Rosendahl Nanosyncs master clock into an Antelope Audio Isocrone DA (removes jitter and reclocks word clock signal and distributes it to other digital boxes) via BNC 75ohm cable. The Antelope is going into my Rednet 3 and a separate cable carries the identical word clock signal from the Antelope into my DAC via word clock in connector. 
 Yes, folks,,,  I have completely gone off the deep end! Bonkers, nut job, wacko audiophile crazy.
  
 BUT... the sound I am getting from my computer!!!    When I got everything hooked up and turned my system on this afternoon, HOLY SHEET. 
 I have heard for years that one does not need an external master clock for digital, it will only degrade the sound quality, better off clocking internally from your converters, it is only a perceived improvement yada yada yada. So I was skeptical, but took the plunge. If anyone tells you that external clocking does not make your system sound better, well they have not witnessed the sounds emanating from my laptop.
  
 What struck me immediately was the solidity and placement of images. The combination of clocking I got going on digs DEEP into the recording and brings forth stuff I did not know was there. Cymbals are exquisite!  Not painful to listen to like early digital. The reverb trails blow my mind. And the bass. I did not know my monitors were capable of producing that tight satisfying low frequency. I'll stop here before I start to sound like one of those writers for audio publications that tell you $50,000 turntables and $12,000 speaker cables are necessary for audio nirvana.
  
 But, trust me on this. I have been playing around with stereo components for over 30 years and I dare not speak a dollar figure that I have spent chasing the proverbial "you are there" audio presentation in your listening room. I have NEVER heard audio this incredible coming from a pair of stereo monitors. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Gobsmacked!


----------



## johnjen

Yeah it kinda gets you right in the head, don't it?
  
 JJ


----------



## enginedr

Welcome to the extreme clocking club . to make you feel better you are not alone . I have a RN-3 , Mutec MC + USB and a Antelope Live clock 
 As you can say I got my clock cleaned . My Metrum Octave DAC sounds great , Clarity, detail , dynamics  and smooth all in one


----------



## jabbr

clemmaster said:


> I'm not talking about Dante, but AES-67.
> If it's widely adopted you can be sure people like X-MOS will have a dedicated chip for it that doesn't take so much space...




AES67 is just an INTEROPERABILITY protocol. It is *not a full*l AOIP implementation. So it allows two devices that use different brand-specific AOIP protocols to communicate with each other.

For us consumer audiophiles there only two AOIP protocols that have any use, that is DANTE and RAVENNA.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ... The upcoming Mivera Audio Superstream Pro (will implement Ravenna AOIP) should allow that comparison.
> 
> ...




I don't know if there will be any comparing with Mivera Audio.
Mivera Audio is going to be a 100% closed brand system. The PureStream Pro DAC will require the SuperStream Pro Ravenna streamer to get its signal from and the wordclock frequency used in that communication will very likely be a non-standard frequency, depending on the best quality crystals they can find. mike was talking about a 33.1MHz crystal.

Afaiu to use the Mivera Audio Pro components *everything* needs to be Mivera Audio. It is not an open topology, you will not even be able to use your own NAS, all music will have to be transfered onto an internal hard disc of the streamer/server.

I stopped following this brand, I don't like 100% closed systems that are 'the best design possible', ............. according to the designer. :rolleyes:


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I don't know if there will be any comparing with Mivera Audio.
> Mivera Audio is going to be a 100% closed brand system. The PureStream Pro DAC will require the SuperStream Pro Ravenna streamer to get its signal from and the wordclock frequency used in that communication will very likely be a non-standard frequency, depending on the best quality crystals they can find. mike was talking about a 33.1MHz crystal.
> 
> Afaiu to use the Mivera Audio Pro components *everything* needs to be Mivera Audio. It is not an open topology, you will not even be able to use your own NAS, all music will have to be transfered onto an internal hard disc of the streamer/server.
> ...


Thanks for info, too bad. I don't like closed end systems as well.

I've been lobbying BURL to include a AES output on their DAC. This could make it, once modded, a very universal totl audio multitool. A stand alone does it all AOIP box, a AOIP DDC like the RN3 and RN16, a DAC that accepts a AES/SPDIF input. All poweered by a high quality LPS.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Thanks for info, too bad. I don't like closed end systems as well.
> 
> I've been lobbying BURL to include a AES output on their DAC. This could make it, once modded, a very universal totl audio multitool. A stand alone does it all AOIP box, a AOIP DDC like the RN3 and RN16, a DAC that accepts a AES/SPDIF input. All poweered by a high quality LPS.




That makes an interesting multi-tool.

W.r.t. the issue of bridging the signal levels, I think I might contact Rothwell (maker of the attenuators) directly to see what they would recommend and perhaps they can make a more superior quality attenuator. 
Rothwell do custom made attenuators and because the Burl B2 requires pin-3 to be floated when converting to single ended (instead of connected to shield/ground as normal converters do), a custom made attenuator has to be made anyhow, so maybe they can do an upgraded one.


----------



## rb2013

cursto said:


> Okay... the madness continues!
> I have had a Rednet 3 for awhile now (love the sound quality). The posts here about external clocking piqued my interests, so today the UPS lady brought my latest box to add to my growing list of "audio devices".
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Welcome to the Asylum - my Avatar was chosen for a good reason.
  
 I would try the DA as a AES/SPDIF reclocker after the REDNET (and maybe as Wclock input as well), it may very well be superior to the Mutec as a AES/SPDIF reclocker.  Many positive reviews on CA as a reclocker.  The Rosendahl should suffice on it's own as a Wclock in  - 12ps jitter is pretty good.  Is that an OXCO crystal inside?
  
 Are you using the DB25 to AES output on the Rednet 3?  Give that a try if not.
  
 Since I've sold my Rednet 3 I have a custom made DB25 ot AES cable available - was going to list it in the classifieds.  PM me for details - it not the prettiest cable on the block - but is sure sounded good.


----------



## mourip

cursto said:


> Okay... the madness continues!
> I have had a Rednet 3 for awhile now (love the sound quality). The posts here about external clocking piqued my interests, so today the UPS lady brought my latest box to add to my growing list of "audio devices".
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Hi Cursto.
  
 My name is mourip(Paul) and I am an addict... so I cannot help you.
  
 I have the same experience from a similar setup. I am also in the same place in that I am hesitant to describe the improvements as I am afraid that I will lose credibility. I believe that Rob has experience with this also 
  
 I have a D16 to Mutec MC3+ USB, both word clocked by an Antelope LiveClock. I use fiber between the D16 and the PC. I have not tried a master clock yet as I am waiting for the wound to heal on my Visa card. I made the mistake last week of adding up how much I had invested between my PC and my DAC. It was not pretty but I would do it again...


----------



## cursto

Yes, I am sending digital using a solid silver AES/EBU cable going from db25 connector on Rednet to db25 connector on D/A converter.
  

  
 This is a pic of my control tower, errrrr  listening room last night.


----------



## rb2013

cursto said:


> Yes, I am sending digital using a solid silver AES/EBU cable going from db25 connector on Rednet to db25 connector on D/A converter.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a pic of my control tower, errrrr  listening room last night.


 

 So many pretty lights!  They were to much for me (the Mutec is especially colorful with four different LED colors - I actually taped over most of them.  Just so wifey didn't get to courious.
  
 You know how the ladies are attracted to Bling.
  
 Good deal on the DB25>AES - I'll post up on the classifieds.  Have an Oyaide silver BNC for Wclock connections available as well.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> So many pretty lights!  They were to much for me (the Mutec is especially colorful with four different LED colors - I actually taped over most of them.  Just so wifey didn't get to courious.
> 
> You know how the ladies are attracted to Bling.
> 
> Good deal on the DB25>AES - I'll post up on the classifieds.  Have an Oyaide silver BNC for Wclock connections available as well.


 

 You can turn off all the lights on the Mutec except "Power" and "Lock". Hold the menu and select buttons down at the same time.
  


> Front Panel lock out + LED shut down
> When pressing both front panel keys together at one time, all LEDs will shut down except the »POWER« and »LOCK« LEDs.
> Additionally, the functions of both keys are also blocked to prevent unauthorized operation, which is important during e.g. live
> events.
> ...


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> You can turn off all the lights on the Mutec except "Power" and "Lock". Hold the menu and select buttons down at the same time.


 

 Well now you tell me!  Just kidding - actually I hid the Mutec when I had it behind a wooden box it's the Rednet that's hard to hide
 .
  
 But both are gone now.


----------



## mourip

Question.
  
 So I have JRMC set to upsample everything using SoX to 192K, my Antelope wordclock set to 192K, and Rednet Control set to 192K. Excellent sound. Best I have had in my home. Killer.
  
 So now I want to enable "sample rate following" using the new software and firmware for Dante Controller and the D16 which I have loaded.
  
 I set JMRC to leave everything at it's native rate, I set Dante Controller to sample rate follow and music plays. The jury is out on the quality but in experimenting it seems like if I set 44.1 to 176 it sounds the best of all. 
  
 Great ...except for one thing. The Antelope can only be set to one rate at a time and so does not follow.
  
 So I am confused. What is actually happening in my system by leaving the Antelope at 192K. My Yggy clicks and the lights change as different sample rates are played so sample rate following is actually working...but how when the Antelope does not follow?
  
 I am fine with the SQ fixed at 192K but I am so curious about how this is working...


----------



## JayNYC

Curious-- has anyone listened to the analog output of the RN1 or A8R in comparison with RN3/D16AES + Mutec + Antelope + some solid state known neutral sounding pro/audiophile DAC? 

RN1 / A8R analog output would not require 3 additional external boxes....

Am curious about the quality of the sound coming straight from the RN1 and A8R - would require DB25 to XLR snake.


----------



## jabbr

jaynyc said:


> Curious-- has anyone listened to the analog output of the RN1 or A8R in comparison with RN3/D16AES + Mutec + Antelope + some solid state known neutral sounding pro/audiophile DAC?
> 
> RN1 / A8R analog output would not require 3 additional external boxes....
> 
> Am curious about the quality of the sound coming straight from the RN1 and A8R - would require DB25 to XLR snake.


 
 Buy one of each and let us know!!


----------



## Tand2016

After 3 weeks burn-in the Rednet 16R and Mutec MC3 + USB truly devastates my old USB chain (Berkeley usb converter, 0.8 Curious/Regen+JS-2+/Curious link/3 x Jitterbugs). I compared the two again this weekend and it took 30 seconds-ish to comfirm I did the right thing getting the Rednet and Mutec. The speed of the transients is much faster, the USB chain sounded muffled and slow compared to the Rednet 16R/Mutec.
  
 I use a Synergistic Reasearch Tungsten/Cobber AC cable on my Mutec and an old gen Nordost on my Rednet. The Mutec responds better to the AC cable than the Rednet. I have both placed on a S.R. Tranquility Basic platform and the Mutec is connected to a S.R. Grounding Block with HD usb cable. The result is lower noise and better dynamic contrast. 
  
 I also use FMCs with the Rednet end connected to my JS-2 and a 1 foot Blue Jeans 6a ethernet to the Rednet.
  
 My AES cables are Shunyata Anaconda 1.5 meter and a Straight Wire InfoLink 1.5 meter. Both will be replaced with S.R. Atmosphere Level 3 AES 1.5 meters next week or so.
  
 The sound is so good now, I have been playing music 6 hours straight today .
  
 The bass boom I experienced earlier is completely gone. The burn-in time (and the Blue Jeans 6a cable) helped a lot I think.
  
 Tommy


----------



## rb2013

tand2016 said:


> After 3 weeks burn-in the Rednet 16R and Mutec MC3 + USB truly devastates my old USB chain (Berkeley usb converter, 0.8 Curious/Regen+JS-2+/Curious link/3 x Jitterbugs). I compared the two again this weekend and it took 30 seconds-ish to comfirm I did the right thing getting the Rednet and Mutec. The speed of the transients is much faster, the USB chain sounded muffled and slow compared to the Rednet 16R/Mutec.
> 
> I use a Synergistic Reasearch Tungsten/Cobber AC cable on my Mutec and an old gen Nordost on my Rednet. The Mutec responds better to the AC cable than the Rednet. I have both placed on a S.R. Tranquility Basic platform and the Mutec is connected to a S.R. Grounding Block with HD usb cable. The result is lower noise and better dynamic contrast.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice Report - you pretty much had a sota USB before so this is a major win for AOIP.
  
 Too bad the RN and Mutec don't take a DC inout - the JC-2 would be a great LPS to power them.
  
 I found the AES/SPDIF digital cable very important in getting the best SQ
  
 Cheers


----------



## motberg

I think SOTA USB actually requires serious attention to the computer itself, especially power supply, and always some type of galvanic isolation in the path.


----------



## Tand2016

motberg said:


> I think SOTA USB actually requires serious attention to the computer itself, especially power supply, and always some type of galvanic isolation in the path.


 

 I agree. On my Mac mini i7 2011 I use the UpTone JS-2 and MMF (fant controll). I dismounted the HD drives and booted with a 32 gb SD card,  simplified the processes with CAD Optimizer 1.3 Script. All this helped a lot on the mini and combined this emoved some blur and background noise.
  
 The FMCs also helped but not as much as the UpTone JS-2 and MMF.


----------



## Tand2016

dCS has released their Network Bridge. 
  
 "It receives audio via UPnP, Apple Airplay, Spotify Connect, TIDAL and other sources and outputs bit perfect au-dio in a form that a legacy dCS DAC can use, and that’s really what we are try-ing to achieve."
  
 Not the same as the Rednet and I would guess a much higher price than my lovely 16 R.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/65634-audioshark/10478-dcs-has-just-introduced-the-network-bridge


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> I think SOTA USB actually requires serious attention to the computer itself, especially power supply, and always some type of galvanic isolation in the path.


Galvanic isolation comes free with AOIP


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> I added fiber to my setup a week or so ago but started with it between my switch and my PC. My PC has two ethernet ports with one dedicated to DVS. I cannot say this made a difference.
> 
> A couple of days ago I moved the two FMC's and the fiber connection to the link between my PC and my D16. This made a difference although it was subtle.
> 
> ...


 
 Hey Paul,
  
 I'm wondering how far apart you've placed your D16 from from your PC.
  
 Mine is only about five feet apart and I'm wondering whether optical cable could make much of a difference over such a short span.
  
 I have the FMC's and linear power supplies to give all of this a try but wanted your opinion.
  
 Also, how far away from the D16 and PC are you placing your FMC's?
  
 Thanks in advance for the information.
  
 Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'm wondering how far apart you've placed your D16 from from your PC.
> 
> ...


 
  
 My D16 is basically sitting on top of my PC/Server. I do not think that distance is the culprit as in an opportunity for interference to be induced on the cable from the environment. I think that the fiber basically stops cable noise that may come along regular CAT5/6 cable from the PC dead in it's tracks.
  
 Experiment an see. I just have an LPS feeding the D16 side of the fiber link. Currently the FMC's are not too tidy.
  
 To be honest this tweak was only minimally noticeable in my own system.
  
 JABBR is the LAN isolation king so hopefully he will weigh in.


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> My D16 is basically sitting on top of my PC/Server. I do not think that distance is the culprit as in an opportunity for interference to be induced on the cable from the environment. I think that the fiber basically stops cable noise that may come along regular CAT5/6 cable from the PC dead in it's tracks.
> 
> JABBR is the LAN isolation king so hopefully he will weigh in.


 
 Paul,
  
 What took you so long for that response? 
  
 Thanks for that.
  
 How close do you place the FMC's to the D16 and your PC?
  
 Thanks again.

 Joel


----------



## mourip

The FMC's are currently a couple of feet away but I am probably going to buy some 1 foot ethernet cable and put them closer to each end.


----------



## johnjen

I am running an FMC setup with rather short cat5e cables on both ends and an LPS powering the RN3 end.
 The computer FMC is sitting on top of my Mac using a ≈ 2' cable and the FMC unit that feeds my RN3 is sitting right beside it using a ≈1' cable.
  
 I agree this FMC setup is subtle but what I hear is, it contributes moar of what the RN3 brings to the party.
  
 And while ethernet does employ galvanic isolation for the data lines there is still wire connecting one device to another.
 These FMC's completely break this metal link between one end and the other.
 Perhaps it's the lack of susceptibility to RF or EMI or some such, but that any change is noticed, let alone is considered an improvement, is telling in and of itself.
  
 JJ


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> I don't know if there will be any comparing with Mivera Audio.
> Mivera Audio is going to be a 100% closed brand system.




Hi guys. Just getting up to speed on audio over ip and planning to take the plunge soon. 

Anyway, I wanted to ask about the statement I quoted above. I thought the upcoming Superstream Pro (Ravenna) can be used with any server using the virtual sound card. Additionally, can't the Superstream Pro output to any DAC as well?


----------



## Iving

http://www.redsharksound.com/studio/item/104-genelec-8430a-first-ever-aes67-audio-over-ip-in-a-studio-monitor


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> Hi guys. Just getting up to speed on audio over ip and planning to take the plunge soon.
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to ask about the statement I quoted above. I thought the upcoming Superstream Pro (Ravenna) can be used with any server using the virtual sound card. Additionally, can't the Superstream Pro output to any DAC as well?


 
  
 These are some quotes from the MIvera Audio forum in respons to my questions or as general announcements.
 Their product propositions still change on a daily basis.


> *From Mike:*
> Looks like we're going to ditch the option of no internal storage with the Superserve. And increase the storage option up to 16tb. That should be enough for anyone. So storage options will be:
> 6/8/12/16tb.
> This is the only way to ensure 100% perfect reliability. This takes all outside variables out of the equation. Folks who want to use a NAS can go for our free OS download.


 
  
 So it is no longer an option to use your own NAS unless you go with their general non-optimised Linux OS for the (home build) server.
  
  
 In my questions to Mike (and also in my statement in my previous post here) I was refering to the PureStream Pro DAC (with the internal Ravenna board) (by mistake I said SuperStream in my question but meant PureStream and Mike answered it for the PureStream) which can apparently only communicate with a SuperStream Pro (with the Ravenna board in the Pro Interface Box).
 I was looking at the option to buy/try the PureStream Pro DAC on its own as I don't have any need / wish for a SuperStream streamer device.
 Apparently that isn't possible. The PureStream Pro DAC is fed a DSD256 signal. But the PureStream Pro DAC apparently doesn't accept just any DSD256 signal via Ravenna. The 1-bit stream might be based a non-standard word clock:
  


> Question:
> the PureStream Pro (having an internal Ravenna board) will take input from any Ravenna VSC as long as it is in DSD256 format?
> 
> Mike replied:
> It all depends on what we end up upsampling to. It might end up being 33.33mhz. The Superblock system will be built to work with the Superserve.


 
 The SuperBlock system/stack is the system that the PureStream Pro is part of, it is the system/stack that is based on the Ravenna protocol. The other systems/stacks are not.
  
 I find that Mike makes this whole product proposition extremely confusing and intransparent, by not giving any insight in what product use what protocols and how they may be connected with products outside of his own brand.
 He is looking to sell only complete stacks of servers, streamers and dacs. Just buying a single product is not an option because I believe they use all non-standard protocols or protocol implementations.
 Their VSC will run only AudioLinux OS images, which I don't have any interest in using.
  
 Other Ravenna VSC may not have the right frequency signal if I understand his response correctly.
  
 All extremely confusing and focused on a closed brand topology.


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> I find that Mike makes this whole product proposition extremely confusing and intransparent, by not giving any insight in what product use what protocols and how they may be connected with products outside of his own brand.
> 
> 
> All extremely confusing and focused on a closed brand topology.


 
 Thank you jabbr.  I totally agree its very confusing.  I am mainly interested in the proposed Ravenna Pro device which according to Mike's post on CA yesterday, sounds similar to the Rednet.  Interestingly, that post describing the Ravenna Pro as well as his other posts are now deleted at CA.  I do not know Mike but it seems he keeps getting banned from sites???
  
 Anyway, from what I read of the Ravenna Pro it sounds like it will have multiple outputs and the option to upgrade the clock.  A VSC will be supplied that runs on Windows or Mac.  Right now, its all a pipe dream but the Ravenna Pro does sound like exactly what I am looking for in terms of audio over ip.


----------



## mourip

tboooe said:


> Thank you jabbr.  I totally agree its very confusing.  I am mainly interested in the proposed Ravenna Pro device which according to Mike's post on CA yesterday, sounds similar to the Rednet.  Interestingly, that post describing the Ravenna Pro as well as his other posts are now deleted at CA.  I do not know Mike but it seems he keeps getting banned from sites???


 
  
 I am glad that someone else said that. He has pretty much taken over a thread on CA for "USB vs Ethernet" and has turned it into a confusing marketing thread for his next product. I have seen it happen a bunch of times on CA where someone will announce a product months or almost a year before it comes out to keep interest up until they bring it to market.


----------



## Tboooe

The Mivera Ravenna Pro product does sound like a solid Rednet alternative though.  Its supposed to be released before the Xmas.  I will wait until then but if its still vaporware at that time I will get the Rednet.  This gives me time to start saving my pennies!


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Gonna plug my classified:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 http://www.head-fi.org/t/820425/fs-focusrite-rednet-3-pro-audio-digital-transport

 Looks like my house situation will be moving soon (in a good way) but I'll be loosing my rack/speakers for the mean time to storage so back down to a little headphone nook I go. Maybe just in time for @rb2013 to publish his Burl B2 Dante findings/mods in which I'll be ready to "move on up to the east side" of audio.


----------



## estreeter

I'll stick with RAAT and USB DACs for now, but definitely interested in seeing where this goes from here. The pro suppliers seem to be big on imagery and press releases, but remarkably light on product detail.
  
 http://www.autonomic-controls.com/
  
 Apparently I'll be popular AND sexy if I have a rack full of their gear - gotta love marketers


----------



## rb2013

estreeter said:


> I'll stick with RAAT and USB DACs for now, but definitely interested in seeing where this goes from here. The pro suppliers seem to be big on imagery and press releases, but remarkably light on product detail.
> 
> http://www.autonomic-controls.com/
> 
> Apparently I'll be popular AND sexy if I have a rack full of their gear - gotta love marketers


Looks like the Roon webpage.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Gonna plug my classified:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/820425/fs-focusrite-rednet-3-pro-audio-digital-transport
> 
> 
> ...


Work is progressing nicely. Debating whether to spring for Audinate pdk, and just design a simple miniPCI plug in board for two channel AOIP. To use as an external DDC, or internal DAC module.


----------



## estreeter

rb2013 said:


> Looks like the Roon webpage.


 
  
 Minus an extensive kbase and a very active community forum where questions actually seem to get answered.
  
 https://kb.roonlabs.com/Architecture
  
 https://community.roonlabs.com/t/hardware-architecture-for-roon-system/5423
  
 I get that Autonomic and others are under no obligation to publish details of their products, but I disagree with the inference that Roon is more style than substance.


----------



## rb2013

estreeter said:


> Minus an extensive kbase and a very active community forum where questions actually seem to get answered.
> 
> https://kb.roonlabs.com/Architecture
> 
> ...


Well this thread has shown that the previous gen Room/RATT may well be passe. Same for the DNLA/UpNP.

Reading where some have compared the Rednet to the MicroRendu - to quote the poster - 'No Comparison'


----------



## soundquest

rb2013 said:


> Well this thread has shown that the previous gen Room/RATT may well be passe. Same for the DNLA/UpNP.
> 
> Reading where some have compared the Rednet to the MicroRendu - to quote the poster - 'No Comparison'


 

 I would welcome the opportunity to read a few of the comments specifically comparing the Rednet to the MircroRendu. Please feel free to share some quotes or links. The MicroRendu seems to have taken off and I'm eager to rule it out to pursue the AOIP route that you have so enthusiastically and generously shared. Thank you.


----------



## mourip

soundquest said:


> I would welcome the opportunity to read a few of the comments specifically comparing the Rednet to the MircroRendu. Please feel free to share some quotes or links. The MicroRendu seems to have taken off and I'm eager to rule it out to pursue the AOIP route that you have so enthusiastically and generously shared. Thank you.


 
  
 You might ping *gldgate. *I believe that he tried the uRendu also.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> You might ping *gldgate. *I believe that he tried the uRendu also.


 

 ​Here is a summary of comments from CA forum back in June. I did go back and revisited the uRendu (think it was late July or early August) -  my opinion did not change.
  
_Here is my subjective assessment (rank order):

 1) D16>Mutec MC3 + USB> Yggy
 2) uRendu>Mutec MC3 + USB>Yggy
 3) Dual PC (CAPS Pipeline)>Mutec MC3+ USB>Yggy

 I went deep into last night and this morning listening, comparing and taking notes. What struck me is that while my notes for uRendu and my Dual PC set-up contained comments about frequency extention, tonality, noise floor and timing, my comments on the D16 set-up were much less technical and much more emotional. I wrote down "engaging", "immersive","fluid" and "liquid". I connected more to the music with the Rednet set-up.

 All the usual caveats apply. This is one persons opinion and I'm not making any definitive declarations about products or technologies._


----------



## joelha

Today, I inserted an optical connection between my PC and D16.
  
 An Uptone JS-2 powers the two optical devices.
  
 Sure enough, the highs are not quite as bright, the bass is slightly more prominent, and the sound in general is a little smoother.
  
 A huge difference? No.
  
 But for the price of these items, you'll be hard pressed to find a better value for the improvement realized.
  
 Thanks to those who suggested this idea. I didn't think it would make a difference, but it does.
  
 Just one more reminder as to how counter-intuitive this hobby can be.
  
 Joel


----------



## joelha

iving said:


> Yes - on the D16 AES (but not the RedNet 3 I understand) 176 is available in Dante Controller not RedNet Control. It is easy to (Upsample) x4 redbook in foobar (Sox) and make it work. My head told me it should be better than 192 (maths etc). But I changed back thinking 192 fuller and more polished. But I am not yet convinced and will experiment further. I can't at the moment as my system is in a second phase of suspension - last time speaker repair - this time PC replacement. (And I haven't updated firmware lately.) Will try to remember to post back whether 176 trumps 192 for redbook. Would like to hear other views. Interested in the mojo not the smoothness!




So let me get this straight. Focusrite updates their system to allow automatic sample rate changes and they leave out 176.4 as a option?

And the only choice we have until they fix this issue is to manually change the sample rate in the Audinate Controller?

If correct, has anyone contacted Focusrite about this?

Joel


----------



## johnjen

It's a bit more complicated than that.
  
 There are 2 Audinate Brooklyn cards, the 1st generation (used in the RN3) doesn't support 176, while the 2nd gen card (used in the D16) does.
 Rednet Control will configure and display the available sample rates based upon the Rednet box in the network it is controlling.
  
 And Sample Rate Following (the new feature they just added to Rednet Control) really only works, a least thus far, in the windows platform.
 At least if my Mac configuration is any indication.
  
 IOW Sample Rate Following is meant to communicate to the Rednet box(es) to Follow any sample rate change based upon the track that is playing.
  
 And yes both Focusrite and Audinate are aware of these 'issues' and are working on them.
  
 We are living on the bleeding edge of AOIP and are dealing with Pro Audio gear, which is a 'different' world than consumer audio.
 As such there are certain idiosyncrasies we are stumbling upon/over and 'helping' to resolve.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

Thanks for the explanation, johnjen.

Joel


----------



## Iving

joelha said:


> So let me get this straight. Focusrite updates their system to allow automatic sample rate changes and they leave out 176.4 as a option?
> 
> And the only choice we have until they fix this issue is to manually change the sample rate in the Audinate Controller?
> 
> ...


 
  
 No. wrt D16 AES 176.4 is available in Dante Controller both before and after firmware update (hinges on RedNet Control 1.10) - a forum friend, in a moment of AOIP forgetfulness perhaps, looked in the wrong place (i.e., the wrong place to look for 176.4 is RedNet Control instead of Dante Controller/Device View/Device Configuration).
  
 All my music is redbook and gets upsampled to a common value in fb2k/Sox and, so, I don't have the frustration of variable SRs.


----------



## mourip

iving said:


> No. wrt D16 AES 176.4 is available in Dante Controller both before and after firmware update (hinges on RedNet Control 1.10) - a forum friend, in a moment of AOIP forgetfulness perhaps, looked in the wrong place (i.e., the wrong place to look for 176.4 is RedNet Control instead of Dante Controller/Device View/Device Configuration).
> 
> All my music is redbook and gets upsampled to a common value in fb2k/Sox and, so, I don't have the frustration of variable SRs.


 
  
 True. On the D16 176K is available and was before the update. The thing that is confusing is that when you choose "sample rate follow" in Dante Controller then for every change in sample rate except 176.4 the change will show up in the dropdown box as the numerical value. In my system the only way I know that the rate has changed to 176K is that my Yggy clicks and the LED's change. Otherwise when 176K is being used the dropdown box is empty/blank. When playing 192K the box displays "192K". I think that this is a bit funky and confusing. It is not the end of the world however as I now know that the right rate is still being played.
  
 When "sample rate follow" is turned off and you want to choose 176.4 it similarly does not show in Dante Controller. You need to go into the REDnet Control dialogue in order to choose it if you want everything to play at 176.4. Paradoxically for other rates you can choose them back in the Dante Controller window. Pretty screwy setup. The good news as always is that in all of these scenarios the sound quality is superb. 
  
 I am experimenting with 176 vs 192 for Redbook also. For me I believe that I prefer 176 although it is not so much that it is better as different.
  
 I still have the issue that if I have "sample rate follow" enabled and use RDP to remote my server it causes the Dante Controller window to close and I can no longer change rates. In fact for SRF to work at all I find that I need to keep the Dante Controller window open. Oddly once I get everything working again and exit RDP the SRF stays open and keeps working. I have not tried other methods of remote control. I have an open ticket to Audinate for this...


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Today, I inserted an optical connection between my PC and D16.
> 
> An Uptone JS-2 powers the two optical devices.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice to have a JS-2 to power them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The stock FMC optical I inserted between the Intel NIC and the RN3 made little difference.  That was with the stock SMPS.  Using two TeraDak X1 LPS's - it did make a very slight difference.  But for me not worth the extra $200.  I had a much bigger - like 10X bigger improvement by going from the Audio Sens Statement digital cable to the Audience AU24SE and Synergistic Element Copper (with Galileo MPC) digital cable. 
  
 Besides moving from USB to AOIP - I was hoping to get away from gizmo's in the chain and extraneous boxes.  Fat chance...already the Rednet 3 + Mutec + Antelope, etc...
  
 But now have a neat AOIP two box solution between PC and Amp.  The BURL and an ext LPS.  Would love to hear the modded BURL with a JS-2 or SR3.


----------



## peteAllen

Anyone know anything about this alternative?
http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/details/ds10-audio-network-bridge.html


----------



## jabbr

peteallen said:


> Anyone know anything about this alternative?
> http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/details/ds10-audio-network-bridge.html




Only does 48 & 96 kHz digital output


----------



## peteAllen

Ah yes. No good unless you resample everything to 96khz. I'm going to try out the D16 then.


----------



## kazsud

peteallen said:


> Anyone know anything about this alternative?
> http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/details/ds10-audio-network-bridge.html


 
 Can't find anything about price anywhere.
  
 I don't need 24bit


----------



## jabbr

kazsud said:


> Can't find anything about price anywhere.
> 
> I don't need 24bit


 
 but you might want 44.1, which it hasn't


----------



## estreeter

rb2013 said:


> Well this thread has shown that the previous gen Room/RATT may well be passe. Same for the DNLA/UpNP.
> 
> Reading where some have compared the Rednet to the MicroRendu - to quote the poster - 'No Comparison'


 

_Passe_ ? Given that we're talking communications protocols which have been 'obsolete' for at least 20 years (TCP/IP was never intended to be 'secure' or even particularly robust), I dont get too hung up on whether something is outdated or not.
  
 On a lighter note, it would appear that the Rednet3 has a major advantage over its competition:
  
 https://us.focusrite.com/rednet-how
  
 I'm guessing that if Schiit ever release a product in this space, their marketing will look more like the cover of a Cannibal Corpse album (in the interests of good taste, I wont go there - Google is your friend).


----------



## estreeter

kazsud said:


> Can't find anything about price anywhere.
> 
> I don't need 24bit


 
  
 When was the last time you had to sit down and talk financing with your hi-fi dealer ?
  
 http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/finance-series.html?tx_sschdbsystems_pi1[category]=46&cHash=1af34e404e6b905dbe140e7d4983a618
  
 I'm guessing that if I have to ask for the price, I cant afford it. Granted, many of us are no strangers to networking, but if you've spent any time in a server room this is the last thing you'll want to deal with when you get home at night:
  

  
 I'm told it's not politically correct to talk WAF in audio, but what the hell - exhibit B  
  

  
 At least Cat5 is cheap.


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> True. On the D16 176K is available and was before the update. The thing that is confusing is that when you choose "sample rate follow" in Dante Controller then for every change in sample rate except 176.4 the change will show up in the dropdown box as the numerical value. In my system the only way I know that the rate has changed to 176K is that my Yggy clicks and the LED's change. Otherwise when 176K is being used the dropdown box is empty/blank. When playing 192K the box displays "192K". I think that this is a bit funky and confusing. It is not the end of the world however as I now know that the right rate is still being played.
> 
> When "sample rate follow" is turned off and you want to choose 176.4 it similarly does not show in Dante Controller. You need to go into the REDnet Control dialogue in order to choose it if you want everything to play at 176.4. Paradoxically for other rates you can choose them back in the Dante Controller window. Pretty screwy setup. The good news as always is that in all of these scenarios the sound quality is superb.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the detailed explanation but I confess, I can't figure out how to play 176.4 with or without SRF on in Rednet Controller.

Audinate Controller is set for 176.4, but still no sound.

Until Focusrite provides another update, what am I missing?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation but I confess, I can't figure out how to play 176.4 with or without SRF on in Rednet Controller.
> 
> Audinate Controller is set for 176.4, but still no sound.
> 
> ...




For manual control, you set both devices, VSC and D16, to 176.4. Otherwise they won't communicate with each other which you can see in the Dante Controler routing matrix.


----------



## joelha

jabbr said:


> For manual control, you set both devices, VSC and D16, to 176.4. Otherwise they won't communicate with each other which you can see in the Dante Controler routing matrix.




Thanks for the quick reply, jabbr.

I apologize in advance for confessing more of my ignorance here, but what is VSC?

I didn't have a second Rednet device if that's what VSC refers to.

And outside of the Rednet and Dante Controllers, how would I set the D16 to 176.4?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.

Thanks again.

Joel


----------



## jabbr

joelha said:


> Thanks for the quick reply, jabbr.
> 
> I apologize in advance for confessing more of my ignorance here, but what is VSC?
> 
> ...




VSC = Virtual Sound Card
VSC is also a Dante device.
When doing things manually you have to set both to the same sample rate otherwise they cannot communicate.

Manual settings for devices can only be done using Rednet Control or Dante Controller.
For sample rate settings I think Dante Controller is easiest.
But you must know this when you already have a D16 otherwise you cannot get it to work at all


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Thanks for the quick reply, jabbr.
> 
> I apologize in advance for confessing more of my ignorance here, but what is VSC?
> 
> ...


 


jabbr said:


> VSC = Virtual Sound Card
> VSC is also a Dante device.
> When doing things manually you have to set both to the same sample rate otherwise they cannot communicate.
> 
> ...


 
  
 My understanding is that when setting your Rednet RN3 or D16 to a single rate you must do it in two places: First in *Rednet Control/Dante Control *which basically work together and second in your *music software or re-sampling software* on your PC.
  
 I set my software rate in JMRC under "Options" to up-sample everything to 192K and then I also set REDnet Control to output everything to192K. These must match.
  
 As far as I know there is no place to set sample rate in the DVS (Dante's Virtual Soundcard -VSC) software control panel. DVS just passes through what your player sends to it.
  
 If you have a D16 and use "Sample Rate Following" it works the similarly but in your playback software you can play each file at the native rate or choose to up-sample and then in *Rednet Control/Dante Control *you click on* "Sample Rate Follow" *for Rednet to play the files at the rate that your player sends them in.


----------



## peteAllen

Is there a Rednet 4 coming?
  
 Well, I ordered a D16, and the supplier said he'd found me one despite there only being 2 left in stock in the whole of the UK. Focusrite are a UK company. So, this raised alarm bells in my head. Are they going to replace the D16? I called them and they (somewhat reluctantly) told me there was "no mark 2 replacement for the D16 coming in the immediate future". However, on their own site they have removed all the rednet 3 products and only list the rednet 4 Pre. In my opinion, it means that they plan to retire the entire rednet 3 range including the D16 and it may be superseded by something else (but perhaps not a mark 2).
  
 Despite this, I'm going to try out the D16, and see if it improves on my microrendu + js2 > chord sarum usb > regen > chord sarum usb > Ifi usb3 + js2 > chord sarum usb > puc2 > MIT aes.


----------



## rb2013

peteallen said:


> Is there a Rednet 4 coming?
> 
> Well, I ordered a D16, and the supplier said he'd found me one despite there only being 2 left in stock in the whole of the UK. Focusrite are a UK company. So, this raised alarm bells in my head. Are they going to replace the D16? I called them and they (somewhat reluctantly) told me there was "no mark 2 replacement for the D16 coming in the immediate future". However, on their own site they have removed all the rednet 3 products and only list the rednet 4 Pre. In my opinion, it means that they plan to retire the entire rednet 3 range including the D16 and it may be superseded by something else (but perhaps not a mark 2).
> 
> Despite this, I'm going to try out the D16, and see if it improves on my microrendu + js2 > chord sarum usb > regen > chord sarum usb > Ifi usb3 + js2 > chord sarum usb > puc2 > MIT aes.


 

 Ok - a little confusion here.
  
 First the Focusrite AOIP Dante (Ethernet Audio) line-up is called REDNET this is a demarcation of their better units.  Within that line-up are the REDNET 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, PCIe, 16D AES, etc...I count 16 products.
  
 They are all listed on the Focusrite website:
 https://us.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet
  
 So there is no 'version' 4 that supersedes 'version' 3.
  
 The model 4 is a mic preamp unit.  The reason your dealer has low inventory - is that this thread has set the audio world on fire and they are selling 3's and 16's like hotcakes...
  
 PS now Focusrite also makes Firewire REDNET's, Thunderbolt REDNET's, etc...but those operate on an entirely different communication protocol.
  
 PSS Nice USB chain!  I really liked the PUC2 and you appear to have it well fed. How do you like those Sarum USB cables?  I've read many good things about them.


----------



## jazzfan

peteallen said:


> ...
> Despite this, I'm going to try out the D16, and see if it improves on my microrendu + js2 > chord sarum usb > regen > chord sarum usb > Ifi usb3 + js2 > chord sarum usb > puc2 > MIT aes.


 
  
 Outstanding! I'm very much looking forward to the outcome of your D16  vs USB chain comparison.


----------



## rb2013

estreeter said:


> _Passe_ ? Given that we're talking communications protocols which have been 'obsolete' for at least 20 years (TCP/IP was never intended to be 'secure' or even particularly robust), I dont get too hung up on whether something is outdated or not.
> 
> On a lighter note, it would appear that the Rednet3 has a major advantage over its competition:
> 
> ...


I rec you read the beginning of this thread, much posted on the drawbacks of DNLA/UnUP...but if thatworks for you great.

Been a big Schiit HP amp fan, dacs not so much...


----------



## rb2013

kazsud said:


> Can't find anything about price anywhere.
> 
> I don't need 24bit


There are a few Dante Optimo boxes out there...like the Rednet AM2. Cheap too.


----------



## rb2013

Just spoke with someone very high up the chain at a major Pro Audio company, they have a major Dante release coming. Promised me one of the first final proto for review.

This could be a game changer...


----------



## rb2013

jazzfan said:


> Outstanding! I'm very much looking forward to the outcome of your D16  vs USB chain comparison.


Had the PUC2 - the Rednet crushes it...a whole other league


----------



## kazsud

rb2013 said:


> There are a few Dante Optimo boxes out there...like the Rednet AM2. Cheap too.




The AM2 has no digital out.


----------



## JayNYC

rb2013 said:


> Just spoke with someone very high up the chain at a major Pro Audio company, they have a major Dante release coming. Promised me one of the first final proto for review.
> 
> This could be a game changer...




What are the unique selling points of operating a full Focusrite Rednet system vs a generic Dante system? In other words, what would one lose by leaving the Rednet universe and going with a generic Dante component?


----------



## jabbr

jaynyc said:


> What are the unique selling points of operating a full Focusrite Rednet system vs a generic Dante system? In other words, what would one lose by leaving the Rednet universe and going with a generic Dante component?




What is a 'generic Dante component'?


----------



## JayNYC

jabbr said:


> What is a 'generic Dante component'?




Any component with an Audinate card built in. For example, the Burl DAC with Dante.


----------



## johnjen

So really what your asking is what are the differences between Focusrite's implementation of hardware to a 'generic' hardware implementation?

That's almost impossible to answer since the Focusrite's hardware is only revealed by their marketing info…
https://us.focusrite.com/rednet/the-sound-of-rednet

Let alone what hardware is used in a generic platform.

And then there is the Focusrite s/w vs the s/w provided by a generic source (if any).

This gear is aimed at the pro audio market which doesn't try to 'sell' in the same way as consumer audio gear does.
IOW there is a degree of knowledge dealing with the underlying technology that is assumed.

JJ


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Just spoke with someone very high up the chain at a major Pro Audio company, they have a major Dante release coming. Promised me one of the first final proto for review.
> 
> This could be a game changer...


 
  
 You tease....  
  
 Seriously, any more info you are able to divulge at this stage? Are we talking affordable, small, 2-channel, etc etc? What kind of timescale do you think is "coming"?


----------



## jabbr

jaynyc said:


> Any component with an Audinate card built in. For example, the Burl DAC with Dante.





I don't believe there exists a 'generic Dante', only manufacturer based implementations using Dante protocol.
FocusRite has its implementation of its hardware components, Burl has its own implementation of its components. 
The 'only' common denominator is the usage of Audinate's Dante protocol for communication among these devices. You can mix and match any Dante device from any manufacturer. Each manufacturer decides for itself what function each component has. 

So FocusRite is not higher/bigger/different to any other hardware manufacturer using Dante protocol.
It is only a matter of finding a device that has the features you are looking for and trying it out to see if the hardware is up to the audiophile levels you are looking for.
Dante's Rednet 3 and D16 is just what many are looking for when keeping your current DAC, and the Burl B2 DAC might be what others are looking for if looking for a new DAC.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> Had the PUC2 - the Rednet crushes it...a whole other league


 

 yeah... but peteAllen source is microrendu + js2, which is much closer to a full-blown audiophile type server....
 I will be looking forward to that comparison also...


----------



## johnjen

motberg said:


> yeah... but peteAllen source is microrendu + js2, which is much closer to a full-blown audiophile type server....
> I will be looking forward to that comparison also...


 
 I don't mean to specifically point at your setup, but to point out that the factors that AOIP brings to the party are, galvanic isolation and the separation of signal's data and timing that is being sent from the 'source' to the dac.
 And of course there are others as well but these seem to be of key importance.
 And as has been brought up, improving these aspects even further can make further significant improvements as well.
  
 The Dante networking solution is key but it's only one of several 'ingredients' necessary to successfully make this solution function and do so without performance 'issues'.
  
 Lastly, the move towards adopting and implementing AES 67 protocols should also 'open up' the field of device interoperability within any suitable AOIP network.
 IOW mixing and matching different h/w and s/w should become doable, to some extent.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

jaynyc said:


> Any component with an Audinate card built in. For example, the Burl DAC with Dante.


 
  
 Reading through the thread you will probably find your question basically answered. There is high interest in the Burl but there are not many other products out there that are similar. Also the Burl locks one into their DAC whose sonic flavor may not be everyone's choice. The nice thing about the REDnet products is that they are just an interface and can be used with your DAC of choice. A "Swiss Army Knife" "one size fits all" device can be limiting for some. If you like it's SQ however it is a simple solution.
  
 If you can find any new implementations please let us know...


----------



## alubis

I have melco n1a as my usb transport. This product is highly praised by reviewers and HiFi News also shown improved measurements in A weighted s/n ratio and jitter. But the rednet d16 sound quality is much better than the melco. 

IMO, the problem with usb, aside from johnjen mentioned above, it is never specifically designed for audio use. Hence, the proliferation of usb band aids which never solve the problem in the first place. 



motberg said:


> yeah... but peteAllen source is microrendu + js2, which is much closer to a full-blown audiophile type server....
> I will be looking forward to that comparison also...


----------



## JayNYC

jabbr said:


> I don't believe there exists a 'generic Dante', only manufacturer based implementations using Dante protocol.
> FocusRite has its implementation of its hardware components, Burl has its own implementation of its components.
> The 'only' common denominator is the usage of Audinate's Dante protocol for communication among these devices. You can mix and match any Dante device from any manufacturer. Each manufacturer decides for itself what function each component has.
> 
> ...




For example: If we don't use Focusrite Rednet products, do we lose the ability for Sample Rate Follow? Said differently, is Sample Rate Follow currently unique to Focusrite Rednet devices only?


----------



## rb2013

kazsud said:


> The AM2 has no digital out.


 

 Yes I know- but it is cheap.  There is the AT AES box:
 http://www.atterotech.com/products/dante-aes-o/
  
 But I would wait  - as there are some killer products coming...


----------



## rb2013

jaynyc said:


> What are the unique selling points of operating a full Focusrite Rednet system vs a generic Dante system? In other words, what would one lose by leaving the Rednet universe and going with a generic Dante component?


 

 Good question - really nothing.  The heart of the REDNET 3 and 16 are the Dante Brooklyn cards.  The 3 with the BK1 and the 16 with the BK2.
  
 Otherwise not a lot to write home about - generic components (Pulse transformers - ugg!) - SMPS, etc...


----------



## enginedr

Any thoughts on using the Red Net for vinyl conversion with a ADC like the  Behringer Ultramatch Pro SRC2496 ?


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> You tease....
> 
> Seriously, any more info you are able to divulge at this stage? Are we talking affordable, small, 2-channel, etc etc? What kind of timescale do you think is "coming"?


 

 Well they made me swear a vow of silence.  It will not be just a 2-channel at this point - maybe later.  Should be annouced by yr end - assuming trials go well.
  
 Audinate makes the develop easy - but not cheap.  The BK2 cards are very reasonably priced for the level of s/w and h/w they have.
  
 Been reading the CA 'USB vs Ethernet' Thread - wow - err...interesting drama there.
  
 I know this was previously posted here - but had to repeat it:


> "After 3 weeks burn-in the Rednet 16R and Mutec MC3 + USB truly devastates my old USB chain (Berkeley usb converter, 0.8 Curious/Regen+JS-2+/Curious link/3 x Jitterbugs). I compared the two again this weekend and it took 30 seconds-ish to comfirm I did the right thing getting the Rednet and Mutec. The speed of the transients is much faster, the USB chain sounded muffled and slow compared to the Rednet 16R/Mutec.​​ ​ I use a Synergistic Reasearch Tungsten/Cobber AC cable on my Mutec and an old gen Nordost on my Rednet. The Mutec responds better to the AC cable than the Rednet. I have both placed on a S.R. Tranquility Basic platform and the Mutec is connected to a S.R. Grounding Block with HD usb cable. The result is lower noise and better dynamic contrast.​​ ​ I also use FMCs with the Rednet end connected to my JS-2 and a 1 foot Blue Jeans 6a ethernet to the Rednet.​​ ​ My AES cables are Shunyata Anaconda 1.5 meter and a Straight Wire InfoLink 1.5 meter. Both will be replaced with S.R. Atmosphere Level 3 AES 1.5 meters next week or so."​​ ​ The sound is so good now
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks to the great representation from the active folks here - on that thread.  Presenting AOIP in a fair and favorable light - correcting inaccuracies...etc...
  
 This AOIP movement is gathering much steam...right now Rednet stuff is the underground audio buzz in a lot of places.  If Focusrite was a 'High End Audio' company - I'm sure Rednet's would be on the cover of every audio magazine...I have not seen a mention yet.   The NADAC is barely on the radar scope.
  
 This thread is where it's at - for now


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> yeah... but peteAllen source is microrendu + js2, which is much closer to a full-blown audiophile type server....
> I will be looking forward to that comparison also...


 

 Yes that's true, and it will be interesting to see his take.  The old YMMV - applies to AOIP as well.  But so far it's been a knock down winner in almost every matchup.  Including that unnamed forum's posting by a micorendu convert to RN.
  
 And I have a pretty deep history in perfecting USB chains - the PUC2 was not at the top of the list:
  
 Just reposting for the newer thread readers:
Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
 
Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
  
 REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)           270
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB/Audience au24 se digital cable                               250
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF reclocker)/AS Sliver Statement dig cable        240
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                               220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB               170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                        155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                   145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                               135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                   135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                      130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                    125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                          110
Singxer F-1  Stock feed                                                                                          110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                   109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                      108
  Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                              100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                                 95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                    92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                             85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                          81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                    76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                   72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                      65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                      65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                              60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                         50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                         40


----------



## motberg

johnjen said:


> I don't mean to specifically point at your setup, but to point out that the factors that AOIP brings to the party are, galvanic isolation and the separation of signal's data and timing that is being sent from the 'source' to the dac.
> And of course there are others as well but these seem to be of key importance.
> And as has been brought up, improving these aspects even further can make further significant improvements as well.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the info - very interesting..
 regarding "separation signal's data and timing that is being sent from the 'source' to the dac" .. if I understand correctly, just using a SPDIF connection would recombine the data and timing, so maybe the preferred D16 usage would be to include the wordclock out to the DAC via BNC ?
 If so, then it seems maybe for audiophiles AOIP to i2S via card or box, (or direct to DAC) would be technically a benefit by eliminating the SPDIF conversion?


----------



## jabbr

jaynyc said:


> For example: If we don't use Focusrite Rednet products, do we lose the ability for Sample Rate Follow? Said differently, is Sample Rate Follow currently unique to Focusrite Rednet devices only?




Yes, currently sample rate following is only a feature of Focusrite RedNets.
But there is no reason why it should be, other manufacturers could implement it as well.
It is a feature of ASIO to allow its Sample Rate to be changed by software and it is a feature of the Focusrite firmware to follow a differing sample rate (and switch the rednet to a different sample rate) instead of rejecting a connection as it would do by default.
Other manufacturers could also change their firmware to allow it to follow a different sample rate than what it is set to.

But following sample rate is only one of the features that differ between manufacturers of Dante devices. Other differences are supported sample rates, support of AES67 protocol, multicast/unicast support, ...

All these devices are made for the pro audio world, specifically recording studios, broadcasting and public sound systems. All with very different requirements than consumer playback systems.


----------



## Tboooe

occamsrazor said:


> You tease....
> 
> Seriously, any more info you are able to divulge at this stage? Are we talking affordable, small, 2-channel, etc etc? What kind of timescale do you think is "coming"?


 
 Yes!  A more consumer focused product would be great. Something smaller, cheaper, easier to use, etc.  Of course I am not holding my breath though.


----------



## rb2013

alubis said:


> I have melco n1a as my usb transport. This product is highly praised by reviewers and HiFi News also shown improved measurements in A weighted s/n ratio and jitter. But the rednet d16 sound quality is much better than the melco.
> 
> IMO, the problem with usb, aside from johnjen mentioned above, it is never specifically designed for audio use. Hence, the proliferation of usb band aids which never solve the problem in the first place.


 

 Nice!  Add the highly regarded Melco N1A to the list...thanks for posting that.
  
 But a new form of AOIP is on the horzion - been having private discussions on this front too.
  
 The Lynx PCIe card has been gaining good reports.  This is a precursor to a major swelling wave coming - Thunderbolt 3.  A game changer?  I'd say definitely has the potential.
  
 The big news I posted on the TB3 thread - MS support for TB3 and Intel already has PC MB chipsets in production (Asus PC MB with TB3 built in).  No audio players yet - but I have confirmed they are in the works...this is gonna be big...and TB3 is said to be compatible with AES67.  So Audinate and Merging Tech better get moving or they will be left in the dust.
  
 I have a close eye out for the 1st low cost TB3 Audio device.  Focusrite already has a TB2 Clarett Pre4 out.  TB3 is a major leap over TB2 - using a different connector.  The universal USB type-c - this will dramatically lower the cost for connectors and cables.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806121/thunderbolt-3-for-audio-is-this-the-next-computer-audio-standard


----------



## rb2013

enginedr said:


> Any thoughts on using the Red Net for vinyl conversion with a ADC like the  Behringer Ultramatch Pro SRC2496 ?


 

 BURL has a nice Dante ADC as well - not cheap though.
  
 http://vintageking.com/burl-audio-b2-bomber-adc-with-dante-connectivity?gclid=CJirvIWro88CFYRsfgod8DIE7A


----------



## enginedr

As the Red Net 3 and  D16 communicate in both directions I thought going into the RN via AES digital and sending the digital information to the computer AOIP
 would be a better solution then the current USB ADCs . Just another use for the Red Net that many of us own.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> Yes that's true, and it will be interesting to see his take.  The old YMMV - applies to AOIP as well.  But so far it's been a knock down winner in almost every matchup.  Including that unnamed forum's posting by a micorendu convert to RN.
> 
> And I have a pretty deep history in perfecting USB chains - the PUC2 was not at the top of the list:
> 
> ...


 
 Yes - many thanks for keeping track and reporting of all that data... and great to re-post on occasion as these threads get pretty long and the ratings/rankings list becomes a good anchor point
 To me, it seems that for USB, the source of the signal origin itself is critical.. (my USB system sounds great, so I would like to be cautious while stepping into the AOIP realm..) 
 For example in my experience, just at the computer level; using all LPS, server software in core mode, wav files, simple playback software allowing the computer to go into a simulated hibernate, no spinning drives, no fans, monitor powered off, (and some of the other crazy but commonly reported improvements like special SATA cables and resonance control of the SSD's).. I can eek out maybe 40 positive perception points on your list. so.. though I am also pretty sure the D16 will kill the PUC2 given the price difference and the advance in technology the past couple years, when I saw the combination of microrendu and the JS-2 (which I understand is pretty special due to its isolated design) - I was thinking that combination should give the PUC2 a somewhat solid performance base - so thus provide another good reference point that I could better relate to.


----------



## rb2013

enginedr said:


> As the Red Net 3 and  D16 communicate in both directions I thought going into the RN via AES digital and sending the digital information to the computer AOIP
> would be a better solution then the current USB ADCs . Just another use for the Red Net that many of us own.


 

 Oh I thought you were talking about vinyl conversion (if it's going to go to your computer it has to be digitalized).  Since vinyl is analog - you'd need a analog to digital (ADC) device.
  
 So a AOIP ADC vs a USB ADC?
  
 BTW talking about coming full circle - I did digitalize my LP collection - about 10 yrs ago.  Used an Ethernet Pro Audio ADC!  EMU 1616M - the Ethernet protocol was based on a proprietary scheme.  It worked great - using Steinberg's Wavelab 6.0 - archived every LP at 32 bit 176K sampling WAV files.  Had a near sota analog rig back then.
  
 Boy do they sound great played through AOIP.
  
 PS I think I get your point - use an inexpensive ADC to fed the RN3 or 16D digitally to send to the computer.  Sorry for not getting that before.
 The result of the conversion will still depend mostly on the quality of the ADC chips, power supply, design, etc...simply routing through AOIP vs USB may help somewhat and should be fairly easy to do.  Just like using AOIP on an inexpensive DAC - won't turn water into wine - but should help.
 Wavelab for instance accepts ASIO input with a few clicks.


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> Yes - many thanks for keeping track and reporting of all that data... and great to re-post on occasion as these threads get pretty long and the ratings/rankings list becomes a good anchor point
> To me, it seems that for USB, the source of the signal origin itself is critical.. (my USB system sounds great, so I would like to be cautious while stepping into the AOIP realm..)
> For example in my experience, just at the computer level; using all LPS, server software in core mode, wav files, simple playback software allowing the computer to go into a simulated hibernate, no spinning drives, no fans, monitor powered off, (and some of the other crazy but commonly reported improvements like special SATA cables and resonance control of the SSD's).. I can eek out maybe 40 positive perception points on your list. so.. though I am also pretty sure the D16 will kill the PUC2 given the price difference and the advance in technology the past couple years, when I saw the combination of microrendu and the JS-2 (which I understand is pretty special due to its isolated design) - I was thinking that combination should give the PUC2 a somewhat solid performance base - so thus provide another good reference point that I could better relate to.


 
  
 Heroic efforts on the USB front.  I stopped at WIN10 and Jplay.  The JC-2 should help the PUC2 and the microrendu SQ.  Sure wish the Rednet stuff had an ext DC power connection (one thing likely on the upcoming Dante device - if they take my advice).
  
 When I had the PUC2 did not have the Startech/ICRON GB LAN USB extender for isolation - I'm sure that would have helped.  I did with the F-1 - and a ridiculous USB data/power chain.
 Still the AOIP was in a whole other league.  The microrendu is still left to a USB device for the final link - from what I gather.
  
 Removing the USB - even GI USB - revealed a SQ that seemed to remove a sort of distortion - just a more natural ease to the music.


----------



## enginedr

rb2013 said:


> Oh I thought you were talking about vinyl conversion (if it's going to go to your computer it has to be digitalized).  Since vinyl is analog - you'd need a analog to digital (ADC) device.
> 
> So a AOIP ADC vs a USB ADC?
> 
> ...


 

 The Behringer Ultramatch Pro SRC2496 is a ADC with AES digital out - to RN3  AES to DB25  using a custom cable or a DB25 snake cable - set the Red Net to Send and the computer to receive
 I believe this would be a good solution using AOIP for vinyl conversion .


----------



## rb2013

enginedr said:


> The Behringer Ultramatch Pro SRC2496 is a ADC with AES digital out - to RN3  AES to DB25  using a custom cable or a DB25 snake cable - set the Red Net to Send and the computer to receive
> I believe this would be a good solution using AOIP for vinyl conversion .


 

 Yes I see your original thought - took me a while to get it.  I posted a PS to my original post.  It will still come down to the quality of the ADC, although AOIP vs USB should help.


----------



## rb2013

I should also note that the Rednet's have a SRC feature on the digital inputs - how that might help or hurt the conversion quality would be an interesting question.  Wavelab offers a s/w SRC as well.  But in my trials it was not beneficial vs just a straight recording at the ADC SR.


----------



## Iving

The PC *does* make a difference.
  
 Since owning a D16 AES, I have played music from: (i) a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 (SP3) via its Docking Station; (ii) a new but low-spec Acer laptop and, now, (iii) a brand new, very-few-holds-barred, silent PC.
  
 (i) The SP3 sounded great - USB cast to history in an instant - but it had a noisy fan, and I wasn't sure about the ethernet route from tablet via Docking Station.
  
 (ii) I used the laptop (normally used in a trivial system upstairs) whilst researching and ordering a new bespoke PC. The laptop has its own ethernet port (no adapter required). The SQ was pretty much comparable with the SP3. If I had to call between them the SP3 was slightly better - less abrasive shall we say.
  
 (iii) The new machine is a silent (no moving parts) PC comprising:
 - Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC Thunderbolt™ 3 Certified C236 Chipset Motherboard;
 - Intel Core i7 6700 Skylake CPU;
 - Corsair 16GB Vengeance LPX DDR4 2400MHz RAM;
 - Windows 10 Pro on Samsung SM951 128GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD;
 - *.flac on Samsung 850 EVO 1TB 2.5" SATA SSD;
 - (choice of) Dual LAN (Killer™ E2400 and Intel®);
 - fanless "0dB" 400W PSU (being replaced shortly actually because of coil whine).
 I am using the Killer vs. Intel NIC because by comparison it has demonstrably lower latency - see http://techreport.com/review/29144/revisiting-the-killer-nic-eight-years-on/2.
  
 In a nutshell, the transparency is not terribly greater (although the margin is undoubtedly there): very broadly speaking any old PC can feed a RedNet for excellent transparency, demonstrating downstream credentials consistently ...
  
 ... but I can tell you that what we (audiophiles) call PRaT is in a different league altogether. It is as if an adept and eager conductor stands before your artist ensuring tempo; or, as if @rb2013 had returned with yet a newer device having served an internship at NIST (https://www.wired.com/2014/04/nist-atomic-clock/).
  
 The point is that SQ PRaT rather than SQ transparency is the return on my investment - and I don't doubt for a moment that in terms of system rebalancing it has been worth every penny. The musical elevation because of enhanced PRaT is very significant.
  
 Latency through the Killer NIC is rock fast at <1ms unwavering mean.
  
 Thunderbolt 3 ready too ...


----------



## Iving

I have been too restrained!
  
 Warming up ...
  
 It's in another orbit altogether.
  
 (Galaxy actually.)


----------



## mz2014

Would not it be easier and better like that:
 Soundaware D100Pro Femto with I2S out to DAC.


----------



## Iving

I was wrong about transparency.
  
 The difference is like going from USB to RedNet for the first time.
  
 The diminution of digital edge/harshness makes you think for a moment that detail has been lost.
  
 But it's like adapting to new spectacles.
  
 This up-to-date, fast, silent PC has made as much difference to my whole system as going from USB to RedNet.
  
 And that is saying something.
  
 RedNet with knobs on.
  
 Warmth, detail, thumping bass - unmistakeable, foot-tapping PRaT.
  
 Honest


----------



## soundquest

iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.....
> 
> I have been too restrained!
> 
> ...


 
 Thank you for sharing that. And, congrats. 
  
 So, this brings up two questions. 
  
*What ROLE does the PC play in the new AOIP paradigm?* [A friend of mine gave up the mRendu for an Auralic Aries stating the Aries "_*takes the computer out of the signal chain*_ _and replaces it entirely with a minimalist, purpose built device that does a great job at handling, streaming, playing digital music files_." Okay, but the files still have to be "served." I'm looking to buy or build a "purpose built" PC (currently have a mac mini), but wonder what I really need for AOIP and if thunderbolt is a key ingredient. And, I see guys building LOW powered minimal units to avoid high wattage PSUs and use a linear power supply. I read about other guys using a "two PC" solution; one as server, one as controller. 
If you were starting from scratch, what would you use? 
  
And, then there's SOFTWARE side; what are you AOIPoids using for *music player software*? 
  
Not aiming to derail this long and winding thread. Thank you all for sharing your insights.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.
> 
> Since owning a D16 AES, I have played music from: (i) a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 (SP3) via its Docking Station; (ii) a new but low-spec Acer laptop and, now, (iii) a brand new, very-few-holds-barred, silent PC.
> 
> ...


 

 Sweet machine!  TB3 on board - outstanding.   Good report on the killer NIC
  
  
 I did notice the SQ improved going from a WIN7 iCore5 to a WIN10 iCore5 - not anything earth shattering but noticeble
 .
 I did some tweeking on my machine - replaced the PS with a high PSRR fanless SeaSonic.  Added some SATA filters to the HD (will go to SSD on my next machine upgrade).
  
 This I did recently added a dedicated AC line noise filter and isolation device  - that also made a noticeble difference.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Iving

soundquest said:


> Thank you for sharing that. And, congrats.
> 
> So, this brings up two questions.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks!
  
 Thunderbolt (3) awaits - not directly relevant to AOIP.
  
 I have abandoned UPnP altogether, There is no doubt that playing direct is best.
  
 You know how one thing leads to another. If I were starting from scratch I wouldn't change anything (except the blood, sweat and tears). The rest of the system is:

 | Blue Jeans Cat 6 ethernet cable (40') | Focusrite RedNet D16 AES digital interface | van den Hul AES-EBU 110 Ohm Professional Halogen Free cable (0.8m) | Dangerous Convert-2 DAC [Word Clock Out to Focusrite RedNet D16 AES via Pro Co Premium Canare cable (3')] | Bespoke Achtung Audio Silver XLR/RCA "Pin 3 Floating" interconnects (1.2m) | Linn AV 5103 System Controller | Linn Silver interconnects (1.2m) | 2 x stereo Quad 909 power amps with identical DADA revisions | vertically bi-amping via Linn LK400 (c. 3m) | Snell Type A III (woofers restored Dave Smith, Romford July 2011; mid-ranges restored Paul Seago, Great Yarmouth July 2016)
  
 foobar - and only foobar (192k courtesy of Sox). With this PC I can set the foobar output buffer to minimum and it will do anything I ask instantly - no hiccoughs.
  
 Other settings:

 DVS:
        Dante Latency: 4ms
        ASIO Buffer: 32
        ASIO Encoding: 32 bits
        ASIO Latency: 1ms
 RedNet Control:
        SR: 192000
        ASIO Buffer: 32
 Dante Controller:
        SP3 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Encoding: PCM 32
        D16 Device Config
               Sample Rate: 192k
               Latency - 250us (150us is greyed out)
  
 It's no derailment at all for you to ask. We are milking AOIP. All the digital harshness has gone. There is *no* fatigue. The sound is beautifully warm, and it hasn't "burned in" at all.


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> Sweet machine!  TB3 on board - outstanding.   Good report on the killer NIC
> 
> 
> I did notice the SQ improved going from a WIN7 iCore5 to a WIN10 iCore5 - not anything earth shattering but noticeble
> ...


 
  
 Thanks Bob
  
 Yeah - The Killer NIC - I wonder ...


----------



## rb2013

soundquest said:


> Thank you for sharing that. And, congrats.
> 
> So, this brings up two questions.
> 
> ...


 

 Good point on the DNLA/UpNP scheme - a lot of moving pieces to get right. See the postings at the beginning of this thread - by a few talented audio designers, like:


> *Miska*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Now AOIP (as I define it - that is Dante and Ravenna) - There are two ways to connect to the DDC.  One is with an expensive PCIe card - like the $1K Rednet PCIe.  The other is using the included Dante DVS (Digital Virtual Soundcard).  I haven't had or seen anyone try the PCIe card route - but my thinking is it may not yield much in the way of SQ improved- just lower latency.
  
 Some folks with older PCs have had issues getting the highest SR to work with the Rednet stuff - so a new or newer PC should be no issue if an iCore series.  Not sure on the low power chips.  If you're getting a new PC why not get one with TB3 on board - even with an iCore3 (although I'd get the iCore5 or 7 for a little more money).
  
 On the PC PS front - going with a high PSRR silent PS is a good idea and not to expensive - of course a LPS is ideal.  TeraDak has a nice $400 unit.  10A 24V.
  
 The beauty (and *differentiating from DNLA/UpNP​*) of AOIP is the ability to use any audio player that works with ASIO.  So Foobar (my player), JR, etc... all good and easy to run.


----------



## gldgate

soundquest said:


> Thank you for sharing that. And, congrats.
> 
> So, this brings up two questions.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a CAPS Pipeline and Puget Systems Serenity Pro PC's. Both are purpose built to be quiet. With AOIP I do not find there is any difference in sq. With USB set up I felt there was a more noticeable difference. Same goes with software. With USB set up I really liked Infinity Blade/ Jplay combo and did not care much for JRiver. With AOIP I find there is much less difference in software (they all sound great) and use JRiver and Roon the most because of features/convenience. Not saying there is no difference. Just not that meaningful to me in the big picture. Others have expressed different experiences which is fine - I have been involved in Audio long enough to know that opinions are better set in clay than in stone. However, I would venture to say based on all I have read  that most seem to find AOIP less finicky and easier to optimize (or get into a very acceptable listening state) than USB.


----------



## Tboooe

gldgate said:


> I have a CAPS Pipeline and Puget Systems Serenity Pro PC's. Both are purpose built to be quiet. With AOIP I do not find there is any difference in sq. With USB set up I felt there was a more noticeable difference. Same goes with software. With USB set up I really liked Infinity Blade/ Jplay combo and did not care much for JRiver. With AOIP I find there is much less difference in software (they all sound great) and use JRiver and Roon the most because of features/convenience. Not saying there is no difference. Just not that meaningful to me in the big picture. Others have expressed different experiences which is fine - I have been involved in Audio long enough to know that opinions are better set in clay than in stone. However, I would venture to say based on all I have read  that most seem to find AOIP less finicky and easier to optimize (or get into a very acceptable listening state) than USB.


 
 How great would it be if AOIP leveled the playing field somewhat and allowed us to focus more on downstream components (speakers, amps, pres) that actually played the music like the "old" days???!!  I miss those days.....


----------



## jabbr

iving said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Thunderbolt (3) awaits - not directly relevant to AOIP.
> 
> ...




I notice all electrical wiring between PC and Rednet.
A known fact is that cat cable connections are not immune to transfering electrical noise. Just look at the improvements to be had by using GISO GB isolators.
So I guess the new PC is electrically less noisy than your old laptops, but that shouldn't be much of a revelation.

Should try fiber media converters and see if things improve even further.


----------



## astrostar59

Rb2013
  
 REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)
  
 Please could you explain the parts in this chain and how it would hook up to a Mac for example? I am thinking I need to enthernet out to the Rednet, then the Mutec has SPDIF out?
  
 What is the total cost of this chain? I think my rough tally is about 4K Euros.
  
 Another question, how do you connect the Rednet to the Mutec, via USB or BNC?


----------



## gldgate

tboooe said:


> How great would it be if AOIP leveled the playing field somewhat and allowed us to focus more on downstream components (speakers, amps, pres) that actually played the music like the "old" days???!!  I miss those days.....


 
  
 I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Rb2013
> 
> REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)
> 
> ...


 

 Sure - Cat 6 Ethernet from my PC Intel NIC card to the Rednet3, then DB25 to AES cable for the Rednet 3 out to the Mutec  input (Mutec as AES reclocker)>Mutec SPDIF to DAC (very, very good results with the Synergistic Research Element Copper (silver bullet) digital fed by a SR Galileo - next best Audience AU 24 SE - very far back the Audio Sens Silver Statement).  The Antelope OCX by Oyaide BNC to Rednet WClock input.
  
 The Rednet 3 is $1K + Mutec $1.1K + OCX (I bought used for $650)Better the new Live Clock $900=$3K  add in another $500 for top digital cables (used prices) + $750 for power chords (if you can find CT Graphenes for that price - good luck). 
  
 Yeah about $4300.  Or using a BURL B2B DAC - just add a $250 Dante Brooklyn II card.  No need for the Mutec, Rednet, or digital cables.  Only one power cord as well.  The OCXO clock is optional - after modding to remove the BURL SMPS and running it on a LPS.
  
 BTW the Rednet, Mutec and Antelope all use SMPS's.  See Uptone's Alex Crespi's excellent post on my XU208 thread on SMPS issues.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/3570#post_12883888


----------



## motberg

gldgate said:


> I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.


 

 That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..
 In my case, my speakers bout maybe 7 years ago were fairly well reviewed... but when I first got them I was sure they would be gone within a couple years max...
 but now I am just shocked at how nice they sound and favorably compare to most of what heard at a recent audio show.
  
 I am still speaker shopping - and to me currently speakers a higher priority than going AOIP (mostly due to I do not need/desire SPDIF conversion) - but with my seriously improved source I know I need be very careful that the speaker investment will in fact be an upgrade..
  
 Also these investments in the source will maintain their value and contribute to everything downstream.. even if they get outdated every few months..jejejeje..
 also I would think the AOIP gear will hold its resale value due to the additional large project studio market


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> How great would it be if AOIP leveled the playing field somewhat and allowed us to focus more on downstream components (speakers, amps, pres) that actually played the music like the "old" days???!!  I miss those days.....


 

 When I started this USB DDC rolling escapade many, many years ago - started with a lowly M2Tech Hiface 1 - I had no idea it would have led to this.  Even when I had the M2Tech - my main computer interface was a fire face 1394b RME FF800.  It was better, much better.  Ditched the RME when I got the EVO + LPS.
  
 I was an analog lunatic for decades - ending up with a near sota analog rig - digital was crap in comparison.  I mean really expensive CD players I had (Meridan, Krell, Levinson) it was a joke.  About 12 years ago began the computer music server path, still not competitive, fast forward to today - not a joke any more.  Right around the time I finished the Uber USB chain with the F-1 and Startech GB LAN USB extender - I declared DIGITAL the winner!  Yes it was better then the best analog I could muster - with just my Dynavector XV1S costing more then the whole insane USB chain.
  
 That led to the next leap past near sota analog - this AOIP stuff.
  
 As I've said many times on this thread and my other XU208 thread - never in a million years would have expected these USB gizmos and the whole PC to DAC chain to make such a major SQ difference.  It really still is shocking to me - in good way...


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..
> In my case, my speakers bout maybe 7 years ago were fairly well reviewed... but when I first got them I was sure they would be gone within a couple years max...
> but now I am just shocked at how nice they sound and favorably compare to most of what heard at a recent audio show.
> 
> ...


 

 Well said - I went from these:


 To these:


 And couldn't be happier...from $30k Talon Firebirds to $800 Maggie 1.6QR's.
  
 The imaging, detail, focus, tonality, transparency, and sound staging is the most realistic I have ever heard.  Truly in the room life sized and like - presence.
 The money spent upstream made that possible - the Maggies were able to use that 'information' to do magic - pretty amazing speakers.  I've had them for 6 years and they still impress me.
  
 PS and with the added bass depth and focus with AOIP - the Velodyne sub was no longer needed - it's gone.


----------



## johnjen

motberg said:


> Thanks for the info - very interesting..
> regarding "separation signal's data and timing that is being sent from the 'source' to the dac" .. if I understand correctly, just using a SPDIF connection would recombine the data and timing, so maybe the preferred D16 usage would be to include the wordclock out to the DAC via BNC ?
> If so, then it seems maybe for audiophiles AOIP to i2S via card or box, (or direct to DAC) would be technically a benefit by eliminating the SPDIF conversion?


 
 To be a bit more precise…
 It really isn't that the timing and signal data are separated, but that the ethernet protocol doesn't use the timing info from the data stream itself, rather it uses it's own clock to 're-time' the data itself and ignores the timing from the incoming data stream altogether.
 This is then passed along to the digital audio converter (AES, SPDIF, USB Toslink, etc.) which then feeds the dac.
  
 I chose the word separated in my previous post because it was 'easier' to try and explain and to help provide more contrast to these 2 critical aspects.
  
 This method of handling these 2 portions (timing and the data itself) of the data stream, is in contrast to both SPDIF and USB which rely upon the 'embedded' timing of the data stream itself, which is a major source of additional jitter among other variables and are problematic.
  
 And if the output of this data stream (from the ethernet data path) is passed along using either AES or I2s, then the data and timing info remain separate as they are used by the dac.
  
 These 2 protocols (SPDIF & USB) are the 'consumer' versions of the method of passing the audio data to the dac, where as AES is a 'pro audio' (meaning more robust) and I2s is a variant of HDMI (or is it visa versa?) which has not been formalized into a set structure (pinout and signal definitions) that all who use it agree upon.
  
 I2s is potentially 'better' but really is best for use with short cable runs and is mostly an internal digital signal pathway to the main digital signal bus.
  
 An example, if a Audinate brooklyn card (or similar) were located inside a dac and fed an ethernet signal and it's output fed the dac via I2s, it could be the ideal means to get the digital signal from the source (computer) directly to the dac with minimal signal processing in between.
 And assuming the word clock in the dac was 'good enough' (or could be externally supplied) this would be a single solution dac instead of several digital boxes between the source and the dac itself.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

gldgate said:


> I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.


 
 As a point of contrast.
  
 The general consensus is to dump Big $$$$ into the speakers and build up the electronics as a secondary means of attaining *'Better'*.
  
 My current setup is ≈ 10K$ of electronics driving ≈ $75 speakers and I am hearing the SQ improve considerably as the signal source feeding them is steadily refined and improved and in multiple ways.
  
 Now granted this is a near field setup and I don't expect speakers to match what my 800's provide.
 Even so this approach kinda blows the 'old conventional wisdom' away, in that if/when I do get 'better' speakers the signal fed them will be already tweaked and thus they will tend to perform closer to their true potential.
  
 IOW if the signal feeding speakers (or HP's) is tweako then that signal CAN be delivered and the acoustic results will be all the more 'faithfully' to the original signal.
  
 Just another approach to consider.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

johnjen said:


> As a point of contrast.
> 
> The general consensus is to dump Big $$$$ into the speakers and build up the electronics as a secondary means of attaining *'Better'*.
> 
> ...




I would say that is grossly out of balance.

Your electronics will never be able to offer the quality that your speakers are probably capable of. It explains also why every change in your electronics is an improvement, which will probably continue to be so, until your electronics match the level of the speakers.

It is one possible approach, but I would say that much of the invested capital could be more effectively spend on better quality electronics and bring more balance into the whole setup.

In the end it is still "garbage in = garbage out" and IMHO best value for money comes from a balanced system with best quality source you can get and work from that down the chain; the "source first" approach.


----------



## johnjen

jabbr said:


> I would say that is grossly out of balance.
> 
> Your electronics will never be able to offer the quality that your speakers are probably capable of. It explains also why every change in your electronics is an improvement, which will probably continue to be so, until your electronics match the level of the speakers.
> 
> ...


 
 Um, I use my 800's as the arbiter of what is better, not the speakers.
 And my electronics are quite nice actually and I do rather enjoy this system.
  
 But they are after all ≈$75 speakers so I don't expect them to keep up, and true to form they don't even come close.
  
 But my point was that the degree of improvement that both of us have noticed is, as the system that feeds both the headphones and speakers steps up, the speakers reflect these changes and in surprising ways.
  
 Despite the fact that they are ≈$75 speakers.
 In fact they are connected to my ROK amp using $125 speaker cables.
  
 This tells me that these Dayton $40/pair + my mods ($30 for tweeters and better caps) actually do have scaleability and far more than I would ever have suspected.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

johnjen said:


> ...
> 
> But they are after all ≈$75 speakers so I don't expect them to keep up, and true to form they don't even come close.
> 
> ...


 
 JJ
  
 Do you really mean $75 speakers or $75k speakers?
 I read $75k speakers, so I'm sorry if I misread that.
  
 Cheers


----------



## johnjen

Not a problem.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 I figured there was a misreading or sumpt'n.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 $75 for the pair…
  
 Dayton B652's
 https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-652
  
 I can't even imagine how they can make the drivers cost so little.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> When I started this USB DDC rolling escapade many, many years ago - started with a lowly M2Tech Hiface 1 - I had no idea it would have led to this.  Even when I had the M2Tech - my main computer interface was a fire face 1394b RME FF800.  It was better, much better.  Ditched the RME when I got the EVO + LPS.


 
 Ok this is getting interesting. Can I ask (having only enough money for one box at 1K, I have at the moment the EVO full stack and LPS x 2, one for the clock, one for the EVO. I also use a Mac Mini tweaked up with 12V DC supply board and using Audirvana+ Async / Direct mode into a 25K DAC via SPDIF.
  
 I was thinking the Mutec MC-3 + USB would be better than my EVO stack on it's own, but I read 2 reviews and they are real close,. no big deal. And TBH I don't dig the fact the Mutec is using USB power to drive the XIMOS chip board.
  
 So can I use the Rednet ethernet switch from a Mac Mini and feed my DAC from the Rednet with SPDIF out, and not have to buy the Mutec as well? If yes, would the Rednet on it's own beat the EVO stack by some margin?
  
 BTW I use the TotalDAC USB cable/filter and it elevated the EVO still further i.e. smoother in the treble for example.
  
 Thanks in advance.


----------



## mourip

motberg said:


> That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..


 
  
 +1
  
 Almost all of my efforts this past year have been on my front end including the DAC. Luckily the rest of my equipment has been able to pass on these changes well. I use a pair of Omega Alnico single driver floor-standers and they just keep scaling up with the ever cleaner front end...


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> To be a bit more precise…
> It really isn't that the timing and signal data are separated, but that the ethernet protocol doesn't use the timing info from the data stream itself, rather it uses it's own clock to 're-time' the data itself and ignores the timing from the incoming data stream altogether.
> This is then passed along to the digital audio converter (AES, SPDIF, USB Toslink, etc.) which then feeds the dac.
> 
> ...


 
 Ok some other things that make AOIP different from USB 2.0 Async - that is error correction - AOIP is packetized as is USB  - but with a robust two way error correction protocol. Something USB 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 have  - but was changed in the USB 2.0 Audio - maybe why MS never supported it?
  
 So SPDIF and AES - are very different then USB audio - in so many ways wouldn't use them in the same context.
  
 As for SPDIF and AES - they are base on  the same underlying protocol - and have many of the same limitations:


> S/PDIF was developed at the same time as the main standard, AES3, used to interconnect professional audio equipment in the professional audio field. This resulted from the desire of the various standards committees to have at least sufficient similarities between the two interfaces to allow the use of the same, or very similar, designs for interfacing ICs.[4] S/PDIF remained almost identical at the protocol level,[a]but changed the physical connectors from XLR to either electrical coaxial cable (with RCA connectors) or optical fibre (TOSLINK; i.e., F05 or EIAJ Optical), both of which cost less than the XLR connection. The RCA connectors are typically colour-coded orange to differentiate from other RCA connector uses such as composite video. The cable was also changed from 110 Ω balanced twisted pair to 75 Ω coaxial cable, using RCA jacks.


 
  
 AOIP operates using RTP and is Level 3 compliant - that means is requires no special LAN switches to work  - at least in theory.
  


> An example, if a Audinate brooklyn card (or similar) were located inside a dac and fed an ethernet signal and it's output fed the dac via I2s, it could be the ideal means to get the digital signal from the source (computer) directly to the dac with minimal signal processing in between.
> And assuming the word clock in the dac was 'good enough' (or could be externally supplied) this would be a single solution dac instead of several digital boxes between the source and the dac itself.
> 
> JJ


 
  
 I guess you haven't been following this thread much.  It's not an IF but a reality.  Need to bone up my friend.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> Um, I use my 800's as the arbiter of what is better, not the speakers.
> And my electronics are quite nice actually and I do rather enjoy this system.
> 
> But they are after all ≈$75 speakers so I don't expect them to keep up, and true to form they don't even come close.
> ...


 

 So your ref system  - in which you make your great prognostications - is based on listening to $75 speakers (but oh $125 speaker cables!)
  
 Dude you have got to be kidding me?
  
 When you said 800's thought you meant these B&W 800's - had a pair back in the day - nice speaks:


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Ok this is getting interesting. Can I ask (having only enough money for one box at 1K, I have at the moment the EVO full stack and LPS x 2, one for the clock, one for the EVO. I also use a Mac Mini tweaked up with 12V DC supply board and using Audirvana+ Async / Direct mode into a 25K DAC via SPDIF.
> 
> I was thinking the Mutec MC-3 + USB would be better than my EVO stack on it's own, but I read 2 reviews and they are real close,. no big deal. And TBH I don't dig the fact the Mutec is using USB power to drive the XIMOS chip board.
> 
> ...


 

 I never did get the EVO clock and that does improve it considerably.  That said - I'd be shocked if JUST the Rednet 3 - that is MAC>RN3>DAC doesn't far exceed the EVO stack.
  
 I completely agree on the Mutec XMOS issue - IME (In my experience) comparing the Mutec MC-3+ USB directly against a well fed Singxer F-1 - the XU208 F-1 was clearly better at a fraction of the cost.  The Mutec XMOS board is not much to write home about - still has the previous gen XMOS U8.  Higher phase noise clocks (looks like generic XO's) then the F-1 Crystek CCHD-575's

  
 I'd imagine even the TotalDAC USB cable/filter would not get USB past the AOIP RN3.
  
 FYI there is a used Rednet 3 in the classifieds.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

I should add on the HP side of the equation - I had Senn HD800 with Moon Black Dragon V2 cables.

 Sold them -as the well sourced and amped Maggies produced an imaging experience that the HD800's could come no where close to.


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> I completely agree on the Mutec XMOS issue - IME (In my experience) comparing the Mutec MC-3+ USB directly against a well fed Singxer F-1 - the XU208 F-1 was clearly better at a fraction of the cost.  The Mutec XMOS board is not much to write home about - still has the previous gen XMOS U8.  Higher phase noise clocks (looks like generic XO's) then the F-1 Crystek CCHD-575's


 
 Very interesting comments.  I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of my Mutec.  Frankly, I am not entirely sure it is better than my el cheapo Music Fidelity Vlink USB converter.  Curious about your comments on the Singxer F1.  I assume the F1 also needs power from the USB cable right?  What do you think is the theoretical reason why the F1 sounds better than the Mutec?  Have you also compared the SU-1?


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> Very interesting comments.  I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of my Mutec.  Frankly, I am not entirely sure it is better than my el cheapo Music Fidelity Vlink USB converter.  Curious about your comments on the Singxer F1.  I assume the F1 also needs power from the USB cable right?  What do you think is the theoretical reason why the F1 sounds better than the Mutec?  Have you also compared the SU-1?




Comparisons and discussion of USB devices is best done on the USB thread and not an this AOIP thread.
The use of Mutec 3+ USB in the context of AOIP is for the SPDIF reclocking and not for its USB interface.


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> Comparisons and discussion of USB devices is best done on the USB thread and not an this AOIP thread.
> The use of Mutec 3+ USB in the context of AOIP is for the SPDIF reclocking and not for its USB interface.


 
 My bad...


----------



## Tboooe

Has anyone compared HQ Player + NAA to HQ Player + Rednet?  
  
 I got a pretty big jump in SQ when I added an NAA into my system.  Has anyone been crazy enough to try HQ Player >> NAA >> Rednet just for kicks?


----------



## johnjen

rb2013 said:


> So your ref system  - in which you make your great prognostications - is based on listening to $75 speakers (but oh $125 speaker cables!)
> 
> Dude you have got to be kidding me?
> 
> When you said 800's thought you meant these B&W 800's - had a pair back in the day - nice speaks:


 
 Um, read my first sentence again, HD-800's.
 This is after all Head Fi, not speaker fi.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

So interested in this Rednet 3 product.
  
*A question*
 Can I hook it up as:
  
*Mac Mini playing Audirvana+ *to* Ethernet out (download the Rednet driver for a 'virtual' sound card) *to* Rednet 3 and SPDIF out *to* DAC.*
  
 i.e no switch box / router. I only need a dead simple one way network. I prefer to use only the Rednet 3, so no Mutec and / or external clock.
  
 Has anyone with a Mac done this? If so how did it sound compared to say the Berkley Alpha USB or EVO full stack with LPS?
  
 Also do you need a PCi card to keep latency right down below USB specs, or does it still perform really well using the 'virtual' sound card app from Focusright?


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> Um, read my first sentence again, HD-800's.
> This is after all Head Fi, not speaker fi.
> 
> JJ


Ok that makes more sense. But you didn't write HD800. What doesn't, to me, is if you have $1500 HP's, why use $75 speakers to evaluate anything? Whatever works for you...


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Ok that makes more sense. But you didn't write HD800. What doesn't, to me, is if you have $1500 HP's, why use $75 speakers to evaluate anything? Whatever works for you...


 

 Agree. Most in the audio industry recommend a similar budget for DAC/Amplifier/Speakers. Yes there are some great budget DACs, some great book shelf type speakers, but getting it too far out of wack is just bonkers. It also applies to HP as well IMO. I don't believe a very fast and revealing headphone will be relaxed listening with a 300 USD DAC for example.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> ...................., why use $75 speakers to evaluate anything? Whatever works for you...


 

 sheeeze guys... the way I read it was JJ was just making a rather amusing comment that the AOIP investment was worthwhile even using entry-level speakers...
 In any case, thanks to both of you for further defining some of the technical differences between the various transport protocols.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.

rb2013 how's the Burl B2 Dante stock vs Rednet /your dac? I'm thinking maybe I keep my rednet and up my amp/dac. But if the B2 Dante is good stock maybe I consider it more.


----------



## johnjen

Quote:Originally Posted by *motberg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 sheeeze guys... the way I read it was JJ was just making a rather amusing comment that the AOIP investment was worthwhile even using entry-level speakers...
   In any case, thanks to both of you for further defining some of the technical differences between the various transport protocols.
  

 Originally Posted by *Soundsgoodtome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.
  
  
 Yes to both of these.
  
 And that when a well executed source is delivered with precision, it's as important as the HP's or speakers, perhaps even more so.
  
 As in GIGO!
  
 JJ


----------



## hieukm

I got excited reading about AOIP solutions. However, it seems my Chord Dave dont benefit from as its completely isolated from USB jitter. Secondly, Dave dont seems to benefit from a external clocks(master clock/word clock). Both issued been address by Chord Dave internal design.

Can you guys shed some lights on it?

trial and return is not an option as i live in Asia.


----------



## astrostar59

hieukm said:


> I got excited reading about AOIP solutions. However, it seems my Chord Dave dont benefit from as its completely isolated from USB jitter. Secondly, Dave dont seems to benefit from a external clocks(master clock/word clock). Both issued been address by Chord Dave internal design.
> 
> Can you guys shed some lights on it?
> 
> trial and return is not an option as i live in Asia.


 

 Seems as though any USB feed / input is compromised regardless of the design, as USB has unavoidable problems such as jitter induced latency, noise amongst others. I fancy giving Rednet a go to see what all the fuss is about, but it does sound promising. Some of the 25K+ DAC are now offering Ethernet input so they have recognised the bottlenecks. Having said all that, I have got USB better than any CDP I have tried, so all good IMO. Bring it on.


----------



## hieukm

http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/3390

Please refer to post 3395 for reference.

Chord Dave has no word clock input. 

I would love to try out the combo AOIP/10M OCXO clock/Antelope liveclock/3xMutec spdif reclock if it gets me close to the ultimate vinyl/tape sound.

It has been lacking comparison on how AOIP as the ultimate digital solution stack up against the Vinyl/tape sound.


----------



## Iving

hieukm said:


> I would love to try out the combo AOIP/10M OCXO clock/Antelope liveclock/3xMutec spdif reclock if it gets me close to the ultimate vinyl/tape sound.
> 
> It has been lacking comparison on how AOIP as the ultimate digital solution stack up against the Vinyl/tape sound.


 
  
 My RedNet setup is not what you describe as "the ultimate digital solution" [we are not all agreed and anyway we are not there yet!], but see this post for a head start: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/1170#post_12743564. A recent PC upgrade catapulted the RedNet/Dangerous Convert-2 score from 8 to 9 (see recent post).
  
 All that said, I still believe - imho - but I will attest to the end - there is something about vinyl that never will be beaten - a certain kind of analogue experience that digits will never wholly replace. My comparative scores (6 for LP12/Ittok/Troika vs. 8 or 9 for RedNet/Convert-2 depending on PC) are "satisfaction" scores - subjective of course.
  
 A spend-for-spend comparison is what is needed - How does 5k spent before the pre-amp - analogue vs. AOIP compare? That requires 10k on those sources alone. I haven't been able to do that. No-one to my knowledge has come close either. Not in this thread anyway.
  
 I do think it a possible error to think you can *replace* vinyl with AOIP. You cannot undo history. You cannot insert something else for the nostalgic inheritance of 1956-1980. It's just not possible. But if you go for it - send me a PM with first refusal on your records.


----------



## hieukm

Well my point was that with AOIP audio, we have basicly deal with digital weakness in all front:

- 10M clock and word clock to deal with timing
- AOIP deal with galvanic isolation
- Mutec USB to deal with jitter + galvanic isolation
- FMC to deal with galvanic isolation in between

Btw, i understand that this is a headphone oriented forum however i believe there are some members who have vẻy nice speakers system and willing to go to the extreme to match vinyl record. 

A 10k drop on the 10M clock/word clock/AOIP/SPDIF reclocker/ to improve on source on a high end speakers system is nothing special, imho.


----------



## Iving

hieukm said:


> Well my point was that with AOIP audio, we have basicly deal with digital weakness in all front:
> 
> - 10M clock and word clock to deal with timing
> - AOIP deal with galvanic isolation
> ...


 
  
 The massive improvement obtained with a PC upgrade challenges the "galvanic isolation" presumption. There are contributions earlier in this thread that challenge the benefit of FMCs.
  
 I'll look forward to your report on 10k+ spent!


----------



## hieukm

iving said:


> The massive improvement obtained with a PC upgrade challenges the "galvanic isolation" presumption. There are contributions earlier in this thread that challenge the benefit of FMCs.
> 
> I'll look forward to your report on 10k+ spent!




Well if i feel that this 10K will get me more benefit than buying a Shunyata Daneli, High Fidelity Cable/ Entreq grounding or Tripoint/ which are my intended next upgrade then i would go for it.


----------



## Iving

hieukm said:


> Well if i feel that this 10K will get me more benefit than buying a Shunyata Daneli, High Fidelity Cable/ Entreq grounding or Tripoint/ which are my intended next upgrade then i would go for it.


 
  
 Guess that would depend on your existing system including quality of local mains etc. This thread generally holds that AOIP is a revolution over USB. Any AOIP reports you can furnish will go down well here.


----------



## somestranger26

iving said:


> The massive improvement obtained with a PC upgrade challenges the "galvanic isolation" presumption. There are contributions earlier in this thread that challenge the benefit of FMCs.
> 
> I'll look forward to your report on 10k+ spent!


 

 Ethernet is already galvanically isolated by design.
  


hieukm said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/3390
> 
> Please refer to post 3395 for reference.
> 
> ...


 

 Save your money and just get one MC-3+ USB instead of 3 Mutec MC-3 daisy-chained.


----------



## alubis

I don't have Chord Dave, but I do have Chord Hugo and Chord Hugo TT. Hugo TT has better usb implementation compared to Chord Hugo, and if I'm not mistaken Chord Hugo TT usb implementation is similar to Chord Dave. 

Despite Rob Watts preference with usb input for Hugo TT, my ears tell me Hugo TT fed by rednet d16 via spdif is better. The good thing about chord dacs is their jitter are low fed from spdif or usb. So my conclusion is that jitter and galvanic isolation are not the only problems, but the transfer mechanism/protocol matters as well. 


hieukm said:


> I got excited reading about AOIP solutions. However, it seems my Chord Dave dont benefit from as its completely isolated from USB jitter. Secondly, Dave dont seems to benefit from a external clocks(master clock/word clock). Both issued been address by Chord Dave internal design.
> 
> Can you guys shed some lights on it?
> 
> trial and return is not an option as i live in Asia.


----------



## motberg

iving said:


> The massive improvement obtained with a PC upgrade challenges the "galvanic isolation" presumption. There are contributions earlier in this thread that challenge the benefit of FMCs.
> 
> I'll look forward to your report on 10k+ spent!


 

 In a way, this is good to know the investment in quiet PC building would possibly not be lost going to AOIP..
  
 Another monitor maker with Dante:
 http://www.hedd.audio/en/hedd-bridge/
  
 I really think when talking ultimate stuff, it should be considered to remove the SPDIF/AES conversion from the primary path to the DAC.. I understand that SPDIF/AES allows flexibility, backward compatibility, and may be a requirement for a studio environment, but with CA changing so rapidly I think it is OK to think a little outside the box and more along the direct AOIP->i2S idea, that would still allow compatibility with most current DAC chips (iiuc). Lots of DIY folks swap USB input modules in their DAC's, i.e.: XMOS for Amanero, etc..


----------



## jabbr

somestranger26 said:


> Ethernet is already galvanically isolated by design.




Not so/sufficiently.
It is a known fact from my experience and and professional studios that proper LAN isolators like Accusence GISO GB can give big improvements.
So something is not completely right in the default 'galvanic' isolation of ethernet.


----------



## Iving

Quote:


iving said:


> A spend-for-spend comparison is what is needed - How does 5k spent before the pre-amp - analogue vs. AOIP compare? That requires 10k on those sources alone. I haven't been able to do that. No-one to my knowledge has come close either. Not in this thread anyway.


 
   



hieukm said:


> A 10k drop on the 10M clock/word clock/AOIP/SPDIF reclocker/ to improve on source on a high end speakers system is nothing special, imho.


 
  


hieukm said:


> Well if i feel that this 10K will get me more benefit than buying a Shunyata Daneli, High Fidelity Cable/ Entreq grounding or Tripoint/ which are my intended next upgrade then i would go for it.


 
  

 When I think about it
 I have over 5k spent on my AOIP front end anyway:
 1.5k on (new) PC,
 1.2k on D16 AES and
 2.3k on Convert-2
 without taking account of cables etc.
 Satisfaction score = 9/10 for current argument's sake
 Arbitrary I know but just to make a point ...
  
 A spend for spend exercise requires 5k+ on a vinyl rig
 My LP12/Ittok/Troika is about 1.5k current *second hand*
 Satisfaction score was 6/10
 One could argue that good condition second hand is about 2/3 of New
 Arbitrary I know but just to make a point ...
 So the "New equivalent" value of my 1980s LP12 is say 2.25k
  
 So "satisfaction" score per k on AOIP is 9/5 = 1.8
 and "satisfaction" score per k on LP12 is 6/2.25 = 2.67
 So vinyl is doing pretty good
 being about 50% more bang-for-buck than AOIP
  
 A better comparison is a new 5k vinyl front end
 What LP12 (or other deck) can I buy for 5k now?
 Well - something like this: http://petertyson.co.uk/linn-akurate-lp12-turntable.html?gcpc&gclid=CJDHxNzFrM8CFUefGwoduf4Gpw.
  
 Now I get a certain lustful feeling when I look at that
  
 But my most striking thought this morning
 even tho' I am a vinyl fan thru and thru
 and believe so strongly in the social history of the vinyl era 1956-1980
             rockabilly explosion 1956
             peaking of rock and West Coast creativity about 1973
             music dead with arrival of punk
             nothing new since
             except maybe Travis
             not forgetting the "lost" original transcription of Bobfest 30th 1992 and the exquisite "My Back Pages" including the best guitar solo ever in history rendered by Eric Clapton in that performance
  
 is that if I had 3k to spend today
 to make my spend 10k all told on a 5k vs 5k comparison
 "nothing special" after all
 *I would spend it on my AOIP route not the LP12 upgrade*
  
 So I couldn't report on a 10k comparison even if I had the inclination to spend the extra 3k
  
 I can get a big nostalgic and musical thrill playing 7" records on a lesser deck than my LP12
 I have five record decks all told
 And I have to keep getting out of my chair - poor me
  
 Now rare rockabilly singles can cost a great deal
 But I can buy shedloads of archive rockabilly on CD for very little by comparison (same goes for rare English folk and Americana too)
 And I can wade thru it from my coffee table barely moving a muscle
 So the extra "satisfaction" integral in marginal AOIP spend is greater than in marginal vinyl spend
 Vinyl is far from dead
 But now that digital "satisfaction" is comparable with vinyl "satisfaction", that is how I would spend my money
  
 The question whether to invest significant sums in AOIP now very much depends on what one is trying to improve upon -
 And on one's personal "satisfaction" biases
 And
 dare we say
 Whether we are going to be overtaken on our blind sides at some new technological frontier in the very near future
  
 Would love to hear from anyone who has a 5k+ record deck *AND* AOIP!


----------



## REXNFX

iving said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Trying to match vinyl has always been my aim for digital, tried loads of DAC's and haven't come close. What software player are you using? And at what point in your digital system building did you reach parity with vinyl? Cheers!


----------



## Iving

rexnfx said:


> Trying to match vinyl has always been my aim for digital, tried loads of DAC's and haven't come close. What software player are you using? And at what point in your digital system building did you reach parity with vinyl? Cheers!


 
  
 I am 54
 Unlike my peers at age 14 - in 1976 - I listened to rockabilly not Chart hits
 In the 80s I hated CDs and all things digital
 I sold all my records and Hi-Fi in 2002 because of circumstances
 I bought CDs just to have access to at least Jackson Browne and a few others
 Then realised that digits via a computer was a better economic *and* Hi-Fi proposition than a good CD player
 So ripped my increasing CD collection
 Tried USB following forums at CA
 Got some satisfaction but always sub-vinyl
 Then got a D16 AES reading this thread - adding a Convert-2 after a disappointing Yggy
 That is when I realised that I could get as much "satisfaction" = goose bumps listening to digits compared with vinyl
 Not a "match" tho' ...
 You cannot get social history, ritual, handling albums, appreciation of musical evolution, recreation of memories etc with CDs/digits
 And there is still an unbeatable certain kind of solidity playing vinyl compared with digits
 But RedNet + Convert-2 beats LP12/Ittok/Troika in "satisfaction" = goose bumps - sheer octane thrill
 And as I have explained in previous post I wouldn't spend more on vinyl front end now (well not too much!)
 That was just a few weeks/months ago
 I use foobar2000 with Sox upsampler (to 192k)
 I love its simplicity
 And absence of commercial motive
 It outputs to Dante DVS beautifully
 Especially with a nice PC
 There is no need for anything else just playing my redbook collection
 I admit my digits are convenience instances of my primary love - vinyl from 1956 to 1980
 [What kind of cosmic coincidence is that - that the vinyl era 1956-1980 matches exactly the era of revolutionary and worthwhile non-classical music]
 So folks who love adverts, commercial environments, new music, downloads, massively hi-res or massively oversampled music - may have different priorities
 Cheers


----------



## Iving

btw my "circumstances" have revolved such that now, being an online trader, I have more vinyl records than I could ever listen to
 but whereas once for a quick thrill I chucked on a vinyl track
 now i am more likely to click on a mouse
 c'est la vie
 what's left of it anyway


----------



## motberg

iving said:


> [What kind of cosmic coincidence is that - that the vinyl era 1956-1980 matches exactly the era of revolutionary and worthwhile non-classical music]


 
 Well said.....  +1


----------



## Iving

motberg said:


> Well said.....  +1


 
  
 Of course Joe Bussard would say something very similar about the 78 phonograph disc record/shellac era say 1900-1956. If your poison is jazz and blues you might agree. "Desperate Man Blues" is the most delightful and engaging music-documentary film I have seen. Joe Bussard is 80 - same age as my father. Perhaps it's a generation thing. I don't care to speculate too long on what Joe Bussard would make of AOIP. Don't care either to imagine future generations reminiscing on the digital era. But I speak for myself only. Of course.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Agree. Most in the audio industry recommend a similar budget for DAC/Amplifier/Speakers. Yes there are some great budget DACs, some great book shelf type speakers, but getting it too far out of wack is just bonkers. It also applies to HP as well IMO. I don't believe a very fast and revealing headphone will be relaxed listening with a 300 USD DAC for example.


 

 Well said - I agree.  There are a few giant killers in the HP amp arena in my experience, but with speakers as with HPs there are boundaries.  The new ELAC speakers are getting rave reviews and are very reasonably priced.  But $75?  No the B6 bookshelf's are $280 and the floorstanding F6 $380.  If I were starting out I would try a pair.
  
 On this thread we are talking sota digital audio - with AOIP chains in the $3-$4K region.  So to hear the differences of what this new new audio tech can do will require better gear.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.
> 
> @rb2013 how's the Burl B2 Dante stock vs Rednet /your dac? I'm thinking maybe I keep my rednet and up my amp/dac. But if the B2 Dante is good stock maybe I consider it more.


 
 Progressing very nicely.  So far the BURL is a major step ahead - although lacking a bit of the tonal richness (euphonics?) of my heavily modded tubed DAC60.  We're working on adding a digital output - so I can compare the BURL as a DAC to the DAC60 DAC by SPDIF.  This is very tricky to do.  Would have been great for BURL to have added a digital out to their DAC.  The BURL uses no output coupling capacitors or transformers - but custom made discrete class A opamps.
  


johnjen said:


> Originally Posted by *Soundsgoodtome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.
> 
> ...


 
 GIGO - well that we can agree on.


----------



## rb2013

hieukm said:


> I got excited reading about AOIP solutions. However, it seems my Chord Dave dont benefit from as its completely isolated from USB jitter. Secondly, Dave dont seems to benefit from a external clocks(master clock/word clock). Both issued been address by Chord Dave internal design.
> 
> Can you guys shed some lights on it?
> 
> trial and return is not an option as i live in Asia.


 
 The DAVE is a masterpiece of engineering- congrats on getting it.  It has a very good USB section, but also excellent SPDIF inputs.  Some how Chord is able to get 384k on the SPDIF input to work.  I still think that the AOIP would be superior - and that has to do with eliminating  USB 'Packet ' noise - which can cross even GI isolation (see John Swenson's explaination of USB Packet noise and modulation in the data signal).
  


astrostar59 said:


> Seems as though any USB feed / input is compromised regardless of the design, as USB has unavoidable problems such as jitter induced latency, noise amongst others. I fancy giving Rednet a go to see what all the fuss is about, but it does sound promising. Some of the 25K+ DAC are now offering Ethernet input so they have recognised the bottlenecks. Having said all that, I have got USB better than any CDP I have tried, so all good IMO. Bring it on.


 
 Yes  - but most DAC manufacturers like MSB implement a 'Render' solution or DNLA/UpNP.  With the MSB one is able to use any audio player.  But it's not AES67 AOIP.
 http://www.msbtech.com/products/serverComp.php?Page=dac5home
  
 USB can get very good with enough effort - better then any spinner I have herad as well.  AOIP is beyond that.


----------



## rb2013

hieukm said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/3390
> 
> Please refer to post 3395 for reference.
> 
> ...


 

 You haven't read my many posts in comparing near sota analog to my uber USB chain or AOIP.
  
 I have posted this here many times - my old $30K (not bragging - just giving a crude measure of my analog rig) has finally been surpassed by computer audio.  My ultimate analog system took over a decade of equipment rolling to 'perfect'.  The computer digital source much longer - but after 14 yrs finally did it.  Sold off all my analog gear (but keeping my LPs as I expect they will appreciate in value).
  
 Analog rig VPI Super Scout Master Signature/Dynavector XV1S (Benz Ebony LP)/Nordost Valhalla tonearm cabling and IC's/Bent Audio Silver Step up transformers/CJ tubed Phono Pre (NOS Seimens CCa's)/CJ Art 2 Pre....


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> My RedNet setup is not what you describe as "the ultimate digital solution" [we are not all agreed and anyway we are not there yet!], but see this post for a head start: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/1170#post_12743564. A recent PC upgrade catapulted the RedNet/Dangerous Convert-2 score from 8 to 9 (see recent post).
> 
> All that said, I still believe - imho - but I will attest to the end - there is something about vinyl that never will be beaten - a certain kind of analogue experience that digits will never wholly replace. My comparative scores (6 for LP12/Ittok/Troika vs. 8 or 9 for RedNet/Convert-2 depending on PC) are "satisfaction" scores - subjective of course.
> 
> ...


 

 Love those LP12's - Mine had a few mods, then a had a Rega P9, then the VPI, etc...  It's the cartridges that make the most difference in my experience (assuming your table and arm can track and align them properly).  Most of the better cartridges need precise VTA and rake angles to sound best.  With trying many the Dynavector XV1S came out on top for realism - the Benz Ebony LP for lushness.  But these are both north of $5K and do wear out.  Ugg!
  
 I had a very hard time giving up my occasional LP system - Orotofon 2M Black.  But finally did, after I realized I had not spun a disk in 6 months. 
  
 I can totally understand the nostalgia of spinning LPs. though.
  
 Having digitalized my LP collection at 32/176k helped (on my VPI/Dyna rig).  Now these WAV files sound superb!  And are just a click away - playlists full of them! 
  
 Love computer audio.


----------



## hieukm

rb2013 said:


> You haven't read my many posts in comparing near sota analog to my uber USB chain or AOIP.
> 
> I have posted this here many times - my old $30K (not bragging - just giving a crude measure of my analog rig) has finally been surpassed by computer audio.  My ultimate analog system took over a decade of equipment rolling to 'perfect'.  The computer digital source much longer - but after 14 yrs finally did it.  Sold off all my analog gear (but keeping my LPs as I expect they will appreciate in value).
> 
> Analog rig VPI Super Scout Master Signature/Dynavector XV1S (Benz Ebony LP)/Nordost Valhalla tonearm cabling and IC's/Bent Audio Silver Step up transformers/CJ tubed Phono Pre (NOS Seimens CCa's)/CJ Art 2 Pre....




As my Chord Dave dont support external clock and Rob Watts even go as far to say that external clock may be detrimental, i am very much in doubt of my intended setup of the following:

Cybershaft premium 10M clock + Antelope liveclock/Grim cc1 + Rednet+ 2 or 3 Mutec USB

(I cant do trial as i live in Asia)

I think i will wait some more time for someone with higher end DAC to chime in with their experience. Meanwhile i will go deal with other disadvantages of computer as source such as EMI/RF and AC noise outside/within circuits.

Yes my aim is to match analog source. I dont use the word replacing as i never intend to use analogue due to my sweaty palm condition.


----------



## rb2013

hieukm said:


> As my Chord Dave dont support external clock and Rob Watts even go as far to say that external clock may be detrimental, i am very much in doubt of my intended setup of the following:
> 
> Cybershaft premium 10M clock + Antelope liveclock/Grim cc1 + Rednet+ 2 or 3 Mutec USB
> 
> ...




I'd try just the Rednet 3 to hear what it can do with the DAVE.

You might just be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> The BURL uses no output coupling capacitors or transformers - but custom made discrete class A opamps.


 
  
 I'm interested in the Burl and have read this before. Can you explain the significance of this to a relative newbie? Thanks.....


----------



## occamsrazor

> I really think when talking ultimate stuff, it should be considered to remove the SPDIF/AES conversion from the primary path to the DAC.. I understand that SPDIF/AES allows flexibility, backward compatibility, and may be a requirement for a studio environment, but with CA changing so rapidly I think it is OK to think a little outside the box and more along the direct AOIP->i2S idea, that would still allow compatibility with most current DAC chips (iiuc). Lots of DIY folks swap USB input modules in their DAC's, i.e.: XMOS for Amanero, etc..


 
  
 Yes I very much agree with this. SPDIF/AES is certainly required for backwards compatibility but really going forward there is no reason to limit data transmission rates because the connection dictates it. Not sure if i2s is really optimal given the cable length requirements, but as it stands it's probably the best interconnect method currently available. A 2-channel Dante box with AES/SPDIF _AND_ i2s output would really be a game-changer, as increasing numbers DACs are having i2s inputs.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> I'm interested in the Burl and have read this before. Can you explain the significance of this to a relative newbie? Thanks.....


 
 Well opamps have inherent strengths and weaknesses - one of their strengths they allow a direct signal path - avoiding the need for capacitors in the path.  Generally their weakness is in the production of the IC version.  But as Burson has shown with their discrete opamp designs  - a discrete class A opamp can sound very, very good.  Depending on design even 'analog' in tonal warmth and richness.  This is what BURL is said to have achieved in a few reviews.  I can confirm they have done an excellent job.
  


occamsrazor said:


> Yes I very much agree with this. SPDIF/AES is certainly required for backwards compatibility but really going forward there is no reason to limit data transmission rates because the connection dictates it. Not sure if i2s is really optimal given the cable length requirements, but as it stands it's probably the best interconnect method currently available. A 2-channel Dante box with AES/SPDIF _AND_ i2s output would really be a game-changer, as increasing numbers DACs are having i2s inputs.


 
 The third option is to build the Dante AOIP socket (Mini PCI) right on the DAC board - even no i2s needed.  The Dante Brookyln II card just slots right in.
  
 My hope is this becomes the std for most DACs going forward...at least the Dante socket.


----------



## motberg

For some reason, I thought that the i2S standard was what was required for most of the DAC chips for input.. either internally or externally..
 I wonder if the data format coming off the Dante card is more difficult to work with than something like the i2S coming off a Raspberry or those XMOS project cards..


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> For some reason, I thought that the i2S standard was what was required for most of the DAC chips for input.. either internally or externally..
> I wonder if the data format coming off the Dante card is more difficult to work with than something like the i2S coming off a Raspberry or those XMOS project cards..


 

 Dante does support i2s natively. 
  


> Digital Audio Formats TDM, I2S
> 
> Flexible Interface Support — SPI, I2C, RS232 and configurable GPIO


 
   But with a board level socket - no internal cable is required.


----------



## rb2013

Interesting post yesterday about the SMPS in the Rednet D16 - claiming it was $2 worth of parts and had loads of noise:
  


> I priced out the Ferex SMPS's in the Rednet 16 and they cost $1.80 a piece in quantities of 1000 pieces. Ripple noise is 150000uV RMS, (likely double P-P). So even if they use the world's finest LDO's the internal clocks aren't getting very clean power. Even with run of the mill clocks, ultra clean power is required to meet phase noise spec of the crystal.


----------



## wushuliu

rb2013 said:


> Interesting post yesterday about the SMPS in the Rednet D16 - claiming it was $2 worth of parts and had loads of noise:


 
  
 Uh huh. And I'm sure it holds performance back. It would be great if maybe one could convince, say John Swenson, to make a linear supply for the RN3. There is so much room in the chassis that it should not be a problem design-wise.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Interesting post yesterday about the SMPS in the Rednet D16 - claiming it was $2 worth of parts and had loads of noise:


 
 That's a normal value for SMPS; < 1%
  
 It requires additional regulators to lower that value. Just like Mike does with his own PSU: an SMPS with additional regulators.


----------



## mourip

Shameless self promotion: I have my second D16 for sale in the For Sale/Trade Forum...
  
 I love the sound of my RedNet AOIP based speaker system so much that I want to upgrade my speakers now to let more magic out...


----------



## gldgate

occamsrazor said:


> I'm interested in the Burl and have read this before. Can you explain the significance of this to a relative newbie? Thanks.....


 
  
 I've had pretty positive experiences on the whole with discrete op-amps. Before I purchased the Yggy I used (and still have) a Eastern Electric Dac Supreme and the thing I liked best about it was that it allowed op-amp swapping. I tried Burson, Dexa and Sparkos discretes (and combinations thereof) and on the whole really thought they were a step up from IC opamps. Please note that tonally they range the gammut so a lot of the success will depend on voicing and system compatability. For example, in my system the Burson had a more weighty mid range sound while Dexa was uber clear with great top end extension. Sparkos seemed to be somewhere in the middle. Not sure where Burl fits on the sonic spectrum in comparision...


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> Uh huh. And I'm sure it holds performance back. It would be great if maybe one could convince, say John Swenson, to make a linear supply for the RN3. There is so much room in the chassis that it should not be a problem design-wise.


 
 That would be beneficial.  Just wish that the Rednet's and the Mutec had ext DC power inputs.
  


jabbr said:


> That's a normal value for SMPS; < 1%
> 
> It requires additional regulators to lower that value. Just like Mike does with his own PSU: an SMPS with additional regulators.


 
 Better a well designed LPS
  


mourip said:


> Shameless self promotion: I have my second D16 for sale in the For Sale/Trade Forum...
> 
> I love the sound of my RedNet AOIP based speaker system so much that I want to upgrade my speakers now to let more magic out...


 
 Good Luck


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> I've had pretty positive experiences on the whole with discrete op-amps. Before I purchased the Yggy I used (and still have) a Eastern Electric Dac Supreme and the thing I liked best about it was that it allowed op-amp swapping. I tried Burson, Dexa and Sparkos discretes (and combinations thereof) and on the whole really thought they were a step up from IC opamps. Please note that tonally they range the gammut so a lot of the success will depend on voicing and system compatability. For example, in my system the Burson had a more weighty mid range sound while Dexa was uber clear with great top end extension. Sparkos seemed to be somewhere in the middle. Not sure where Burl fits on the sonic spectrum in comparision...


 

 I had the EE Mini Max Plus - did some tube rolling but never got around to opamp rolling.
  
 I'd say the BURL discrete opamps are voiced to sound analog - that is tube like - with a rich natural tone.
  
 Now I'm a big tube DAC fan - and the very best NOS tubes are better I would say.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> Dante does support i2s natively.
> 
> But with a board level socket - no internal cable is required.


 

 Thanks for the info...
 Maybe the board-level socket would be optimal to eliminate the wires, but what I am thinking is what would limit someone from making a Dante->i2S adapter card similar to Amanero or XMOS (see links), that would allow a DIY upgrade option to many existing DAC's, while also allowing OEM makers to offer as upgrade or optional input.
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/upgrade-Amanero-USB-I2S-module-PCM-combo384-module-support-DSD512-for-ES9018-DAC-/141925693025?hash=item210b6e3661:g:LCkAAOSwDNdVmjV5
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-XMOS-U8-USB-384K-32B-module-I2S-SPDIF-output-support-DSD-for-es9018-DAC-/272365711256?hash=item3f6a42ef98:g:XloAAOSwvzRXzZE-
  
 The card could also be used to build an external box for someone who has an i2S input DAC, which could have the added benefit of possibly easier upgrades to the power supply... this box could maybe be small/light, like a Regen, Recovery, mRendu, etc so as to hang off the back of the DAC using an adapter or very short cable.
  
 Maybe the problem is Dante module cost, size, or licensing the virtual sound card software... but the target audiophile market should be sufficient to support this device, given the possible cost to performance ratio advantage of AOIP - compared to what we are finding is optimal (GI, regenerate, PS, etc.) for USB.


----------



## johnjen

So has anyone wrung out the PS voltage(s) supplied in the D16 and RN3 yet?
  
 JJ


----------



## jelt2359

The RN3 uses five rails, two balanced power supplies and a very high voltage supply. There are 3.3v regulators after the power supply. I personally am not sure it's worth the effort.


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> Thanks for the info...
> Maybe the board-level socket would be optimal to eliminate the wires, but what I am thinking is what would limit someone from making a Dante->i2S adapter card similar to Amanero or XMOS (see links), that would allow a DIY upgrade option to many existing DAC's, while also allowing OEM makers to offer as upgrade or optional input.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/upgrade-Amanero-USB-I2S-module-PCM-combo384-module-support-DSD512-for-ES9018-DAC-/141925693025?hash=item210b6e3661:g:LCkAAOSwDNdVmjV5
> ...


 

 Yes that would a be a welcomed product.  No reason it couldn't be made and sold for less then $500.  Ext DC power port would be most welcome.  Just need a AES. SPDIF coax, i2s output - no inputs


----------



## rb2013

jelt2359 said:


> The RN3 uses five rails, two balanced power supplies and a very high voltage supply. There are 3.3v regulators after the power supply. I personally am not sure it's worth the effort.


 

 Have you measured the noise coming off those rails?  If the OP statement is true - those very high levels of noise must be affecting the clocks.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

If this were the case, what does that say about USB chains running ultra clean power if the Rednet by itself in stock form outperforms them? And not the clocks are possibly not being supplied proper? Whoa.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> If this were the case, what does that say about USB chains running ultra clean power if the Rednet by itself in stock form outperforms them? And not the clocks are possibly not being supplied proper? Whoa.


 

 Yes!  I can say the BURL on a LPS is a major step up in SQ.  And that's just a HW recapped DC-30W with a DC iPur.
  
 Maybe will give the new Uptone LPS-1 a try.  Or build something up from scratch.
  
 Before the XU208 thread was closed a lot of interesting discussion on power supplies.


----------



## johnjen

jelt2359 said:


> The RN3 uses five rails, two balanced power supplies and a very high voltage supply. There are 3.3v regulators after the power supply. I personally am not sure it's worth the effort.


 
 That's good to know, thanks!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Did you get a chance to take any voltage measurements?
 And perhaps a pin out on the ribbon cable?
 And do the differential voltages have a common ground between them?
  
 And if this info isn't readily available, maybe I'll just scope it out and measure the noise as well.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

jelt2359 said:


> The RN3 uses five rails, two balanced power supplies and a very high voltage supply. There are 3.3v regulators after the power supply. I personally am not sure it's worth the effort.


 
  
 What are the voltages? When you say 'balanced' do you mean dual rail? The voltages are probably not a big deal even if high - the bigger issue I would think is how much current is needed, that more than multiple voltages would hamper efforts. High current means lot of heat to dissipate.


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> What are the voltages? When you say 'balanced' do you mean dual rail? The voltages are probably not a big deal even if high - the bigger issue I would think is how much current is needed, that more than multiple voltages would hamper efforts. High current means lot of heat to dissipate.


 

 Good question - high current requirements also limit the ultra low noise LPS options.
  
 I'm starting a new thread today on audio power supplies.  SMPS, LPS, the new gen of SuperCap PS's, LDO options and the DIY route.
  
 I have found major SQ improvements with each step towards low noise and higher PSRR.  Both for USB DDC's and AOIP.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> I want to flesh out the mods first - I will get to post about it at some point.  I just hope that BURL keeps making them.
> 
> Well you are right the BURL DAC plus a DANTE card is around $2700 - the RN3+Mutec is around $2200 - that is without the DAC.  Then factor in a decent SPDIF or AES cable so maybe you're between $2400-$2600 (unless you want to connect these multi $K boxes with a $50 cable - whatever works for you.  My experience is that the SPDIF/AES cable does make a significant difference).  Add in another decent BNC/AES cable between the RN3 and the Mutec...it all adds up.  Upgraded power cables - you need three for the RN/Mutec/DAC - versus one for the BURL,etc...
> 
> If the RN D16 is chosen then you are well past the BURL cost before adding in the DAC...


 

 That would not work for me. I need to keep my NOS DAC so really just need the Ethernet feed.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> That would not work for me. I need to keep my NOS DAC so really just need the Ethernet feed.


 

 Then Rednet is the way to go


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Then Rednet is the way to go


 

 Another question. What power (DC?) is the Rednet getting fed from it's own SMPS? If it is possible to upgrade the Burl, can the same be done to the Rednet 3?
  
 On AOIP products that includes a DAC, I am not so interested in that. I have had years of DAC's tried and rejected, some were good, others bad. I prefer to have a separate DAC fed by Ethernet/SPDIF. It would be interesting to demo a Burl DAC combo against a RedNet with a top 10K (for example) DAC. DAC's fall into the same category as all audio products, the quality of the sound depends a lot on the PS and line stage design and quality of parts. Also I am a die hard NOS fan, my problem maybe, but that again drop me out of the Burl combo product.
  
 IMO a perfect feed (Ethernet or USB, CDP) is important but won't make an average DAC go top tier. It will improve things, but IMO it is part of the puzzle.
  
 Still, very interested to know how it fairs.  And going forward, interesting to see if DAC manufacturers start offering Ethernet instead of USB. I feel it may not happen due to extra hassles setting up. And USB is so easy, driverless, universal. I can imagine the top tier DACs offering it though, if the SQ is there, that is where it will go for sure. Though the oversampling to DSD is another complication, as many seem to be into that now.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Another question. What power (DC?) is the Rednet getting fed from it's own SMPS? If it is possible to upgrade the Burl, can the same be done to the Rednet 3?
> 
> On AOIP products that includes a DAC, I am not so interested in that. I have had years of DAC's tried and rejected, some were good, others bad. I prefer to have a separate DAC fed by Ethernet/SPDIF. It would be interesting to demo a Burl DAC combo against a RedNet with a top 10K (for example) DAC. DAC's fall into the same category as all audio products, the quality of the sound depends a lot on the PS and line stage design and quality of parts. Also I am a die hard NOS fan, my problem maybe, but that again drop me out of the Burl combo product.
> 
> ...


 

 Well it beat this one - http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/aplhifi/nwo30go.html
  
 This is a close match- but I prefer the BURL with AOIP.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
  
 I have owned over 20 DACs in my life and these now count as the best.
  
 I do prefer the modded DAC60 to either of the other two fed by the Rednet.  But being able to bypass AES/SPDIF at a board level AOIP implementation does go far.  Even with a $1000 Mutec reclocking AES/SPDIF.
  
 I did not mod the RN power supply - and I'm sure that would help.
  
 So for $2500 plus a $200 LPS the BURL B2B Dante is really killer good with AOIP.
  
 Keep in mind AOIP Dante and Ravenna are not just your run of the mill 'Ethernet' audio.  But a special (now AES67 compatible) level 3 IP (RTP) protocol.
  
 I agree in the DSD oversampling - APL went this direction on their new totl DAC - and when I have compared it to the older PCM version - I prefer the older PCM.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Well it beat this one - http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/aplhifi/nwo30go.html


 
 I read some of that review, but can't see the Burl mentioned?
  
 My point is there are some great R-2R DACs out there, CH Precision, Zanden, Audio Note, Lampizator. I would prefer to have a DAC separate. It is not a criticism of the Burl DAC. 
  
 I'll post back next week on how my Audio Note sounds with the RedNet 3.
  
 On DSD, the Lampizator is supped to be mind glowingly good as it does it chip less PCM up sampled to DSD. I haven't heard the Golden Gate yet, but try and do that soon.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I think the Burl B2 Bomber is using an AKM4390 which is Delta Sigma. Correct?


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> I read some of that review, but can't see the Burl mentioned?
> 
> My point is there are some great R-2R DACs out there, CH Precision, Zanden, Audio Note, Lampizator. I would prefer to have a DAC separate. It is not a criticism of the Burl DAC.
> 
> ...


 

 That was my point this $20K+ renowned DAC is one I have compared the modded BURL B2B  Dante DAC to. 
  
 I can understand you wanting to have a separate DAC - but there are some serious advantages to built in AOIP - more so then the built in USB boards I have heard.
  
 Now I have started a series of threads on power supplies.  It will be 5 parts - the first two are already up.  The next part will be on existing LPS's  and capacitors.  Part 4 will be on building a DIY sota (or nearly so) LPS with existing available components.  Part 5 will be on SuperCap PS's and low noise battery supplies.
  
 I think the BURL could be even better with a lower noise LPS.  But maybe not - I will go into details on what i'm using now vs what might be possible.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I think the Burl B2 Bomber is using an AKM4390 which is Delta Sigma. Correct?


 

 AKM 4399 with a AKM 4115 unput.


----------



## rb2013

I got around to ordering one of these - just curious - to try on my office USB system.  I have had the W4S Remedy SPDIF reclocker (which was not bit perfect) and of course the Mutec MC-3+ USB which I used as a AES reclocker on the Rednet 3.  I liked both of them - the Mutec really stepped up the performance of the Rednet.
  
 So it will be interesting to see how this iFi SPDIF reclocker sounds.  For $149 could a cheap and easy upgrade to those using the Rednet (and USB F-1)
  
 http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/accessory-spdif-ipurifier/
  
 Bit perfect as well.  Adds Galvanic isolation to the SPDIF connection.
  
 Here is the link to the first two parts of my power supply threads:
  
 Part 1: Transformers
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/821621/audio-power-supplies-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options-part-1
  
 Part 2: LDO's and LPS regulation
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/821731/audio-power-supplies-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options-part-2
  
  
 I have these to finish in the next few days:
 Part 3: Capacitors, and off the shelf low cost LPS's
 Part 4: DIY LPS options
 Part5: Supercap Power Supplies and Li ion batteries


----------



## somestranger26

Warning to anyone running Windows 10: They released a major update  today and it reset ALL of my DVS, Rednet, and Windows Audio settings. You might want to write down your settings in case this happens to you.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Heads up, mini Dante enabled dac coming for $200 with balanced xlr out. Amphenol makes it and it's all super interesting. 48v Poe injection required


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> Heads up, mini Dante enabled dac coming for $200 with balanced xlr out. Amphenol makes it and it's all super interesting. 48v Poe injection required




Based on VIA or Brooklyn II?


----------



## jabbr

somestranger26 said:


> Warning to anyone running Windows 10: They released a major update  today and it reset ALL of my DVS, Rednet, and Windows Audio settings. You might want to write down your settings in case this happens to you.




Read earlier it happens only with certain computers and loss of settings is not limited to Dante, I read it first from mrSpoon on forum of DBPoweramp


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

VIA - not Brooklyn, no good?





jabbr said:


> Based on VIA or Brooklyn II?


----------



## johnjen

soundsgoodtome said:


> VIA - not Brooklyn, no good?


 
 Gotta link?
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

enginedr said:


> My chain is a 2014 Mac Mini  for player software I am using Channel D audio Pure Music and I tunes - Dante VSC to Red Net 3 with a Antelope audio Live clock patched in with 2 Carne BNC cables
> The Antelope is the master clock . Out  of the RN3 s coax SPDIF I am using a Mad Scientist 1 m carbon fiber SPDIF cable to my Metrum Octave NOS DAC .I have the player set to up sample
> to 92khz  all of my music is 44.1 Redbook in lossless format . I just added a Zero Zone 18 v LPS with a R-core transformer for the power on the Live clock it was a nice improvement .
> This combo sounds so good I am just going to enjoy it as is for now .


 

 You tried NOT up sampling. I thought the strengths of the Octave and the Hex which I used to own, was the NOS and the fact it is bit prefect. Upsampling may blur the sound and negate the benefits. remember 44.1 to 88.2 is up sampling bit prefect, 44.1 to 96 is RE-Sampling and not bit perfect, i.e. it will re-allocate all the data and may blur the SQ.
  
 Just what I experienced.


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Upsampling may blur the sound and negate the benefits. remember 44.1 to 88.2 is up sampling bit prefect, 44.1 to 96 is RE-Sampling and not bit perfect, i.e. it will re-allocate all the data and may blur the SQ.
> 
> Just what I experienced.


 
  
 I am still upsampling redbook to 192k rather than the 176.4 my D16 AES will permit ... even tho' my head tells me 176.4 could be better ... because 192 seems somehow more full, polished ... I think ...
  
 You will have your own RedNet box soon


----------



## astrostar59

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. Have you any filter control i.e. can you select different filters?
  
 My AMR has a few different filters and the Organic filter was the best by far.
  
 I dunno, I had many DS DACs and gave up. I am now on 'old school R-2R chips and tubes! Having said that, the C1 CH Precision is a might y fine DAC that oversampled) in the DAC) to 706K. I think it is like a DSD engine. They then do any filtering at that resolution.
  
 That DAC is 25K. My Audio Note I am using here is better, not 'quite' as detailed, but way way more realistic and enjoyable. I play loud, and the C1 was great on some well recorded music, painful on those that were a touch bright on the original master.
  
 Complicated hobby. If you are interested I can bring my AMR DP-777 to your place next year so you can hear R-2R, see if you like it?


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> If you are interested I can bring my AMR DP-777 to your place next year so you can hear R-2R, see if you like it?


 
  
 Delighted ... I'll put the kettle on ...


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> Read earlier it happens only with certain computers and loss of settings is not limited to Dante, I read it first from mrSpoon on forum of DBPoweramp


 
  
 I have worked in IT for about 20 years, retired recently, but still support a small non-profit for their LAN. Counting my own PC's and theirs I have seen at least 25% of the workstations that received the Anniversary update having issues. My own desktop PC basically refuses to complete the update but luckily rolls back.
  
 I would suggest waiting a couple of months and let others do Microsoft's "beta testing".
  
 I have no problem with MS and like Windows 10 but they released this update too soon.


----------



## jabbr

soundsgoodtome said:


> VIA - not Brooklyn, no good?


 
 Sorry I meant Ultimo (that's what the chip is called) and not VIA.
 The Ultimo chip is limited in sample rates that are supported


> .. sample rate support from 44.1 to 96Khz


 
  
 Might be enough, but is not extremely high rate.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Sorry I meant Ultimo (that's what the chip is called) and not VIA.
> The Ultimo chip is limited in sample rates that are supported
> 
> Might be enough, but is not extremely high rate.


 

 Well here is a 495 pound Dante Optimo DAC - Ext DC input:
 http://www.canford.co.uk/Products/95-8975_GLENSOUND-SIGNATURE-AOIP44-DANTE-INTERFACE-4-in-4-out-balanced-line-level-analogue-audio
  
 And a Rednet competitor - but with DC input:
 1490 pounds
 http://www.canford.co.uk/Products/95-8972_GLENSOUND-DARK-88-DANTE-INTERFACE-8-in-8-out-balanced-line-level-audio
  
 2500 pounds - Och!
 http://www.canford.co.uk/GLENSOUND-DARK1616M-DANTE-NETWORK-INTERFACE-16x16-Microphone-line-AES
  
 PS found this one DARK1616 with out mic inputs:  2100 pounds
 http://www.canford.co.uk/Index/DANTE-equipped-devices/GLENSOUND-DARK1616-DANTE-NETWORK-INTERFACE-16x16-Line-level-and-AES
  
 The DARK1616 is also a DAC and ADC as well as a AOIP DDC.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

http://www.amphenolaudio.com/products/dante/adapter/amphe-dante/

Due to release Halloween. Is via a software driven aoip or less desirable option? Seems to support up to 24-192 according to papers. 

.





johnjen said:


> Gotta link?
> 
> JJ







jabbr said:


> Sorry I meant Ultimo (that's what the chip is called) and not VIA.
> The Ultimo chip is limited in sample rates that are supported
> 
> Might be enough, but is not extremely high rate.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> http://www.amphenolaudio.com/products/dante/adapter/amphe-dante/
> 
> Due to release Halloween. Is via a software driven aoip or less desirable option? Seems to support up to 24-192 according to papers.
> 
> .


 

 No the specs say 96K limit.  This is a Dante Optimo chip - no room in that connector for a BK2 card.


----------



## rb2013

Now this unit looks very interesting:
  
 Arrakis Simple-IP-8D
  
 Full Dante BK2 implementation, ext DC power connection, AES transformer isolated (EBU) digital outputs with XLR sockets - good price $999.
  
  
 http://arrakis-systems.com/arrakis---simple-ip.html
 http://arrakis-systems.com/pdfs/Simple-IP-8A&D%20Manual.pdf
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAymqlc5lmo&feature=youtu.be
  

  
 PS I believe these are direct sales - company is based in the US - Colorado:


> Contact Information
> 
> General
> Phone: 970.461.0730
> ...


----------



## rb2013

Here are some more interesting looking devices- could not find pricing yet:
  
 http://www.fairlight.com.au/products/live-lineup/technical-specifications/
  
 Fairlight I/O interfaces
  
 The MSX 1000 and MSX 500:
 http://www.fairlight.com.au/imagesDB/wysiwyg/I-Oframetable.png


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> That was my point this $20K+ renowned DAC is one I have compared the modded BURL B2B  Dante DAC to.


 
 How did you compare the Burl with the NWO 30? Do you own that DAC or have a mate locally who does and you went to his house?
  
 What was the comparison. Was it in the same system? 
  
 My point is I have heard 50 DACs more or less over the last 15 years, and owned 14 myself. I wish it was true but I never heard a 300-400 USD DAC (Burl DAC minus the other parts roughly) beat so resoundly a 20K + DAC. It would be so great if I can find that DAC. The Schlit Yggy for example is a game changer DAC but is still almost 2K worth for only the DAC, and that DAC can be beat going up in budgets. Now that DAC to some sounds better than the Esoteric D-01 but I never liked the Esoteric sound too much so that doesn't mean much to me. But it that NWO has a tube line stage and upgraded parts, it should be better than a base Esoteric?
  
 I am trying to see a level playing field. If we have points ratings of gear.
  
 Anyway, I will post my impressions on the RedNet next week. Getting a bit worried now.....


----------



## somestranger26

astrostar59 said:


> How did you compare the Burl with the NWO 30? Do you own that DAC or have a mate locally who does and you went to his house?
> 
> What was the comparison. Was it in the same system?
> 
> ...


 
 He owns the NWO 30 and used them both in the same system... he has made many posts about the NWO and his heavily modded DAC60 and how amazing they sound with all the front end improvements. Consider searching his post history to avoid veering the thread off-topic into a non-AoIP DAC discussion.
  
 Where are you getting that the Burl is a $300-400 DAC and the NWO is a $20k DAC? Parts cost? There is no way any DAC in the world actually costs $20k in parts.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> How did you compare the Burl with the NWO 3.0? Do you own that DAC or have a mate locally who does and you went to his house?
> 
> What was the comparison. Was it in the same system?
> 
> ...


 

 Yes I owned the APL NWO 3.0 GO for many years then traded with a friend it for a APL NWO Jr - same Lundul transformer coupled ECC99 tube output - six fully differential 32 bit AKM DACs per channel (versus 10 for the full NWO 3.0).  Same clock, spdif discrete high performance reciever, etc...The biggest difference the full NWO 3.0 has the Esoteric VRDS-NEO CD transport - the Jr only a Denon.  Since I use my APL almost exclusiviely as a DAC - the transport does not really concern me.
  
 But my friend does let me borrow it from time to time for reviewing.  Honestly the NWO Jr is so darn close it not really worth it - but I always like to spin a SACD of the same computer fed track to do on the fly ABX.
  
 The Yggie in comparison to either the modded DAC60 or the APL Jr is very good - but I much prefer either. 
  
 The stock Esoteric is not in the sme league as the APL NWO 3.0 - they only share the VRDS-NEO transport - otherwise the entire digital and analogue circuits are different. 
  
 The APL NWO 3.0 was 6Moon's Srajan's ref DAC for many years beating out the Zanden and others.
  


> *The best?*
> With today's digital source components, a clearly best CD player would have to beat AMR, Audio Aero, Burmester, dCS, EMM Labs, Esoteric, Orpheus Labs, Spectral and Zanden.
> 
> The NWO 3.0-GO guts everything else in the UX-1 to retain only the massive VRDS-NEO assembly and the player's vault-like main enclosure. This will appeal to those who'll readily admit to the VRDS superiority but claim it let down by Esoteric's stock conversion circuity and analog output stages.
> ...


 
  
 On the older 24-bit and newer 32-bit AKM D-S DAC chips and why they're different then other D-S DAC's:


> The concept of 20 digital converters per channel running this rebuilt Esoteric machine at 32 bits each certainly suggests_ extreme_ resolution. Given the above, you could be forgiven for projecting all manner of unnatural acts on it. For my review of ModWright's modified Slim Devices Transporter, I quoted Richard Kulavik of AKM Semiconductors on their 24-bit chip: "This DAC is a large departure from other delta-sigma DACs designed by us and others like BurrBrown, Analog Devices and Cirrus Logic. The AK4396 is an entirely new modulator, pioneered and patented by AKM. It achieves something unique. *In the past, many of the old Phillips and BurrBrown parts were R-2R resistor-ladder products. These older products were looked upon as some of the best. One of the reasons was high frequency noise. In older R-2R parts, HF noise was not present. In **all delta-sigma parts prior to the AK4396, everyone has fought HF noise caused from the delta-sigma modulator with the insertion of large filters and other parts to attempt to solve a problem created by the delta-sigma design. The AK4396 today effectively does not suffer any modulator-induced HF noise and is over 60dB better than the nearest Cirrus and BB devices. All of this HF noise can cause many audible artifacts downstream. That is the 'miracle' we believe is making the difference today. This part gives you the performance and linearity of a delta-sigma device with the noise performance of an R-2R part, something that was never previously available." *


 
  
 At a certain point Alex at APL switched over to the 32-bit AK4397 - My friend bought the last model of the NWO Jr he made - at the time it was $6500 -it had the 32-bit AKM4397 vs the 24-bit AK4396.  The NWO 3.0 in the review had the AK4397's as well.  The BURL uses the later 32-bit AK4399.
  
 They now have the new 32-bit 44XX series  - they can do SR up to 768K...
  
 Anyway Srajan posted this as a conclusion to his APL NWO 3.0 review:


> For now, I'm confident to say that his APL Hifi offering eclipses the $40,000+ Zanden separates in bass and treble extension yet offers a very similar flavor of organic ease, flow and innate softness that's not for lack of detail or because of euphonic coloration or focus blur but because it categorical lacks those very last remnants of artificial edginess.


 
  
  
 PS Oh and Alex P had this to say on power supply transformers:


> The R-core transformer is the best I've found for audio. It also converts single-ended AC power to balanced, eliminating the need for power conditioners and/or regenerators.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> He owns the NWO 30 and used them both in the same system... he has made many posts about the NWO and his heavily modded DAC60 and how amazing they sound with all the front end improvements. Consider searching his post history to avoid veering the thread off-topic into a non-AoIP DAC discussion.
> 
> Where are you getting that the Burl is a $300-400 DAC and the NWO is a $20k DAC? Parts cost? There is no way any DAC in the world actually costs $20k in parts.


 

 Boy you got that right!  Alex charged $19K - IF you supplied the Esoteric - $32K if you didn't.
  
 Also most all the value in audio products is design related...not parts.
  
 I will say I spent north of $900 on my DAC60 mod parts- doing the mod work myself.  Just the Mundorf Supreme Silver-Gold-Oil coupling caps were $240.
  
 So with a 10X markup I guess it should be considered a $10K DAC.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project


----------



## astrostar59

somestranger26 said:


> He owns the NWO 30 and used them both in the same system... he has made many posts about the NWO and his heavily modded DAC60 and how amazing they sound with all the front end improvements. Consider searching his post history to avoid veering the thread off-topic into a non-AoIP DAC discussion.
> 
> Where are you getting that the Burl is a $300-400 DAC and the NWO is a $20k DAC? Parts cost? There is no way any DAC in the world actually costs $20k in parts.


 
 From 6 Moons review: *Review Component Retail: *$19,000 for NWO 3.0-GO modification of supplied Esoteric UX-1 ($30,000 pre-modified)
  
and B2 Bomber with DAC: https://vintageking.com/burl-audio.html
  
 B2 with ADC is 200 USD less, so figured the DAC element around 300-400 USD max.
  
 Street price not parts cost. If we go parts cost that is just silly, you need to build in design and development as well or that product wouldn't even exist. Then dealer mark-up at 40-50%.


----------



## Clemmaster

What are you talking about?


----------



## astrostar59

clemmaster said:


> What are you talking about?


 

 It is obvious...


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Yes a totl power cable will make a significant difference.  I have some of the really amazing Cerious Graphene Extreme Red cords in my system.
> 
> Here is how I rank their use by digital device:
> 
> ...


 

 I would recommend giving a power regenerator a go. It makes a big difference and effectively upgrades the entire system if it has enough outlets. I wanted solid 230V mains, minimal distortion on the line and shut down after an outage i.e. the electric board can hit the relays at 1am and we get on / off maybe 5 times in 3 minutes - not good.
 I use a PS Audio P10, and my apartment mains is quite dirty to suit my situation cry well.


----------



## somestranger26

astrostar59 said:


> From 6 Moons review: *Review Component Retail: *$19,000 for NWO 3.0-GO modification of supplied Esoteric UX-1 ($30,000 pre-modified)
> 
> and B2 Bomber with DAC: https://vintageking.com/burl-audio.html
> 
> ...


 

 It's not "B2 with ADC/DAC" it's "B2 ADC/DAC". They are totally separate products. By your ridiculous cost metric (higher MSRP = better!), it is a $2500 DAC. It is obvious.
  
 Even if it was just a $400 DAC module that they slapped into an existing product, you would have to take into account the chassis, connectors, power supply, the engineering for all of those, etc. that are shared with the base product.


----------



## Clemmaster

astrostar59 said:


> It is obvious...


 Obvious to nobody but you apparently.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> I would recommend giving a power regenerator a go. It makes a big difference and effectively upgrades the entire system if it has enough outlets. I wanted solid 230V mains, minimal distortion on the line and shut down after an outage i.e. the electric board can hit the relays at 1am and we get on / off maybe 5 times in 3 minutes - not good.
> I use a PS Audio P10, and my apartment mains is quite dirty to suit my situation cry well.


 

 I had by experience with PS Audio regenerators -  they were not my thing.  We have very stable power in the Pac NW - just noisy.  To my ears the PS audio power devices seem to limit dynamics.
  
 Much prefer the Audience balancers and conditioners.  Which is what I use out of the Teslaplex.
  
 How are you feeding your AN DAC by computer?  XMOS DDC?
  
 I use the very good and inexpensive Art Audio PB 4X4 Pros (three of them) to further filter and isolate any AC mains noise.  Either generated by power supplies or coming in from the grid.
  


> All PRO SERIES models have an additional internal discrete module called APF™ (Advanced Power Filtering) which filters out digital and dimmer hash as well as any high frequency noise that is above the audio range. Some off-the-shelf add-on modules saturate and lose their filtering effectiveness as the load increases, but by using a high power discrete design we were able to create a filter that stays effective over the full operating range.
> By using both Common Mode and Differential Mode topologies in series for the filter design we are able to block virtually all of the unwanted noise that is between the AC line and ground, and also the two sides of the AC line. This has the additional benefit of reducing ground loop problems in your system. High frequency noise currents in particular are highly attenuated in both directions so that any line noise that could be generated by one of your components is not allowed to get back into your main A.C. wiring so if you use a number of PRO SERIES *Power Conditioners in your setup, you can distribute and isolate the noisy components from the sensitive components in your system.* Additionally, *any signals above 10kHz are filtered from the line with over 40dB of attenuation above 100kHz and beyond.*


 
 40 dB will gives another 100x less AC noise filtering - and isolates any device plugged into it.
  
 The Audience R1pt's and of course it's large siblings are excellent.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> It's not "B2 with ADC/DAC" it's "B2 ADC/DAC". They are totally separate products. By your ridiculous cost metric (higher MSRP = better!), it is a $2500 DAC. It is obvious.
> 
> Even if it was just a $400 DAC module that they slapped into an existing product, you would have to take into account the chassis, connectors, power supply, the engineering for all of those, etc. that are shared with the base product.


 

 You're right - the B2B DAC is a completely separate design from the ADC.  On the DAC they really do a great job on building an excellent discrete class A opamp output.  The biggest advantage is no capacitors or transformers needed in signal path to couple the output.


----------



## goodvibes

I don't see any technical advantage over UPNP for home use other than preference and dedication which also happens in some preferred UPNP setups. Noise and clock should still be concerns if the player is at the source (PC) end. UPNP should have a clocking advantage in that scenario and the 2 formats should have similar performance when the player is at the receiving end. I never much cared for USB interfaces so I do see the possible advantage to that format. Sorry if I'm off base here but I've only read the 1st page so far.


----------



## somestranger26

rb2013 said:


> I had by experience with PS Audio regenerators -  they were not my thing.  We have very stable power in the Pac NW - just noisy.  To my ears the PS audio power devices seem to limit dynamics.


 
 Which have you tried? PS Audio claims that the P3/5/10 are a significant step up over the last gen Power Plant Premier.


----------



## jabbr

goodvibes said:


> I don't see any technical advantage over UPNP for home use other than preference and dedication which also happens in some preferred UPNP setups. Noise and clock should still be concerns if the player is at the source (PC) end. UPNP should have a clocking advantage in that scenario and the 2 formats should have similar performance when the player is at the receiving end. I never much cared for USB interfaces so I do see the possible advantage to that format. Sorry if I'm off base here but I've only read the 1st page so far.




UPnP protocol is transfering files to a player, which needs to playback the file format.
AOIP is a realtime transfer of audio samples (like VOIP) which does not require a player at the receiving end.

I think not needing playback at the receiver, makes the receiver a lot less noisy.


----------



## occamsrazor

Just FYI for you Rednet guys....
  
 http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2016/9/28/focusrite-announce-rednet-control-20
  
 They say will be available in December.


----------



## Iving

occamsrazor said:


> Just FYI for you Rednet guys....
> 
> http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2016/9/28/focusrite-announce-rednet-control-20
> 
> They say will be available in December.


 
  
 "RedNet Control 2.0 is designed to handle the largest RedNet system, with the ability to control up to 600 RedNet devices" ... I'll use it for my mezzanine system then. @mourip could have used 1/300th of its control capacity but is selling his second D16 AES.
  
 Don't suppose there will be any SQ advantage Xmas present from Focusrite ...


----------



## jabbr

iving said:


> "RedNet Control 2.0 is designed to handle the largest RedNet system, with the ability to control up to 600 RedNet devices" ... I'll use it for my mezzanine system then. @mourip
> could have used 1/300th of its control capacity but is selling his second D16 AES.
> 
> Don't suppose there will be any SQ advantage Xmas present from Focusrite ...




As this announcement shows RedNets are devices for PRO AUDIO !!!!!!

A handfull of us have discovered it also offers significant SQ benefits for consumers as well.
But audiophile consumers are not a relevant party for developing this product line, IMHO of course


----------



## Iving

jabbr said:


> As this announcement shows RedNets are devices for PRO AUDIO !!!!!!
> 
> A handfull of us have discovered it also offers significant SQ benefits for consumers as well.
> But audiophile consumers are not a relevant party for developing this product line, IMHO of course


 
  
 I like that they are Pro Audio! I like their robustness and lack of fussiness! To me their SQ advantage over USB is unequivocal! I have no problem that their intended use is irrelevant to me as a domestic audiophile! I just love the ride on the merry bandwagon ... so much fun, fun, fun!


----------



## mourip

iving said:


> "RedNet Control 2.0 is designed to handle the largest RedNet system, with the ability to control up to 600 RedNet devices" ... I'll use it for my mezzanine system then. @mourip could have used 1/300th of its control capacity but is selling his second D16 AES.
> 
> Don't suppose there will be any SQ advantage Xmas present from Focusrite ...


 
  
 I could not really use it with my two D16's because I found I needed to keep them unaware of each other in order to not have one communicating across a shaky LAN link in my house. Originally I fantasized about using one PC to control the two D16's since I would probably never need to play different music on each at the same time. I figured I could sell off one audio server and save money but my LAN link that worked fine for data and video streaming just did not have low enough latency due to using MOCA adapters.
  
 Besides after getting one lowball offer for the D16 and listening more on my HP system I do not have the heart to part with it. I figure that I will just miss the SQ using anything else. Spoiled now!


----------



## patrikh

After plugging my system to my laptop, I realised that my desktop is dramatically reducing my SQ. I reckon this is usb. What is the current consensus on the aoip and the devices to get?


----------



## mourip

Consensus of those on this thread who use AOIP seems to be that it really surpasses a well thought out USB chain.
  
 If you like your current DAC then the Focusrite RedNet RN3 or D16 would be your best choice, otherwise the Burl B2 Dante DAC according to RB2013. Adding a Mutec MC3+ USB as a reclocker after the RedNet devices will improve SQ even more. Adding an external wordclock will give a smaller but still worthwhile improvement.


----------



## Iving

patrikh said:


> What is the current consensus on the aoip and the devices to get?


 
  
 If I were about to buy I would take the trouble to read this whole thread and take notes. imo it would be worth it not just to make a good decision but also to self-educate enough to optimise enjoyment.
  
 In the meantime, the main differences between RedNet 3 and D16 AES are:
 AES output on D16 / RN3's I/Os redundant for home audiophile (see pic of rear)
 D16 has two ethernet ports instead of only 1 with RN3
 form factor (rack): - D16 has a 1U height instead of the 2U height from RN3
 D16 has later Brooklyn II board which supports the 176.4kHz sample rate and also is the (only) board by Dante which supports the AES67 interoperability protocol
  
 Prices are roughly par in the UK/Europe, but at sweetwater (USA) the D16 AES's tag renders price a significant decision factor.
  
 I don't use a Mutec as reclocker or a dedicated (expensive) clock. I am happy with with RedNet > DAC (Convert-2) arrangement. Convert-2 has a good WC and I use it. I have found that a swanky new PC makes a truly astonishing difference to SQ as if establishing the timing advantages of a dedicated clock.
  
 All the same I am open-minded about possible upgrades. But will self-educate first taking a leaf out of my own book.
  
 I appreciate rb2013's new threads on power supplies. Might go there next ...


----------



## patrikh

Thank you for the recap. I have indeed read through this thread but only skimmed through the most recent posts.


----------



## patrikh

What aes/ebu cables do you use?


----------



## Iving

patrikh said:


> What aes/ebu cables do you use?


 
  
 van den Hul AES-EBU 110 Ohm Professional Halogen Free cable (0.8m) 
  
 rb2013 has strong views about a preferred (much more expensive) cable and he has tried many more than I


----------



## mourip

I use Wydeye AES 110 ohm and also have one Silver Sonic AES 110 ohm.


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> Besides after getting one lowball offer for the D16 and listening more on my HP system I do not have the heart to part with it. I figure that I will just miss the SQ using anything else. Spoiled now!


 
  
 You can check out any time you like but you can never leave ...


----------



## peteAllen

A few days ago I set up my new Rednet D16 to work with a Mutec 3+ usb, running direct via CAT6 from my desktop PC. It sounds glorious. As hard as it is to explain such a difference in sound, I'll try: the speakers disappear more than before; the sound images are more solid; everything flows easily; and it sounds natural. Also I'm not noticing any bright or etched treble, or drawn to any other part of the spectrum, which is something I normally analyse when putting in a new component. Every album I put on sounds good too, even the poorly recorded ones - the deficiencies are still plain to hear but don't get in the way of the music. Very happy.
  
 Here is the complete setup at the moment:
 Windows PC (Roon, Rednet Controller, Dante Controller) > 
 stock 5m CAT6 cable > 
 Acoustic Revive RL-1 > 
 Rednet D16 (Nordost Valhalla power cable) > 
 MIT MA digital XLR >
 Mutec 3+USB for resampling (Nordost Valhalla power cable) >
 Coherent 5D digital XLR >
 Vitus RD-100 DAC etc
  
 There are more things I need to experiment with - I have a CAPS audioserver which I need to fix up and recommission, there's jplay and hqplayer, and playing with more ethernet isolators / word clock connections / ethernet cables / audiograde switch. I'm looking forward to all this 
  
 One thing I don't understand... I thought that I could just connect directly between the PC and D16 using a single ethernet cable. But then the Dante Controller doesn't see the D16. When I add the second ethernet connection to my 100Mbs switch, it suddenly all works (and via a "1 Gbps" connection so I think it is actually using the direct connection to stream). Once it's working, I can remove the ethernet connection to the router switch and it still works... for a while.


----------



## Iving

peteallen said:


> I thought that I could just connect directly between the PC and D16 using a single ethernet cable. But then the Dante Controller doesn't see the D16. When I add the second ethernet connection to my 100Mbs switch, it suddenly all works (and via a "1 Gbps" connection so I think it is actually using the direct connection to stream). Once it's working, I can remove the ethernet connection to the router switch and it still works... for a while.


 
  
 There should be no issues with a direct ethernet/LAN connection between PC and RedNet box. It is in RedNet Control that one should see both devices. It is the routing/mapping that happens in Dante Controller. Rebooting the RedNet box or even just powering off and back on can trigger its appearance in RedNet Control if it wasn't already there. I prefer to keep my system simple and offline. Focusrite say that a second ethernet port on a RedNet box is for backup/connection to other RedNet units in a network rather than routing to the online periphery of a LAN: the online route should be inwards to the PC. Since the direct ethernet connection between PC and RedNet box is the basis of playback I would be inclined to establish that it is happening as it should - as evidenced in RedNet Control. I can't remark re switches - I don't use one.


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> I don't see any technical advantage over UPNP for home use other than preference and dedication which also happens in some preferred UPNP setups. Noise and clock should still be concerns if the player is at the source (PC) end. UPNP should have a clocking advantage in that scenario and the 2 formats should have similar performance when the player is at the receiving end. I never much cared for USB interfaces so I do see the possible advantage to that format. Sorry if I'm off base here but I've only read the 1st page so far.


 

 Well one difference is you can't use any audio player.


----------



## rb2013

somestranger26 said:


> Which have you tried? PS Audio claims that the P3/5/10 are a significant step up over the last gen Power Plant Premier.


 

 Well I haven't tried them all.
  
 But speak to anyone who has compared a P10 to an Audience aR6-TS.  The Audience is overwhelmingly preferred.
  
 That is if you had $5000 to spend on a 'Regenerator' or 'Conditioner'.  I don't.
  
 Even $2500 for a P3 is a lot.  When you can get a aR2P for $800.


----------



## rb2013

patrikh said:


> After plugging my system to my laptop, I realised that my desktop is dramatically reducing my SQ. I reckon this is usb. What is the current consensus on the aoip and the devices to get?


 

 What's your budget?  Unlimited?


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Consensus of those on this thread who use AOIP seems to be that it really surpasses a well thought out USB chain.
> 
> If you like your current DAC then the Focusrite RedNet RN3 or D16 would be your best choice, otherwise the Burl B2 Dante DAC according to RB2013. Adding a Mutec MC3+ USB as a reclocker after the RedNet devices will improve SQ even more. Adding an external wordclock will give a smaller but still worthwhile improvement.


 

 Agree - but the BURL needs major mods to really be competitve with the top DACs out there.
  
 For a limited budget - and maybe for someone starting out - a well fed XMOS F-1 USB might a starting place.  I run one in my office system - and will a decent LPS and USB chain - it's pretty good.  Min cost of entry here - under $300.


----------



## peteAllen

This isn't my final setup, but at the moment I have a desktop running Roon, DVS and Rednet Controller with wifi for normal traffic, and a direct ethernet connection to the rednet (which appears as 100Mbps). Then on the D16 side I have another ethernet cable going to my switch, without which the Rednet Controller can't see the D16 on startup. My issues so far:
 - the D16 seems to need a connection to the switch as well as a direct connection to the PC
 - it's not stable: I put my desktop to sleep and switched off the D16. When I switched them both on again in the morning DVS had lost it. Perhaps the D16 needs to be switched on first? Or perhaps it's because I have dynamic ips.
 - jplay worked but was unstable, requiring a restart of the jplay service. I think it did sound better though.
 - hqplayer worked for a while, then when I switched to Dante soundcard and back, Roon couldn't play with hqplayer.
 - the sample rate switching doesn't work. It does work the first time going down e.g. if it was on 192 and then a 44.1 track comes on. After that it won't go back. Roon plays the track and no sound comes out until the next 44.1 track
 So it's not that straight forward using a D16 in some setups unfortunately.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> If I were about to buy I would take the trouble to read this whole thread and take notes. imo it would be worth it not just to make a good decision but also to self-educate enough to optimise enjoyment.
> 
> In the meantime, the main differences between RedNet 3 and D16 AES are:
> AES output on D16 / RN3's I/Os redundant for home audiophile (see pic of rear)
> ...


 

 Might want to also consider the new Arrakis Simple IP-8D.  Full Dante implementation - external DC power connection - built in AES/EBU output jacks.  The only down side I can see is the lack of an external WClock.  $999 price.
  
 I posted more info here: post #1992
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/1980#post_12904227


----------



## rb2013

peteallen said:


> A few days ago I set up my new Rednet D16 to work with a Mutec 3+ usb, running direct via CAT6 from my desktop PC. It sounds glorious. As hard as it is to explain such a difference in sound, I'll try: the speakers disappear more than before; the sound images are more solid; everything flows easily; and it sounds natural. Also I'm not noticing any bright or etched treble, or drawn to any other part of the spectrum, which is something I normally analyse when putting in a new component. Every album I put on sounds good too, even the poorly recorded ones - the deficiencies are still plain to hear but don't get in the way of the music. Very happy.
> 
> Here is the complete setup at the moment:
> Windows PC (Roon, Rednet Controller, Dante Controller) >
> ...


 

 Nice review.  It will of course get better with some run time.  And I found the Mutec and the Rednet do respond to better power cables.  Those Valhalla's are excellent - had a few in the past.  But they are expensive.
  
 Be sure the IP address is correct for your RN16 in the Rednet control.


----------



## mourip

peteallen said:


> My issues so far:
> - the D16 seems to need a connection to the switch as well as a direct connection to the PC
> - it's not stable: I put my desktop to sleep and switched off the D16. When I switched them both on again in the morning DVS had lost it. Perhaps the D16 needs to be switched on first? Or perhaps it's because I have dynamic ips.


 
  
 I have two systems with D16's: one for speakers in the Den and the other for dedicated headphone use. In both cases I found that having two ethernet ports in my PC gave me rock solid communication with my D16. In my speaker system I added a PCIe card and in my HP system I had to use a USB ethernet card due to the small size of my CAPS box and lack of an external slot.
  
 I use the built in ethernet port for a direct connect to my D16. You can use DHCP and the D16 will work with the self-assigned 169.xxx.xxx.xxx address just fine. The servers have static IP's. Only audio traffic goes to the D16 and I do remote control over the PC LAN connection and also copy new music etc.
  
 I leave my system on all of the time. If you elect to not do this I would switch on in this order: PC>D16>Mutec>DAC.
  
 Regarding sample rate following I too have found it to be balky. The good news is that setting everything to 192K sounds wonderful.


----------



## rb2013

peteallen said:


> This isn't my final setup, but at the moment I have a desktop running Roon, DVS and Rednet Controller with wifi for normal traffic, and a direct ethernet connection to the rednet (which appears as 100Mbps). Then on the D16 side I have another ethernet cable going to my switch, without which the Rednet Controller can't see the D16 on startup. My issues so far:
> - the D16 seems to need a connection to the switch as well as a direct connection to the PC
> - it's not stable: I put my desktop to sleep and switched off the D16. When I switched them both on again in the morning DVS had lost it. Perhaps the D16 needs to be switched on first? Or perhaps it's because I have dynamic ips.
> - jplay worked but was unstable, requiring a restart of the jplay service. I think it did sound better though.
> ...


 

 I do not have luck running Jplay as well - the latency is maybe to low on the DVS?
  
 Likely HQplayer will not work - I don't believe it's ASIO compatible?  And doesn't it need a h/w handshake?


> Recommended hardware:
> T+A DAC8 DSD (Win)
> exaSound e20/e22/e28 (Win/Mac)
> Sonore microRendu
> ...


----------



## astrostar59

*Set up RedNet 3 - newbie so please help!*
  
 I am on a 2015 Mac Mini 4 GIG, SSD 12V mod and LPS with Mavericks 10.9.5. I only want 44.1 Redbook setting.
*My network is dead simple, no switch. It is: Mac Mini - Ethernet - DAC.*
  
 1. Plugged in the supplied CAT6 cable to the Mac Mini and the RedNet 3.
 2. Plugged in my RCA digital cable from SPDIF out to my DAC RCA SPDIF in.
 3. Switched on the Rednet 3. Shows Connected, Locked, 48Hz sample rate and Internal clock.
 4. Installed RedNet controller app
 5 Installed Dante Controller app
 6 Went off and bought Dante Virtual card
 7 Opened up Dante Controller and updated the software
 8. Opened up RedNet Controller app and as my Rednet 3 is 3.4 it updated the software to 3.7 then updated the RedNet box itself. The controller app can now see my RedNet 3.
 9 Opened up Dante Virtual sound card, put in my serial number, set channels to 2 + 2 and latency to 4ms.
 10 Opened up RedNet controller and set the clock to 44.1 and the sample rate (all devices) to 44.1 and latency to 4ms.
 11. Opened up Audio Midi and it shows Dante Virtual Card and set to 44.1 Ha Ha!
 12. Opened up Audirvana+ 2.3.2 and I set the device to Dante Virtual card.
  
 It that it? i don't want to blow up my DAC input. Anyone done this process on a Mac that can confirm it is all ok and ready to play music.... 
 Do I ignore the Midi menu in Rednet Controller app?
  
 Thanks in advance.


----------



## peteAllen

You also need to assign 2 channels via the Rednet Controller from your mac to the D16. What's stopping you from switching on your dac? Just make sure the volume is low / play a track that has a quiet intro


----------



## Iving

peteallen said:


> You also need to assign 2 channels via the Rednet Controller from your mac to the D16. What's stopping you from switching on your dac? Just make sure the volume is low / play a track that has a quiet intro


 
  
 Dante Controller for mapping/routing ...
  
 The spanner tool on the RedNet device in RedNet Control may need attention ...


----------



## Iving

http://dev.audinate.com/GA/dante-controller/userguide/pdf/latest/AUD-MAN-DanteController-3.10.x-v1.0.pdf


----------



## Iving

4 on p.19 https://d3se566zfvnmhf.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/focusrite/downloads/8289/rednet-system-user-guide_0.pdf


----------



## astrostar59

I have set 2+2 channels in Dante Control
  
*In Dante controller it shows Mac Mini with 2 channel* and when I look in *Audio Midi* for my Mac Mini it shows Dante Virtual Soundcard *2 channels and 44.1* (correct)
  
 I have no switch or any further connections. Do I need to do anything extra in here?
 In Rednet Controller in the spanner button it shows:
  
*Mode: AES (option is ADAT)*
*Clock Source set to: Internal*
*AES Inputs SRC: 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9*
*Word Clock Termination: ticked*
*SPDIF inputs: unticked*
*Preferred Master: unticked*
  
 Does this all sound A OK?


----------



## Iving

I don't have access to my PC / software. It's vital in the spanner tool to set the Output to Ch 1&2.
  
 You are doing very well for a newbie it seems to me!


----------



## Iving

p.11 etc here https://d3se566zfvnmhf.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/focusrite/downloads/8292/rednet-3-user-guide.pdf


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> I don't have access to my PC / software. It's vital in the spanner tool to set the Output to Ch 1&2.
> 
> You are doing very well for a newbie it seems to me!


 

 Thanks Iving. It says in Rednet control it says AES Input (not output) and I just set 1&2 as ticked and untucked 3-8. Is this correct?


----------



## Iving

You don't need to be concerned with Input settings for Playback


----------



## Iving

When you have an Output signal routed correctly your R3 will show an LED in a particular place corresponding with the 2 Ch plus it will change from 48kHz to 44.1kHz


----------



## Golfnutz

rb2013 said:


> I do not have luck running Jplay as well - the latency is maybe to low on the DVS?
> 
> Likely HQplayer will not work - I don't believe it's ASIO compatible?  And doesn't it need a h/w handshake?


 
 Must be something between Roon + HQPlayer.
  
 HQPlayer works fine with D16. DVS even gets loaded into HQPlayer's Tools menu.


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> When you have an Output signal routed correctly your R3 will show an LED in a particular place corresponding with the 2 Ch plus it will change from 48kHz to 44.1kHz


 

 Ok, got it working. I got Sweetwater to do a remote access and fiddle with my Mac Mini all the way from the States to Spain! BTW fantastic service by Sweetwater, I would definitely say buy from those guys.


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Ok, got it working. I got Sweetwater to do a remote access and fiddle with my Mac Mini all the way from the States to Spain! BTW fantastic service by Sweetwater, I would definitely say buy from those guys.


 
  
 Nice astro!
  
 And ... ?


----------



## artur9

Anyone using RedNet for input?  Like to record from a turntable to a PC?


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> Must be something between Roon + HQPlayer.
> 
> HQPlayer works fine with D16. DVS even gets loaded into HQPlayer's Tools menu.


Good to hear.


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> Anyone using RedNet for input?  Like to record from a turntable to a PC?


The Rednets have digital inputs, but you‘d still need a ADC.


----------



## occamsrazor

soundsgoodtome said:


> Heads up, mini Dante enabled dac coming for $200 with balanced xlr out. Amphenol makes it and it's all super interesting. 48v Poe injection required


 
  
 Are you talking about this one?
  
 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1266502-REG/amphenol_rjd1212_0050_amphe_dante_rj45_audio_adapter.html
 http://www.amphenolaudio.com/products/dante/adapter/amphe-dante/
  
 Presumably that is based on this:
  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-analog-output-module
  
 ...so limited to 96khz and we don't know the DAC used, but seems unlikely to be very high quality.
  
 What I and I think many others are hoping for is an Audinate Brooklyn II card based box with SPDIF/AES and i2s outputs, something similar to Singxer SU-1 but Dante-enabled. While there may indeed be technical advantages to having the Dante card internally in the DAC, as in the Burl B2, the external interface route would offer the most flexibility.
  
 Also I see no technical reason why to limit to 192khz... given that Brooklyn II can do 16 channels of 192khz.
  
 I'd love to see Focusrite bring out a half-width 1U "Rednet Mini" type stereo device like the AM2 but with the Brooklyn II card. Has anyone asked them? If so was there any interest by them?


----------



## Iving

occamsrazor said:


> I'd love to see Focusrite bring out a half-width 1U "Rednet Mini" type stereo device like the AM2 but with the Brooklyn II card. Has anyone asked them? If so was there any interest by them?


 
  
 The UK technical support and sales guys were informed about this thread quite some months ago (and were given contact info for a small number of key contributors). Whether there is any interest on the company's part in creating an audiophile product seems known only to them. But they are very cool people, and you never know when the right communication could land on the right desk at the right time: http://focusriteplc.com/management


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> Are you talking about this one?
> 
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1266502-REG/amphenol_rjd1212_0050_amphe_dante_rj45_audio_adapter.html
> http://www.amphenolaudio.com/products/dante/adapter/amphe-dante/
> ...


 

 How about a device that runs 192kHz for each channel - so doubling the Dante throughput to 384k.  Seems possible even at a board level implementation.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> The UK technical support and sales guys were informed about this thread quite some months ago (and were given contact info for a small number of key contributors). Whether there is any interest on the company's part in creating an audiophile product seems known only to them. But they are very cool people, and you never know when the right communication could land on the right desk at the right time: http://focusriteplc.com/management


 

 If not them - then someone else.  I know of at least two other companies working on this.


----------



## rb2013

Lynx now joins the Dante family...
  


> The LT-DANTE LSlot card can be installed into any existing Hilo or Aurora with an easy and free firmware update. In addition, Lynx is making Dante-equipped Aurora and Hilo models available at the same time. These models are:
> 
> Hilo-DNT in Black and Silver
> Aurora 16-DNT
> Aurora 8-DNT


 
  
 http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=2#
  
 The BURL now has some serious competition:
 http://www.proaudiola.com/mobile/Product.aspx?ProductCode=LYNX-HILO-DT-SILVER
  
 Pictures are of the USB verison - I guess the Dante Ethernet photos are not ready yet for their website.

  
  

  

  
 Available Dec 2016 -  I already have one on pre-order.
  
 SPDIF and AES digital output - AND a DAC and an ADC - DC Battery power pack available.  Quality HP output.
  
 Lynx has a reputation for making excellent SQ audio.
  
 $2499 LSlot version, $2699 with Dante built in.
  
 http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/lynx-hilo


----------



## rb2013

> During the years that J. Gordon Holt and I made recordings together he often complained about the lack of “pro” audio gear being reviewed in consumer audio publications. Many times he found a particular piece of gear that he wanted to review, but because it was sold and marketed principally to professional audio engineers, it was deemed by his editors to be inappropriate. He found this so irritating that he didn’t write as many reviews in his later years as he might have, if given freer rein. Gordon’s last reference speakers, the ATC SC- 40s, were just such a “prosumer” product.


 
 http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/three-new-dsd-capable-dacs/
  


> Flash forward ten years; computer audio has reduced the gap between pro and consumer gear to the point where they are almost interchangeable. This convergence of current-generation consumer and pro gear is a result of parallel technical paths. The latest computer-audio pro and consumer products employ the same DACs, software/firmware solutions, and circuit-topology concepts. Nowadays differences in input/output options, routing flexibility, and cosmetics have become the primary differentiators separating pro from consumer devices.


----------



## goodvibes

jabbr said:


> UPnP protocol is transfering files to a player, which needs to playback the file format.
> AOIP is a realtime transfer of audio samples (like VOIP) which does not require a player at the receiving end.
> 
> I think not needing playback at the receiver, makes the receiver a lot less noisy.


 
 UPNP transfers unpacked files and supplies a digital steam. It's not just transferring file packets. Yes, the renderer needs to play the format but it's more than a file transfer.  
  
 With rednet (as I understand it) the clock(ing) is often still far from the DAC. I appreciate the JET jitter reducing clock recovery as I feel it was the best PC transfer method via firewire and better than anything I've come across USB but I still prefer UPNP protocols for this. Noise should be similar for both but I prefer clocking as close to the DAC as possible. 
  
 Don't get me wrong, it will be great for some pro uses but I don't see a qualitative advantage for home users.


----------



## jabbr

goodvibes said:


> UPNP transfers unpacked files and supplies a digital steam. It's not just transferring file packets. Yes, the renderer needs to play the format but it's more than a file transfer.
> 
> With rednet (as I understand it) the clock(ing) is often still far from the DAC. I appreciate the JET jitter reducing clock recovery as I feel it was the best PC transfer method via firewire and better than anything I've come across USB but I still prefer UPNP protocols for this. Noise should be similar for both but I prefer clocking as close to the DAC as possible.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it will be great for some pro uses but I don't see a qualitative advantage for home users.


 
  
 UPnP still uses only file transfer albeit packaged, not realtime audio distribution.
 The clock is network wide synchronised so also at the receiving Dante device, which normally acts as master clock
  
  
 But you will only know when you listen, .... and than you will experience there is no comparison.
 Don't think we're a bunch of noobs here 
  
 This pro-gear is way beyond all the consumer usb and UPnp stuff.


----------



## Tboooe

Hi guys...noob question here (please take it easy on me).
  
 Is HQPlayer's NAA similar to AOIP?  It seems from my admittedly naive position that HQPlayer on a server PC sending music to another PC running the NAA over my network is some sort of audio over IP right?  I would really appreciate a more technical explanation of how HQPlayer's NAA is different from AOIP.
  
 Thank you!


----------



## goodvibes

jabbr said:


> UPnP still uses only file transfer albeit packaged, not realtime audio distribution.
> The clock is network wide synchronised so also at the receiving Dante device, which normally acts as master clock
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You can't get top performance by spreading a clock that way but my definition of 'top' and another's will vary. I'm familiar with both Pro and consumer and strongly disagree about the playback end when discussing the best of both. Recording is another matter. When the computer audio consensus was that Itunes via a USB DAC was 'perfect', I listened to dig files using a pro TC Konnekt firewire interface (makers of JET) with a custom linear supply via Wavelab as player. This, dig out instead of the Konnekt's dac into a Naim DAC with additional supply. This was early 2010. It's was still not my preferred way to listen but it was palatable and filled a need. Top current dedicated UPNP servers and renderers leave nothing to be desired. It's unlikely that your level of expectations are higher than mine. I do agree that listening is the best way to judge.


----------



## InsanityOne

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






rb2013 said:


> Lynx now joins the Dante family...
> 
> 
> http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=2#
> ...


 
  


  
 Yes, I saw this the other day as well. A Lynx Hilo _with _an add-on (LT-DANTE) card? It is like a dream come true! Seeing as you have one on pre-order, will you be posting a comparison between your modded Burl B2 and the Lynx Hilo + LT-DANTE? I would be very curious to hear which one you thought was better!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 This is gonna be a tough critic of the HiLo.
  
 First DAC chips - Cirrus CS4398 - not my favorite for sure.  They do use a dual DAC configuration - but this may be a problem.  For me the AKM 4399 DAC in the BURL is much better.
  
 Worse they use a TI LM IC Opamps in analog output stage - much prefer the discrete Class A proprietary BOPA1 all‑discrete op‑amp modules.
  
May cancel that pre-order...


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> UPNP transfers unpacked files and supplies a digital steam. It's not just transferring file packets. Yes, the renderer needs to play the format but it's more than a file transfer.
> 
> With rednet (as I understand it) the clock(ing) is often still far from the DAC. I appreciate the JET jitter reducing clock recovery as I feel it was the best PC transfer method via firewire and better than anything I've come across USB but I still prefer UPNP protocols for this. Noise should be similar for both but I prefer clocking as close to the DAC as possible.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it will be great for some pro uses but I don't see a qualitative advantage for home users.


 

 You might want to read Miska's (creator of the HQPlayer) posts from a great CA thread - I have on page 2 - regarding the issues with UpNP/DNLA:
  
 I will repost them for your convience - BTW a few folks on this thread and a unnamed blog have compared the MicroRendu to the Rednet - it crushed the MicroR.
  


> > For getting unaltered data to DAC, DLNA is not good either. First, to get anything started it requires very delicate dancing between three devices. And it requires processing from the renderer (decoding source content). It is not very good for unprocessed either, because you don't know if and how the server is messing with your data.
> >
> > At the end, It is practically same as telling your web browser to play content from a web server, like YouTube. Control Point is telling which content Renderer (you web browser) should load from the Media Server (web server). If you need to seek backwards, Renderer needs to disconnect from the server and issue a new HTTP GET request, because you cannot go backwards in the stream. Since the GET request is made with byte offset it is only whereabouts with any compressed stream (like FLAC), because exact position cannot be calculated on a variable bitrate.
> > ​
> ...


 


> > _
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 
 From SuperDad:


> > _
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > 10-26-2014, 03:25 PM#83​​
> ...


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Nice astro!
> 
> And ... ?


I think he's lost in audio nirvana...AOIP has done this to all of us.

For me, my mind was lost trying to decide what classic album to re-experience next.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Does anyone know where to get a Tascam AES Breakout cable? It seems everything online is either not labeled tascam pinout or says Yamaha.


----------



## johnjen

I'd try Markertek 1st.
  
 How many channels do you want/need?
  
 JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Only one but the ability to run 2-3 would be ideal.


----------



## johnjen

That's relatively easy to make up, it just needs a 4 pair cable, or 2-3) 110Ω single channel cables, and a DB25 on one end with the XLR's on the other.
 Canare has 4 pair 'snake cable'.
  
 And going with more exotic true 110Ω cable (which usually has a larger OD) limits it to 1 or 2 channels.
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> I think he's lost in audio nirvana...


 
  
 It's true. PM . We'll get a report by and by ... maybe ...


----------



## Muziqboy

iving said:


> It's true. PM . We'll get a report by and by ... maybe ...


 

 I'll bet he's awestruck and speechless like all of us when we first heard the Rednets in our systems! lol


----------



## Iving

Yep lol
 Also a case of ... you know ... Gotta sell the A-Bomb


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> Does anyone know where to get a Tascam AES Breakout cable? It seems everything online is either not labeled tascam pinout or says Yamaha.


 

 Try Ebay - there are a million of them.
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hosa-Snake-DTM-803-XLR-M-Male-DB25-D-Sub-3m-9-9ft-Digi-Lynx-MOTU-Tascam-Analog-/251421403584?hash=item3a89e229c0:gpoAAOxySoJTUqmn


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> I'll bet he's awestruck and speechless like all of us when we first heard the Rednets in our systems! lol


 

 Time to send a search party?


----------



## rb2013

I guess Mikey Likey...
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/822157/m2tech-evo-full-stack-usb-spdif-convertor
  


> For Sale: M2Tech EVO full stack USB - SPDIF convertor


----------



## goodvibes

rb2013 said:


> You might want to read Miska's (creator of the HQPlayer) posts from a great CA thread - I have on page 2 - regarding the issues with UpNP/DNLA:
> 
> I will repost them for your convience - BTW a few folks on this thread and a unnamed blog have compared the MicroRendu to the Rednet - it crushed the MicroR.
> 
> From SuperDad:


 
 It should beat a USB DAC. I've already said I dislike USB. Nothing to see here. Your mixing your metaphors and aren't getting what I'm saying, at all.
  
 There are issue with every format and why I've talked about dedicated kit that doesn't try to do everything for everyone. Make sure you have a good quiet switch with both ends plugged into it and upnp works great. To clock as you described, there can't be much in the way of buffers if any and I don't see that working well in most home networks.
  
 When I have an analog master that is transferred to 24/192 wav via a Nagra VI and get a truer sonic transcription via the top selected server and renderer than I can playing it off the deck into any DAC. That's plenty good enough and not anyone's bottleneck. It may be over $35k of playback components but when making format statements, one needs to use what they feel is the best available kit so as to know if the format or kit is at fault. A while ago you said we need to listen and now it's something else. We get it. Your all in and here's nothing wrong with that but there's also nothing wrong with really good UPNP. In fact, if the server end is really good and quiet, it's excellent. 
  
 Due to the added reliability of more buffering that's fine for it's specific purpose, UPNP will never have all the real time type of uses that rednet may be capable of. I still see buffer over runs in many networks because they get busy. Unless Rednet runs a somewhat dedicated network, it could have issues which means it's probably not optimum for many home users and/or quirky networks of which there are many. Again, it may be a god send for some pro setups that need to distribute in that real time fashion but I just don't see the advantage for home use.
  
 I suspect it will perform similarly to a Weiss INT202 as dig out but I get a better transcription via, albeit expensive, UPNP.


----------



## patrikh

Can't seem to find d16's dimensions anywhere; do you know them or could you measure it? (preferably in mm) Thanks!


----------



## Iving

patrikh said:


> Can't seem to find d16's dimensions anywhere; do you know them or could you measure it? (preferably in mm) Thanks!


 
  
 This:

  
 is in here: https://d3se566zfvnmhf.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/focusrite/downloads/21422/rednet-d16d16r-user-manual-english.pdf


----------



## johnjen

goodvibes said:


> snip
> …Unless Rednet runs a somewhat dedicated network, it could have issues which means it's probably not optimum for many home users and/or quirky networks of which there are many. Again, it may be a god send for some pro setups that need to distribute in that real time fashion but I just don't see the advantage for home use.
> snip


 
 The Dante s/w does setup, not just a dedicated network, but one aimed at near real time streaming (very low latency).
 And while typing this, my music (running at 88.2) is 'loading' this network at 1.1MB/s, which is a pittance since my 2nd ethernet port hardware is gigabit capable.
  
 And I too used to run DLNA ethernet into my PWD and it was superior to any other means of digital signal delivery at that time.  And it probably wasn't anywhere as optimized as your setup.
  
 But it got eclipsed, by tweaked USB, and then again, by one of these RedNet boxes.
 This isn't say that my old setup is equivalent to yours but it is to say that this last leap was an order of magnitude *'better'* than all of the previous improvements, combined.
  
 And this AOIP setup and digital path certainly is much simpler.
  
 And while this is Pro Audio gear, it is by no means as optimized as it can be.
 Us early adopters are sorting out the 'weak spots' and coming to terms with tweaking what can and will make suitable improvements.
  
 It's like discovering a whole new domain where optimizing for SQ was not the goal nor the intent, and where we can utilize our mod skills and tweak with impunity.
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

> Originally Posted by *johnjen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Us early adopters are sorting out the 'weak spots' and coming to terms with tweaking what can and will make suitable improvements.


 
  


iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.
> 
> (iii) The new machine is a silent (no moving parts) PC comprising:
> - Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC Thunderbolt™ 3 Certified C236 Chipset Motherboard;
> ...


 
  
 I have had to swap the PSU from Seasonic 400fl because of coil whine (found on >1 instance) to Aurum AU 500 Gold (very nicely silent)
 and
 the mobo from Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC because of mysterious screeching around the CPU (6700) area [voltage regulation circuitry?] to ASUS Z170 Premium (more expensive but a way to keep Thunderbolt 3). The latter has two different Intel NICs but not the Killer E2400.
  
 When I get the machine back I'll report on any changes. I have asserted that an up-to-date competent PC with specs such as these (vs. a basic laptop or a good W10 tablet with Docking Station) raises SQ by as much as going from USB to AOIP.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Lynx now joins the Dante family...
> 
> http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=2#


 
  
 If we're looking in that kind of price territory as Burl B2, Lynx Hilo Dante, etc (which is above mine for now).... what about the Focusrite Red 4Pre?
  
 https://us.focusrite.com/thunderbolt-audio-interfaces/red-4pre
  
 Any thoughts on that? You get Thunderbolt connectivity thrown in as well.... I do have to admit I get confused by the terminology of pro "interfaces" though.... does this have variable volume output (capable of driving a power amp directly) like what audiophiles would refer to as a DAC/Pre?


----------



## Iving

johnjen said:


> Us early adopters are sorting out the 'weak spots' and coming to terms with tweaking what can and will make suitable improvements.


 
  


iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.


 
  
  


enginedr said:


> I found this on CA -http://pinknoisemag.com/pink-papers/pink-paper-002


 
  
  

 Found this paper [http://pinknoisemag.com/pink-papers/pink-paper-002] independently of @enginedr whilst researching the credentials of my Dangerous Convert-2. It was published January 2016 and, so, is recent. I made notes to help me understand stuff from a low starting point [perhaps I am not the only one - hence reason for sharing]. I have found that an unencumbered PC increases PRaT (and other SQ aspects) extraordinarily and wonder about the "timing" attributes of a system. My chain is [an awesome] PC > D16 AES > Convert-2 [using Convert-2's WC as master]; i.e., no MUTEC [reclocker] nor fancy atomic clock. I suppose aside from academic interest I am playing with expenditure on PC vs. expenditure on reclocker/external clock and/or expenditure on reclocker/external clock per se. Here are subjectively-drawn extracts from the pinknoisemag paper subjectively re-ordered for narrative. I've done this purely for educational purposes (and to indulge my own cognitive dissonance relief strategies wrt the system-balanced money I have invested).
  
_... the pro audio field has witnessed a decade-plus of entrenched disagreement between those who are certain that external clocking can never improve an interface’s performance and those who assert that it can and usually does ... _
_ _
_Previously, master clocks were boring boxes that synchronized various digital devices, but by the middle of the decade the pro audio field had become obsessed with the idea that external master clocks were key ingredients in a digital studio’s sound ... _
_... As Duke Ellington famously said, “If it sounds good, it is good” – and perhaps a playful reprise for the digital age could be “If it sounds good, it’s probably less jittery.” ... As a rule, systems with less jitter are generally understood to sound better ..._
_... the [Digidesign] 192s [interfaces] actually did measurably exhibit a marked reduction in jitter when clocked externally. What’s more, when synchronized to different models of clock ... the sonic character of the 192’s output does indeed change. This was why, despite the unavailability of hard evidence to support the notion, so many people began to talk about the sound of clocks._
_ _
_the ears of experts may be the best, and often the only, “test equipment” we have on hand. Yes, we do mean sighted listening (not double blind tests), and long term immersive listening (rather than short term comparative listening)._
*How To Listen To Clocks*
_Below is a list of the sonic qualities that one can listen for when swapping out clocks on a digital system. We generally believe that improvements in any of these dimensions likely indicate a reduction of jitter._
*Clarity*_ – Many systems “open up,” exhibiting more sonic detail, especially in the high-end where finer sonic definition resides. _
*Changes to Soundstage Shape*_ – Some clocks will strengthen the center image and others will appear to widen the stereo image ... One might think of this as the soundstage having a “concave” or “convex” shape._
*Front-to-Back Depth*_ – The front-to-back depth of the sonic image can change when swapping clocks, and typically the favored clock will present more depth. Often, along with this increase in depth, is an increase in the detail of reverberated sound within the recording._
*Three-Dimensionality*_ – Highly related to soundstage shape and front-to-back depth, three-dimensionality can also be thought of as the relationship of the phantom image in the center of to the rest of the sound stage. _
*Localization & Individuation*_ – The ability to differentiate and locate individual sounds within the sonic image can often improve when jitter is reduced. _
*Low-End Focus*_ – The tightness and focus of low end can be affected by an external clock _
*Low-End Extension*
*General Ease of Listening*_ – a more relaxed feeling when listening, especially over long periods. _
*Richness*_ – A highly subjective quality ... We suspect that richness might be the sum total of improvements in many (if not all) of the above characteristics._
_We suggest that recordmakers further embrace, rather than shy from, descriptive language, and even look to the vocabularies of audiophiles for linguistic innovations ... Language will always be the material from which we build bridges between the subjective and objective perspectives._
_... Not hearing a difference is as valid and important as hearing one, and a key aspect to becoming an expert listener is to not let the opinions of others sway you into hearing things that aren’t there. _
_The core problem here is that that guided listening can cause confirmation bias (the tendency to seek confirmation of one’s expectations) – a colossal problem in the research sciences. We are not out to convince anyone to take on our sighted listening paradigm as scientific. Instead, we aim to clarify what that paradigm is, and how one might practice and use it._
_ _
*We Compare Externally Clocked Converters*
*Externally clocking the Dangerous Music CONVERT-2*_ – The CONVERT-2 is a stereo DAC that showed no improvement when clocked externally, and in fact sounded a bit worse when it was. This is an indication that the CONVERT-2 is a solidly designed and implemented converter whose internal clock and __PLL__ are expertly tuned to each other. The CONVERT-2 DAC is, therefore, a good candidate as a studio’s master clock and has shown itself to be when clocking converters that do respond to external clocking._
*Externally clocking the Burl Mothership*_ –Joel Hamilton told us that his Burl Mothership converters showed no audible improvement when clocked externally to his Antelope 10M system. Thus, he runs his Mothership on the internal clock._
*Externally clocking the Lynx **Aurora*_ – The Lynx __Aurora__ converters regularly exhibit a sonic change when clocked externally, especially in high-end clarity and openness. _
*Externally Clocking the Digidesign 192 Digital & Dangerous Music Monitor*_ – As we already know, the Digidesign 192 has been proven to exhibit less jitter when clocked externally. Externally clocking a 192 Digital, and then sending the 192’s __AES__ output to the Dangerous Music Monitor’s DAC revealed the greatest sonic changes from the clocks we tested. _
_This ... sampling of digital systems should be enough to show how system-specific the role of external clocks is, and why generalizing about them would be fruitless ... _
_... any combination of clock, converter and/or digital interface forms a unique digital audio system with its own highly specific performance profile, there really is no practical way to predict how any combination of clock, converter and/or interface is going to perform together. _
_Forming broad conclusions about internal vs. external clocking – or about the efficacy of one specific product, or even about any type of product – is truly a flawed enterprise._
_ _
_Before recently, there was hardly ever a chance to *[We] compare 10 MHz generators*. Who had, or could (or would) afford, two different 10 MHz clocks? _
_Once an audio company has decided on a rubidium core, their job is to implement it into a device that will output the best 10 MHz signal for audio use. Essentially what will define a good 10 MHz design is low phase-noise in the 10MHz sine wave output, which (theoretically) should translate into less jitter in the Word Clock signal being sent to the converter’s __PLL__. _
_... all ... 10 MHz clocks improved the sound of our test system_
_... each 10 MHz generator had such a distinctly different impact on the sound of this system _
_... Each of these 10 MHz clocks helped to reveal more detail and improved imaging from this system, but in rather different ways._
*Impressions of Antelope 10M/OCX*_ – The Antelope 10M/OCX combination brought out so much reverb and widened the soundstage so much ... Other music ... soundstage cinematically wide. _
_The 10MX was revealed at the Audio Engineering Society (__AES__) convention in September of 2015 ... The 10MX is the first to house the 10 MHz generator and a Word Clock generator in a single unit for the pro audio market ... The Antelope 10MX provided a wholly different sound than the 10M/OCX combo. The individuation of elements was crystal clear, details firmly localized, and reverbs were far less enveloping and washy. The soundstage was wide, yet the center image was strong and present, so the sense of width was not quite as enhanced as with the 10M/OCX._
*Impressions of the Stanford Research Systems **PERF**10*_ – very different sound ... whole extra low octave ... consistently brought the bass like no other 10 MHz combination we tried._
*Conclusion About These 10 MHz Clocks*_ – As we will show in the next section, we can not grasp why one would invest in a 10 MHz clock for audio, but if for some reason someone felt they had to, we would point them toward the Stanford Research System __PERF__-10 as the less expensive and more enjoyable option._
_ _
_For audio purposes the concern is for short-term stability, as we want our zeros and ones to be delivered as evenly in time as possible, while the accuracy of the signal in 1000 years is of no concern ... despite the fact that long-term accuracy doesn’t matter for audio – atomic clocks have made quite a buzz in both the audiophile and pro audio markets ... a breed of clocks emerged that use rubidium osciallators to discipline the crystals into having good long-term stability ... in 2008 Antelope Audio released the first 10 MHz clock aimed at the pro audio market ... the era of aesthetic external clocking was in full swing ... it is important that we carry you through an elaborate sighted listening process as well as some refined logic that deals with how 10 MHz technology was able to have been taken seriously by the audio community despite it being a ruse._
_ _
*We compare 10 MHz & Crystal Clocks*
_Using the same jitter-revealing test system, we were curious to learn whether there was any obvious advantage to these 10 MHz clocks over crystal clocks, so we took what we had on hand and did a comparison of crystal clocks to the __SRS_ _PERF__-10/OCX combination (our preferred 10 MHz rig). _
*Antelope OCX as Master Clock*_ – As we mentioned earlier, the OCX on its own did not reveal the kind of high-end detail, nor the width and depth as it did when driven by a 10 MHz generator  (especially the __SRS_ _PERF__-10). However, the low end on the OCX was more powerful than with the Antelope 10M hooked up, and the center image was more pronounced. Generally, however, the overall sonic image was not as engaging, and the center image strength was at the expense of detail and interest in the left-right sides of the stereo image. The sound was disorganized._
*Cranesong HEDD 192 as Master Clock*_ – Wow. Delays and reverbs that were nearly inaudible with the Antelope and the TASCAM were obvious and lush with the HEDD as master clock. The depth of the soundstage was vast. All around the HEDD’s clock provided a much more professional sound with a strong center image. Localization was excellent. Low end balanced and punchy. A much more 3-dimensional listening experience all around. The HEDD was our favorite master clock on this rig._
*Forssell MADA-2 as Master Clock*_ – A second “wow” for the Forssell. This clock was similar to the Cranesong HEDD in its revelation of reverbs and delays. Localization and individuation was stable and precise. Width was pronounced, perhaps slightly at the expense of the center image. Low-end frequencies, while full-bodied, were not as clear as with the HEDD._
_ _
_Was the Cranesong HEDD Better Than the 10 MHz Clocks? – Yes. From the crystal oscillators we had on hand for our initial listening tests, we honed in on the Cranesong HEDD as our favored crystal clock for this system (with the Forssell as as very close rival). We then returned to the 10 MHz clocks and compared. We quickly zeroed back in on the Stanford Research Systems __PERF__-10 as our preferred 10 MHz clock and did a comparison with the HEDD._
_We’ve described the sound of these clocks above – however, the biggest differences between the HEDD and the __PERF__-10/OCX combination was that the HEDD delivered articulate and dynamic front-to-back depth compared to the __PERF__-10/OCX combination. The sonic image when using the HEDD reached into the room while still presenting reverb and delay details that reached far back into the space behind the speakers. It was a very three-dimensional and engaging soundstage. Low-end on the HEDD wasn’t quite as big as the __PERF__-10, though it was more clear and dynamic in general, with better note differentiation and detail._
_ _
*Grimm Audio CC1 and Dangerous Music CONVERT-2 as master clocks.*
*Grimm Audio CC1 Master Clock*_ – This clock is incredible. The detail and imaging from it are superior to anything we heard, and the overall “relaxed” sound of the playback was as close to analog tape (read: jitter-free) as anything we’d tried. The Grimm CC1 didn’t make the music sound as aggressive and forward as the Antelope clocks, and that was a huge plus, because what you get instead is unparalleled depth and detail, as well as a feeling of “calm” that none of the other clocks provided.  _
*Dangerous Music CONVERT-2 as Master Clock*_ – The CONVERT-2, a dedicated D/A converter, provided great sound from the system when used as the master clock. The level of detail wasn’t quite as crystal clear as the HEDD, but there was an “analog quality” to the sound that was appealing. Reverb depth was particularly good. Like all the other converters-running-as master-clocks that we tried, the CONVERT-2 could provide a great master clock in a studio that needs a high-end D/A as well and doesn’t have the budget for a dedicated external clock like the Grimm._
_ _
*Listening and Logic Agree: 10 MHz Clocking for Audio is a **Ruse*
_In the absence of jitter measurements (for now), we are left with listening and logic. In the case of 10 MHz clocks, logic and listening are aligned. _
_We’ve shown above that on our test system the 10 MHz clocks, while capable, were not able to outperform the crystal oscillators found in two high-end converters. _
_As we explained above, for audio we are interested only in short-term stability in a clock. The rubidium oscillator is an elaborate and relatively expensive device that improves long-term stability. So, the logical conclusion – and one that lines up with our listening evaluations – is that nothing is gained from adding a rubidium stabilization device to a crystal oscillator for audio use._
_ _
_... unless you’re using our test system, you’re going to have to go and do these tests yourself on your system. The specific products that we tried – as well as products that we hope to try in the future – are all going to work differently together.  We will not generalize on your behalf._
_From a consumer’s point of view, if you run the cost on all of the clocking options we’ve presented so far, you can see readily that an excellent two-channel converter_ [cf. Dangerous Convert-2] _can also make an excellent master clock. Dollar for dollar, using a high-end converter as your master clock is an excellent solution for mixing and tracking engineers who need great sound from dozens of channels of AD and DA systems that show reduced jitter when externally clocked. Along with great clocking, you also get two channels of excellent conversion. Once you add up the expense of a 10 MHz clock rig, it’s difficult to see why anyone would spend that kind of money on a system that has mostly won favor by way of a ruse (however intentional or unintentional that ruse may have been)._
_ _
*Dropping The Digital Ideal – Toward Multiple Transparencies*
_Given the variability of sound that we heard from all the different clocks and converters we’ve tried, we believe it’s time to move away from the tired notion digital audio is evolving toward some ideally transparent system and to embrace that a diverse array of beautifully executed converters – all of which will have “a sound” of some kind – is emerging. Transparency and musicality (this means ‘beauty’ we believe) will always be intertwined in an elaborate and confusing dance between the speakers._
  
 May I please refer any requirement for clarity or expansion to the original paper!


----------



## mourip

Quote:


goodvibes said:


> snip
> …Unless Rednet runs a somewhat dedicated network, it could have issues which means it's probably not optimum for many home users and/or quirky networks of which there are many. Again, it may be a god send for some pro setups that need to distribute in that real time fashion but I just don't see the advantage for home use.
> snip



  
 Quote:


johnjen said:


> This isn't say that my old setup is equivalent to yours but it is to say that this last leap was an order of magnitude *'better'* than all of the previous improvements, combined.


 
  
 Johnjen hits the nail on the head. The entire point is that it just sounds better than anything else for those who have tried it. The fact that it is Pro Audio is moot. 
  
 Also most folks will probably have the PC and Rednet device in near network proximity possibly not even going through a switch in which case there are really no obstacles for communication/latency.
  
 As audiophiles we need to pick from the best whether is is old or new, Pro or Audiophile, expensive or cheap. What ever sounds best in one's own system.
  
 AOIP is all about SQ and is a game changer...


----------



## goodvibes

johnjen said:


> The Dante s/w does setup, not just a dedicated network, but one aimed at near real time streaming (very low latency).
> And while typing this, my music (running at 88.2) is 'loading' this network at 1.1MB/s, which is a pittance since my 2nd ethernet port hardware is gigabit capable.
> 
> And I too used to run DLNA ethernet into my PWD and it was superior to any other means of digital signal delivery at that time.  And it probably wasn't anywhere as optimized as your setup.
> ...


 
 Cool and JET really is better than anything you can do with USB so that's great. I suspect this can be very good, just not better than what I know upnp is actually capable of. I'm aware of the low load of audio on networks. When they go wanky it's other traffic the affects things. I never implied that this alone would stress a wired one.


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> It should beat a USB DAC. I've already said I dislike USB. Nothing to see here. Your mixing your metaphors and aren't getting what I'm saying, at all.
> 
> There are issue with every format and why I've talked about dedicated kit that doesn't try to do everything for everyone. Make sure you have a good quiet switch with both ends plugged into it and upnp works great. To clock as you described, there can't be much in the way of buffers if any and I don't see that working well in most home networks.
> 
> ...


 

 Well the best implementation of UpNP is probably MSB - but as Miska and SuperDad points out there are inherent issues with the protocol.  Ones that AOIP avoid.
  
 Try a Rednet and see - you may be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> If we're looking in that kind of price territory as Burl B2, Lynx Hilo Dante, etc (which is above mine for now).... what about the Focusrite Red 4Pre?
> 
> https://us.focusrite.com/thunderbolt-audio-interfaces/red-4pre
> 
> Any thoughts on that? You get Thunderbolt connectivity thrown in as well.... I do have to admit I get confused by the terminology of pro "interfaces" though.... does this have variable volume output (capable of driving a power amp directly) like what audiophiles would refer to as a DAC/Pre?


 

 Well there are several Foscusrite Dante AOIP DAC's - the Red 4Pre, the Rednet 1 and Rednet 2.
  
 Unfortunately they all use DB25 connectors for the analog outputs - that's a deal killer for me. 
  
 I could overlook the Rednet3 with it's DB25 digital output (and made a cable to utilize this - now for sale in the classifieds), but much preferred the SQ from the Audience au24se and SR Element Copper SPDIF rca cables.  I used the DB25 between the RN3 and the Mutec - then the better digital cables out of the Mutec to my DAC.
  
 But for an analog output - no freaking way!  I have spent years rolling ICs and have some pretty amazing ones between my DAC and amp.  That I'm not giving up!


----------



## jabbr

goodvibes said:


> ..... I suspect this can be very good, just not better than what I know upnp is actually capable of. I'm aware of the low load of audio on networks.......


 
  
  
 Your again one who listens with knowledge and a logical brain instead in real life wth your ears, and know which one is better already?? OMG!!!!!


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Found this paper [http://pinknoisemag.com/pink-papers/pink-paper-002] independently of @enginedr whilst researching the credentials of my Dangerous Convert-2. It was published January 2016 and, so, is recent. I made notes to help me understand stuff from a low starting point [perhaps I am not the only one - hence reason for sharing]. I have found that an unencumbered PC increases PRaT (and other SQ aspects) extraordinarily and wonder about the "timing" attributes of a system. My chain is [an awesome] PC > D16 AES > Convert-2 [using Convert-2's WC as master]; i.e., no MUTEC [reclocker] nor fancy atomic clock. I suppose aside from academic interest I am playing with expenditure on PC vs. expenditure on reclocker/external clock and/or expenditure on reclocker/external clock per se. Here are subjectively-drawn extracts from the pinknoisemag paper subjectively re-ordered for narrative. I've done this purely for educational purposes (and to indulge my own cognitive dissonance relief strategies wrt the system-balanced money I have invested).
> 
> _... the pro audio field has witnessed a decade-plus of entrenched disagreement between those who are certain that external clocking can never improve an interface’s performance and those who assert that it can and usually does ... _
> _ _
> ...


 

 Good stuff!  This article shows that clocks do matter and sound different - as amazing as that is.
  
 I would say much depends on system synergies.  The weak link in all this Pro Audio gear (Rednet. Mutec, Antelope, BURL, GRIMM?, Dangerous?, Cranesong?, Forsell?) - are the use of cheap SMPS's.   The power supply in the Rednet's for example are said to be $1.80 Ferex units with 150,000 uV RMS of noise!
  
 Some on Tri-Ni-Na have modded the Mutec's PS to external LPS's


  
 To good effect - here is the stock SMPS:

  
  
 I found the Antelope OCX really made a difference as an ext WClock on the Rednet 3 - many have commented on the better Antelope Live Clock as improving the SQ.
  
 The OCX has a SMPS - the Live Clock has the ability to use an external DC LPS


 That is something I would explore if I owned one.
  
 I found the BURL B2B DAC was helped with the OCX - before the power supply mods.  Now running on a decent LPS - the ext Wclock made no improvement, in fact it hurt the SQ.
 So the PS on all these units are very important.
  
 Someone had posted on the Rednet that they had modded it - to run on an external LPS - but not much detail there.
  
 This new AOIP full DANTE unit I posted about looks very interesting - DC external power and AES XLR sockets (the advantage of the RN D16AES over the 3).
  
 Another feature of the Antelope Live Clock is the ability to recalibrate it's crystal clock to an external atomic clock.  All clocks drift over time away from their reference freq - XO and TXCO more then Rubidums - by orders of magnitude.  The totl Crystek CCHD-975's quote 3ppm in the first yr, then 1ppm each year there after.  The Antelope Live Clock: 1ppm per yr.  The SRS PERF10: 5ppb per year, .  Does this 1000 times more stable clock matter?  After 5 yrs the 975 has drifted 7ppm vs 25ppb for the PERF10.  Since clocking is the heart of digital audio - maybe this long term drift does matter?
  
 With the Antelope Live Clock you can have the clocks recalibrated yearly to an atomic clock - nice if you have a rich friend!
  
 The big issue with all these super clocks is the cost.  I'd rather explore the more important power supply issues.


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> Good stuff!  This article shows that clocks do matter and sound different - as amazing as that is.
> 
> I would say much depends on system synergies.  The weak link in all this Pro Audio gear (Rednet. Mutec, Antelope, BURL, GRIMM?, Dangerous?, Cranesong?, Forsell? - are the use of cheap SMPS's.   The power supply in the Rednet's for example are said to be $1.80 Ferex units with 150,000 uV RMS of noise!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yep - although the article is clear about the 10 MHz "ruse"! And you humbly add a ? after "maybe this long term drift does matter"!
  

 May I emphasise also that I am not so much interested in the merits or otherwise of crystal vs. crystal-disciplining 10 MHz clocks - but more - in *any* upstream mitigation of *any* deleterious influence on SQ including *any* parameter of a playback system which governs promotion or disruption of SQ.
  
 More specifically and for present purposes I am curious as to why my swanky PC has such a liberating effect on the music - PRaT especially - when our early observations about AOIP, especially in contrast with USB, were that the PC's "noise" needed far less attention or management.
  
 For those _au fait_, think stepwise regression and the gradual explanation of "error" wrt a criterion or DV. We know that a Factor B may appear to explain less variance (in a DV) when variance it shares with Factor A has already been accounted for (by the prior addition of Factor A to the regression equation). We could also say that it is easier to establish statistical significance for miscellaneous regressors when there is a great deal of variance at large.
  
 For argument's sake, let the criterion be downstream jitter (about which I know little - but statisticians may be excused as the purveyors of merely tools). I am just asking really whether PC parameters - any pre RedNet box parameters actually I suppose - could limit the scope for jitter to such an extent that clocks are rendered less pivotal in accounting for positive increments in SQ.
  
 The article germane demonstrates awareness of the regression ideas mentioned above; that is, Factor B may look more important when the aetiological attributes it shares with Factor A are trivialised, and when there is a great deal of jitter knocking about.
  
 Conversely, and as already suggested, one imagines that if the (other, upstream) credentials of the system reduce jitter to nil or negligible quantities, external clocks would have very little do (and their effects would barely be discerned).
  
 On that other note, since I have a Convert-2 (credit @mhamel) I am indeed turning my attention to Power Supply issues next (rather than clocks). I need a moment to get my breath back. Meantime thank you for the new threads!


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> Yep - although the article is clear about the 10 MHz "ruse"! And you humbly add a ? after "maybe this long term drift does matter"!
> 
> 
> May I emphasise also that I am not so much interested in the merits or otherwise of crystal vs. crystal-disciplining 10 MHz clocks - but more - in *any* upstream mitigation of *any* deleterious influence on SQ including *any* parameter of a playback system which governs promotion or disruption of SQ.
> ...


 

 Good points - I forget what PC were you using before?  I noticed a big improvement going to a new WIN10 iCore7 3.3Mhz, 12GB ram.  I replaced the PS with a low noise. high PSRR fanless, added SATA and CPU fan filters, etc...  This is a dedicated music server - stripped of all applications but audio player and drivers - all processes shut down - no internet connections, no 'pushed' updates, etc...the Dante DVS needs processing power - so a newer machine does help.
  
 I think WIN10 is a major improvement.  That said - in the good old USB days many raved about using WIN Server 2012 R2 - as a big step up over WIN7 and 8.  Then of course the Fidelizer and other PC optimizers ( I never tried myself).
  
 Has anyone used Dante with 2012R2?  Is it even compatible.
  
 I think you are on the right path with the power supply issues - I beg you Pro Audio companies - if you are listening (and you should- how many Rednet boxes have we sold for you!). 
  
 PLEASE PLEASE! PLEASE!! Get rid of these SMPS's!  Just an ext DC power socket - or at least the option (like Lynx and Arrakis Systems).


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> Has anyone used Dante with 2012R2?  Is it even compatible.
> 
> I think you are on the right path with the power supply issues - I beg you Pro Audio companies - if you are listening (and you should- how many Rednet boxes have we sold for you!).
> 
> PLEASE PLEASE! PLEASE!! Get rid of these SMPS's!  Just an ext DC power socket - or at least the option (like Lynx and Arrakis Systems).


 
 I am running Server Essentials which is very similar to R2.  I was going to get a Rednet to try this AOIP for myself but am now waiting for whatever new product Rednet is developing.  I am hopeful its a more consumer focused products with less outputs, smaller footprint, and of course no SMPS.  Keeping my fingers crossed!


----------



## goodvibes

jabbr said:


> Your again one who listens with knowledge and a logical brain instead in real life wth your ears, and know which one is better already?? OMG!!!!!


 
 No, never said that but thanks for the insult. Only said that I don't see it being sonically better than what I can get from UPNP, from what I've personally heard from that format. Never said it was worse but raised some questions regarding clock etc. That stuff is just convo which I hoped would stay polite. I guess that ship has sailed.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Has anyone used Dante with 2012R2?  Is it even compatible.


 
  
 I am running 2012R2 with my speaker system and 2012R2 Essentials on my headphone system. Both use the D16 with Dante.
  
 The only issue I have is when trying to use "sample rate following". It works fine but when I try to RDP into my headless server it causes RedNet Control to close and the setting is not saved. If I turn launch it again it will stay open after I exit RDP and I can use JRMC Remote to play music.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ....
> 
> Has anyone used Dante with 2012R2?  Is it even compatible.
> 
> ....




I use Dante with 2012R2 in GUI mode. No issues what soever, it is just like Win-8.1


----------



## rb2013

Quote:


mourip said:


> I am running 2012R2 with my speaker system and 2012R2 Essentials on my headphone system. Both use the D16 with Dante.
> 
> The only issue I have is when trying to use "sample rate following". It works fine but when I try to RDP into my headless server it causes RedNet Control to close and the setting is not saved. If I turn launch it again it will stay open after I exit RDP and I can use JRMC Remote to play music.


 
 Thanks - have you compared to WIN10?
  


jabbr said:


> I use Dante with 2012R2 in GUI mode. No issues what soever, it is just like Win-8.1


 
 Ditto - worth the added cost?


----------



## rb2013

OK my treatise on power supplies is progressing nicely - PART 3 done.  This covers linear power supplies on the market.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/822160/audio-power-supplies-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options-part-3#post_12912679


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Ditto - worth the added cost?


 
 I have had it for free as part of an old Microsoft developers program. At one time that program was free as well for developers.


----------



## mourip

I have not tried it with Win10 but might try downloading a trial copy of Dante and installing it on my office PC which is near my HP rig. Will report back...
  
 I am using GUI mode also with Audiophile Optimizer enabled...
   
  
 Quote:


rb2013 said:


> Quote:
> Thanks - have you compared to WIN10?
> 
> Ditto - worth the added cost?


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> I have not tried it with Win10 but might try downloading a trial copy of Dante and installing it on my office PC which is near my HP rig. Will report back...
> 
> I am using GUI mode also with Audiophile Optimizer enabled...




I would not expect any relevant improvement using Win10 for AOIP.
Win10 was an improvement when using USB because of the changes they made to the audio usb implementation.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> I would not expect any relevant improvement using Win10 for AOIP.
> Win10 was an improvement when using USB because of the changes they made to the audio usb implementation.


 

 Thanks!  I believe Intel improved the Ethernet processing in their later MB chipsets.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Thanks!  I believe Intel improved the Ethernet processing in their later MB chipsets.



I would not expect an effect of that unless using copper cat cable.That it is functioning properly was never an issue IMHO.
Though I can imagine better latency by changing the parameters of the adapter.


Those parameters for the network adapter could of course also change the behaviour of the network adapter on the receiving Rednet, creating a different (intensity of) processing and thereby a different noise profile.

Hmm, food for thought.


----------



## grizzlybeast

how do you stop these clicks and pops. (Im using my late iMac)


----------



## rb2013

grizzlybeast said:


> how do you stop these clicks and pops. (Im using my late iMac)


 

 Try increasing the latency in the Dante Controller and a larger buffer in DVS.  What SR are you using?  What latency is the Dante Controller showing?


----------



## patrikh

Just got my R16. If I remember correctly, there was an installation guide in this thread. Does anyone remember on which page?


----------



## grizzlybeast

rb2013 said:


> grizzlybeast said:
> 
> 
> > how do you stop these clicks and pops. (Im using my late iMac)
> ...


 
 I am only able to go up to 96 SR
 my Imac is at 10 msec
 the Rednet is at 150 usec
  
 I will do as you have mentioned.


----------



## astrostar59

grizzlybeast said:


> how do you stop these clicks and pops. (Im using my late iMac)


 

 Are you up sampling? Also I assume being an iMac you are using it for other tasks at the same time.
  
 It is best to use a Mac Mini stripped back to only music data to allow the processor the best chance of handling the task.
  
 A Mac mini is cheap IMO for what it can do. I screen share my Mac Mini to my iMac and work on the iMac while listening to tunes.
  
 Hope this helps.


----------



## johnjen

Could you be a bit more specific?
  
 JJ


----------



## grizzlybeast

Quote: 





astrostar59 said:


> grizzlybeast said:
> 
> 
> > how do you stop these clicks and pops. (Im using my late iMac)
> ...


 
  
  


johnjen said:


> Could you be a bit more specific?
> 
> JJ


 
 iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)
 4 GHz Intel Core i7
 8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
 Macintosh HD
 AMD Radeon R9 M395 2048 MB
 I got the clicks to go away.
  
 Thanks for all of the help. The clicks etc are gone after fiddling with the sample rates after following the advice here and from Andrew.  
  
 I simply just need to get the AES cable and then figure how to get sound from 192 files. 
 So far though the sound is a little more clear and open. Though the sounds are separated, they sound more realistically placed and have slightly more depth. It doesn't seem like a huge improvement but an improvement none the less. Like if someone had to audition the Pavane using USB they would still get a really good idea of how it sounds and the RedNet via Coax just focuses that idea for a slightly clearer idea. It does have less of a digital feel to it as well. 
  
 On my desk:
 Actually the red is welcomed. Just the overall aesthetics while its bare is very ugly to me lol. I can't wait for my 2U rack to get here. 
  
 Funtionality:
 It also stays as it is and every time I open up audirvana its ready to go. So after most of the Bull crap, its set it and forget it. Getting sound out was the easy part (for me). The frustration is/was getting the clicks to go away, and now figuring out how to get it to play 192 SR. It plays 192 songs at the 96 setting just fine. 
  
 Power everything down... then power everything up and music is still ready to go. Close all of the aps and re-open them  and the music is still ready to go. Switch to USB in Audirvana, Switch back to Dante Virtual Soundcard and its ready to play music.  So not as many issues as I was expecting except for the above.


----------



## astrostar59

grizzlybeast said:


> Like if someone had to audition the Pavane using USB they would still get a really good idea of how it sounds and the RedNet via Coax just focuses that idea for a slightly clearer idea. It does have less of a digital feel to it as well.


 
 Interesting to know you have the Pavane. Then I would say stick to NON up sampling for that DAC for sure. It is an R-2R bit-perfect DAC so no point / benefit to feed it messed with RedBook. Keep it at 44.1 in Rednet controller, in Dante Controller under Device config and 44.1 in Audio Midi. 24 bit 44.1 Async is the best setting I have found. My DAC is an Audio Note so like your, R-2R.
  
 Hope this helps.


----------



## rb2013

grizzlybeast said:


> iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)
> 4 GHz Intel Core i7
> 8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
> Macintosh HD
> ...


 

 It'll get better with breakin time.  200 hours should do it.  I would explore a decent power cord and some AC line filtering as well - if you haven't.
  
 I have the iFi SPDIF here now and I'm running it in.  This is only $149 and provides galvanic isolation to SPDIF and reclocks and impedence matching.  Bit perfect as well.
 So far on my USB office system a slight improvement - but that was fresh out of the box.
  
 I don't have the Rednet any longer - but on my USB system should be a good testing place.  The Mutec is of course the better AES/SPDIF reclocker - but pretty expensive for that.


----------



## astrostar59

True, but having got an iMac and a Mac Mini I question the limit of SQ loss using a working computer with screen and all as a music server. It is going to be compromised. If Grizzly has invested 1K+ in the RedNet, the next jump IMO would be an optimised Mac Mini with 12V DCX supply. It remove hash and gives a smoother treble plus wider soundstage to name a few. Screenshare the iMac to the Mini via wifi, and leave the ethernet port as RedNet only.
  
 All IMO.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> True, but having got an iMac and a Mac Mini I question the limit of SQ loss using a working computer with screen and all as a music server. It is going to be compromised. If Grizzly has invested 1K+ in the RedNet, the next jump IMO would be an optimised Mac Mini with 12V DCX supply. It remove hash and gives a smoother treble plus wider soundstage to name a few. Screenshare the iMac to the Mini via wifi, and leave the ethernet port as RedNet only.
> 
> All IMO.


 

 Good suggestions.
  
 I see a few LPS's available for the Mac Mini. 
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TeraDak-MAC-Mini-2010-2015-Audiophile-HiFi-Linear-Power-Supply-/252360703426?hash=item3ac1debdc2:g:CBcAAOSw1DtXFdVr


----------



## rb2013

Anybody see the study comparing the SQ of a PC to a Mac?
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/750421/pc-vs-mac-which-sound-better-as-music-servers-absolute-sound-article-new-methods-part-3


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Good suggestions.
> 
> I see a few LPS's available for the Mac Mini.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TeraDak-MAC-Mini-2010-2015-Audiophile-HiFi-Linear-Power-Supply-/252360703426?hash=item3ac1debdc2:g:CBcAAOSw1DtXFdVr


 

 The HDPlex is a good LPS. You need the UpTone Audio PCB conversion to allow it to run on 12V DC and remove the SMPS inside it.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Good suggestions.
> 
> I see a few LPS's available for the Mac Mini.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TeraDak-MAC-Mini-2010-2015-Audiophile-HiFi-Linear-Power-Supply-/252360703426?hash=item3ac1debdc2:g:CBcAAOSw1DtXFdVr




Paul Hynes made SR3 level linears specifically for the Mac Mini, that how I got into contact with him.
Check the (very) old posts on his thread on AudioCircle where he introduces these SR3 for the Mac.


----------



## occamsrazor

Naturally I'm not at all denying anyone's personal experiences, but if the primary SQ benefit of AOIP is removal of all noise from the playing system via the ethernet isolation, then I'm finding it theoretically hard to understand what is believed to be the mechanism for SQ improval when altering the playback machine in terms of adding LPS to the pc/mac etc.


----------



## jabbr

occamsrazor said:


> Naturally I'm not at all denying anyone's personal experiences, but if the primary SQ benefit of AOIP is removal of all noise from the playing system via the ethernet isolation, then I'm finding it theoretically hard to understand what is believed to be the mechanism for SQ improval when altering the playback machine in terms of adding LPS to the pc/mac etc.


 
 +1
 unless ethernet connections are not fully electrically isolated, which I believe they aren't (at least fully) because of the positive impact of good quality LAN-isolators like the Acousense GISO GB.
  


> *GISO – Isolator* _For galvanic isolation of network connections in digital audio_
> 
> High-frequency interference from computer peripherals, the electric grid and the high-frequency components of digital audio signals can negatively influence sensitive analog audio signals and thus significantly disrupt listening enjoyment. Therefore, devices which serve as a "bridge" between the analog and digital world (AD or DA converters) have always been special components which are recommended (AES) or even obligatory (EBU) in the standardisation guidelines of the professional studio industry; so-called transformers - small hardware elements, which transfer a signal in a purely inductive manner without a physical connection to the conductor - prevent or at least decrease these disruptive influences.
> 
> ...


 
 http://www.artistic-fidelity.de/index.php/en/giso-isolator


----------



## occamsrazor

jabbr said:


> +1
> unless ethernet connections are not fully electrically isolated, which I believe they aren't (at least fully) because of the positive impact of good quality LAN-isolators like the Acousense GISO GB.
> 
> http://www.artistic-fidelity.de/index.php/en/giso-isolator


 
  
 I read some stuff about them before and it was positive but to be honest I am put off by the lack of any real information, specifications, photos, prices etc on their website.
 Also I'm not sure how their system is supposed to be better than Fiber Media Converters.....


----------



## Iving

occamsrazor said:


> Naturally I'm not at all denying anyone's personal experiences, but if the primary SQ benefit of AOIP is removal of all noise from the playing system via the ethernet isolation, then I'm finding it theoretically hard to understand what is believed to be the mechanism for SQ improval when altering the playback machine in terms of adding LPS to the pc/mac etc.


 
  
 I have a feeling that "all noise" upstream of the first ethernet connection may involve aspects and attributes of the broadcasting machine (whether PC or Mac) that mitigate types of "noise" or "signal error" other than "electrical noise" (of the kind that we consider remedied by LPSs/isolation etc). ... and, so, whilst leakage of electrical noise along ethernet may be possible or not possible for all I know, I do think that some or other "timing noise" [aetiological wrt *jitter* error?] may be in play too (to a lesser extent it seems with an unencumbered machine). There has to be some explanation (aside from subjective prejudice!) for the massive SQ enhancement (PRaT is the first thing noticed but the effect is general and unmistakeable) I experienced as a consequence of PC upgrade.


----------



## jabbr

occamsrazor said:


> I read some stuff about them before and it was positive but to be honest I am put off by the lack of any real information, specifications, photos, prices etc on their website.
> Also I'm not sure how their system is supposed to be better than Fiber Media Converters.....




I have one and in my USB-period I used it between the playback PC and the switch to the rest of the LAN where my NAS is also connected to. My USB SPDIF converter was then connected to the playback PC. The GISO GB was a very significant improvement showing that a lot of disturbance came in over the ethernet cat cabling.

The advantage of the GISO GB is that it is a passive device, just containing a very good transformer, fit for the purpose it is intended for.

The FMC, which I now use with the Rednet, is an active device requiring a PSU and carries the risk of injecting 'new' noise at the converter at the receiving end. I avoid that by using one of the rails of my Paul Hynes linear PSU to power the converter at the Rednet end.


The Acousence website used to have better information when it was still part of their Acousence website. Now they setup this acoustic-fidelity site to deal with all their hardware and their focus has shifted to the USB isolating devices and the GISO is left dangling a bit.
They have two GISO's: the DS model with only 4 cat-wires connected and therefore limited to 100 Mb/s; and the GB model which has all 8 cat-wires connected and allows for 1 Gb/s speeds. Prices where about €250 & €350 if I remember correctly.
One of the positive aspects from this product for me was the fact that Acousence is first and foremost a music production company focussed on high quality, high resolution music and they developed this device for use in their own production environment. It was just a by-product they could sell outside as well.

If you are interested I would just write them an email and see if you can try one first before you buy. They were very easy to deal with and communicating in english is no problem.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> The HDPlex is a good LPS. You need the UpTone Audio PCB conversion to allow it to run on 12V DC and remove the SMPS inside it.


 

 Acuatlly looked at the HDPLex LPS - way overpriced for what you get.  LT1083 LDO (Meh) with 180uv of noise 30dB of PSRR - they do use an R-Core transformer.  But for  $395 silly priced.
  
 You can get the much better MEIYAN 100VA Low Noise LPS for less then half.  Discrete three stage regulation - 14uv noise - very high PSRR 102dB.
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/131867485038?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rmvSB=true
  
 5.5A to 12V
  
 Here is a link to my power supply threads:
  
 At the bottom of this PART2 I list the common IC LDOs:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/821731/audio-power-supplies-part-2-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options
  
 In PART 3 the commonly available LPS's:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/822160/audio-power-supplies-part3-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Paul Hynes made SR3 level linears specifically for the Mac Mini, that how I got into contact with him.
> Check the (very) old posts on his thread on AudioCircle where he introduces these SR3 for the Mac.


 

 Here is his new website:
 http://paulhynesaudio.com
  
 Long wait times for delivery - large backorder.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> +1
> unless ethernet connections are not fully electrically isolated, which I believe they aren't (at least fully) because of the positive impact of good quality LAN-isolators like the Acousense GISO GB.
> 
> http://www.artistic-fidelity.de/index.php/en/giso-isolator


 

 Interested to see if anyone has tried one of these with the Rednet.
  
 I tried the optical GB SMC fiber - with LPS's on sender and reciever - using a BJC CAT6 UTP cable between the RN3 and TP-LINK MC210CS  - I could not hear any difference.  This SMC  provides complete galvanic isolation.
  
 If you are using a shielded STP Ethernet cable then it probably would.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Acuatlly looked at the HDPLex LPS - way overpriced for what you get.  LT1083 LDO (Meh) with 180uv of noise 30dB of PSRR - they do use an R-Core transformer.  But for  $395 silly priced.


 
  
 On the other hand you get 5 different outputs.... which I guess is one of the main attractions.


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> Acuatlly looked at the HDPLex LPS - way overpriced for what you get.  LT1083 LDO (Meh) with 180uv of noise 30dB of PSRR - they do use an R-Core transformer.  But for  $395 silly priced.
> 
> You can get the much better MEIYAN 100VA Low Noise LPS for less then half.  Discrete three stage regulation - 14uv noise - very high PSRR 102dB.
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/131867485038?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rmvSB=true
> ...


 
 I actually have the HDPlex 300W ATX supply for my server pc. Being able to connect directly to the various internal PC power cables and avoid having to use a DC ATX board was attractive to me.  Looks like it only uses the 1083 for the adjustable and 5v outputs.  Not sure about the other outputs though.  I am now thinking of picking up the Meiyan for my NAA which only accepts 12V input.  $200 with shipping is not bad at all.


----------



## grizzlybeast

*Maybe I don't have it:*
  
 I am getting the clicks and noises again whenever my desk is moved. The sound quality sounds slightly more natural but honestly its not worth the 999 to me. I will give it more time. I bought this unit used from Andrew. The USB is a little more vibrant but less smooth. I need to give it some time before I just kick it to the curb because I move around a lot on my desk. I.e. I hit the desk when the music is playing to go along with the beats some times when I really get going and it is causing noises. I may in the end just end up with a Singxer U-1. 
  
 I am wondering if when my AES cable arrives, if that will make a notable difference over Coax but still the little clicks etc are really annoying. When I reported it stopped it was because my desk didn't have any movement and I changed the latency. Now it only makes noises (or the signal hiccups) when I move the desk. 
  
 Maybe I don't have the ears to really appreciate the difference
  
 Maybe I don't have it set right
  
 Maybe I shouldn't assess it until I have the AES cable. 
  
 Maybe the Pavane itself is doesn't benefit as much from this and already sounds really good from the USB ( though the lifatec cable sounded a little better as well )
  
 Maybe I need to take time to appreciate the differences. 
  
 No freaking way am I gonna spend another grand to add a clock... hell no. 
  
*I do notice a more effortless feel to the music where it sounds less strained and more naturally flowing but again the difference is not worth 999. . . . YET*


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Acuatlly looked at the HDPLex LPS - way overpriced for what you get.  LT1083 LDO (Meh) with 180uv of noise 30dB of PSRR - they do use an R-Core transformer.  But for  $395 silly priced.
> 
> You can get the much better MEIYAN 100VA Low Noise LPS for less then half.  Discrete three stage regulation - 14uv noise - very high PSRR 102dB.
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/131867485038?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rmvSB=true


 
 Where are the noise figure you are quoting? Note the HDPlex has maybe 70USD worth of Elna Caps for smoothing. It is used by many building  Caps and they also do caps units as well.
  
 I thought it was good value and has been reliable and quiet. Thgere is many cheap crappy units from China but this is not one of them. The Uptone Audio unit (same R-Core) is 3 times more money. Also the unit you say is better is 100Watt not 150Watt.
  
 In addition many of the devices in this area needing DC power are low in consumption. I had my EVo convertor, EVO clock and my Mac Mini all running on the HDPlex. The MEIYAN has ONE OUPUT plug, that's it. So in my view the HDPlex get me 3 LPS supplies in one box, 150 Watt capacity, so is a good buy. Also there is a genuine 3 year no questions asked warranty on the HDPlex with the German importer. Good to know. Some Chinese made stuff packs up inside 6 months I have found....
  
 So price isn't everything. Need confirmation from you where you got the noise figures?
  
 Paul Hynes PS's are good I am told by those who have them, but not cheap, in fact more money than the HDPlex for the same output.


----------



## Iving

If using Windows and experiencing latencfy issues see c. p.55 of this thread ... a crucial setting is in CP/Device Manager/Network Adapter >>> Interrupt Mod


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> Here is his new website:
> http://paulhynesaudio.com
> 
> Long wait times for delivery - large backorder.




That's the website from the company he setup to do the lower spec models in license.
Lead times of 1 - 3 weeks is very, very short indeed compared to Hynes' handmade higher spec models.


----------



## Acrobat77

Guys, the info you're sharing on Paul Hynes is a bit outdated (just like his websites! )

I've had the pleasure of dealing with him when I aquired an SR7EHD-MR4 (ehd= extra heavy duty mr4=multi rail, 4 rails) from him earlier this year. I've shared some information about his products and Paul Hynes Design and Paul Hynes Audio on a different forum I'm active at. When interested see: http://devialetchat.com/showthread.php?tid=46&pid=40182#pid40182 and subsequent posts.

Most important fact to set straight is that Paul Hynes Audio now manufactures all PH designs up to and including the SR7.


----------



## patrikh

Hey, I'm just now installing the rednet but the controller gets always stuck on firmware update. Do you have any idea where to download the correct firmware to be installed manually since I can't seem to find it...


----------



## Iving

patrikh said:


> Hey, I'm just now installing the rednet but the controller gets always stuck on firmware update. Do you have any idea where to download the correct firmware to be installed manually since I can't seem to find it...


 

 Install rednetcontrol-1.10.exe and don't use wireless


----------



## InsanityOne

grizzlybeast said:


> *Maybe I don't have it:*
> 
> I am getting the clicks and noises again whenever my desk is moved. The sound quality sounds slightly more natural but honestly its not worth the 999 to me. I will give it more time. I bought this unit used from Andrew. The USB is a little more vibrant but less smooth. I need to give it some time before I just kick it to the curb because I move around a lot on my desk. I.e. I hit the desk when the music is playing to go along with the beats some times when I really get going and it is causing noises. I may in the end just end up with a Singxer U-1.
> 
> ...


 
 You list quite a lot of the questions I have asked myself when considering buying a RedNet for my system. The answers to these questions ultimately led me to a decision to not buy a RedNet and instead begin saving to purchase a high quality DAC with pre-built Dante support like the Burl B2 Bomber or the Lynx Hilo. Seeing as these devices are ~$2,600 I still have a bit more saving to do though. Maybe by the time I have the cash saved there will be an even better Dante DAC in the same price (or below) on then market?
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

grizzlybeast Could very well be the Pavanes incoming usb is very good. From my brief read on it, it seems to be doing something to the audio before it hits the dac chip. They boast it as one of their premiums on the unit..

As for the pop/clicks, how do you have the unit? I used those rubber feet i included to stack the unit on top of the Fuhrman conditioner, with speakers cranked to 12. You might also try separating the connections with a Fuhrman 215a or similar unit to isolate the Rednet or Pavane/amp outlet, I noticed some noise when I first installed it but separating it from the dac took care of the noise.



Spoiler: Rednet on rubber feet, speaker rig, mic on camera does no justice



[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHHCGQPdIc8[/VIDEO]


----------



## 3X0

Have any of you folks still suffering from dropouts/latency spikes tried this?: http://www.windowscentral.com/assign-specific-processor-cores-apps-windows-10
  
 I'm wondering if assigning 1-2 cores to (1) a media player and (2) Dante Virtual Soundcard might ameliorate the problem.


----------



## patrikh

iving said:


> Install rednetcontrol-1.10.exe and don't use wireless


 

 That's what I used and I don't use wireless.


----------



## patrikh

Derp, links for the firmware were on the same page as the instructions.... In case someone is wondering the same thing it's https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/208621649-What-to-Do-if-a-Firmware-Update-in-RedNet-Control-Does-Not-Complete


----------



## patrikh

Fails on me on manual as well... anti-virus off. Gotta try and turn off firewall as well...


----------



## patrikh

The combination of no anti-virus, no firewall and manual installation did the trick.


----------



## astrostar59

insanityone said:


> You list quite a lot of the questions I have asked myself when considering buying a RedNet for my system. The answers to these questions ultimately led me to a decision to not buy a RedNet and instead begin saving to purchase a high quality DAC with pre-built Dante support like the Burl B2 Bomber or the Lynx Hilo. Seeing as these devices are ~$2,600 I still have a bit more saving to do though. Maybe by the time I have the cash saved there will be an even better Dante DAC in the same price (or below) on then market?
> 
> - InsanityOne


 

 Grizzly
 I am thinking you need to look at your Mac. It isn't optimised and if you are up sampling it will be3 busting a gut for no reason.
  
 Mac Mini, stripped back, 12V DC supply job done.


----------



## patrikh

I got the thing working! The latency is horrible, though. How can I fix it?


----------



## patrikh

On retrospect, trying my dac with usb gave me even more latency. Most I perceived was actually from new game sounds that are quite recessed compared to what I am used to.


----------



## johnjen

grizzlybeast said:


> *Maybe I don't have it:*
> 
> I am getting the clicks and noises again whenever my desk is moved. The sound quality sounds slightly more natural but honestly its not worth the 999 to me. I will give it more time. I bought this unit used from Andrew. The USB is a little more vibrant but less smooth. I need to give it some time before I just kick it to the curb because I move around a lot on my desk. I.e. I hit the desk when the music is playing to go along with the beats some times when I really get going and it is causing noises. I may in the end just end up with a Singxer U-1.
> 
> ...


 
 It might be that the SPDIF cable is getting 'wiggled' or thumped or some such.
 If so, the AES cable will not have that problem.
  
 Is your RedNet on it's own dedicated network?
  
 And yes give it several hundred hours of play time, and again after the AES cable goes in as well.
 Those circuits need time to settle in as well.
  
 JJ


----------



## rb2013

occamsrazor said:


> On the other hand you get 5 different outputs.... which I guess is one of the main attractions.


 

 Yes 100V is pretty large - but I'd prefer 3 TeraDak DC-30W's  which can each be can be adjusted to a range of voltages.
  
 And you can use a DC voltage splitter on the MEIYAN or DC-30W.  God that MEIYAN puts out 6A into 5VDC.  You could run 6 devices at 1A each.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> I have a feeling that "all noise" upstream of the first ethernet connection may involve aspects and attributes of the broadcasting machine (whether PC or Mac) that mitigate types of "noise" or "signal error" other than "electrical noise" (of the kind that we consider remedied by LPSs/isolation etc). ... and, so, whilst leakage of electrical noise along ethernet may be possible or not possible for all I know, I do think that some or other "timing noise" [aetiological wrt *jitter* error?] may be in play too (to a lesser extent it seems with an unencumbered machine). There has to be some explanation (aside from subjective prejudice!) for the massive SQ enhancement (PRaT is the first thing noticed but the effect is general and unmistakeable) I experienced as a consequence of PC upgrade.


 

 i believe the issue involves the use of a shielded Ethernet cable (Cat 6 STP, Cat 7 or 8) which defeats the inherent Ethernet GI.  Or the use of an unshielded CAT6 UTP cable. - which preserves GI - but may pick up some EMI/RFI.  From Mike's posts much earlier in this thread  - he works at a 'server farm'  - one building crammed full of EMI noisy servers, disks, power supplies and has never had an issue using a UTP there.  In one of the most intense EMI/RFI enviroments one could imagine.  The TCP/RTP protocol is inherently robust (unlike USB UAC2), with full duplex error correction and very large buffering.
  
 But never underestimate us audiophiles attention to obsession about potential noise!  Me for example a 5 PART series on power supply noise.


----------



## occamsrazor

rb2013 said:


> Yes 100V is pretty large - but I'd prefer 3 TeraDak DC-30W's  which can each be can be adjusted to a range of voltages.
> 
> And you can use a DC voltage splitter on the MEIYAN or DC-30W.  God that MEIYAN puts out 6A into 5VDC.  You could run 6 devices at 1A each.


 

 Assuming you meant 100w not 100v... it's actually 160w. There's a full list of specs for each of the 5 outputs here:
  
 19V/8AMP Output is User Ajdustable from 15V-19V
 12V/8AMP Output via XLR Connector
 5V-19.5V/3AMP User Adjustalbe Output
 5V/3AMP Output
 USB 3.1 Type C 5V Output
  
 http://www.hd-plex.com/images/product/linearpsu/techspec/100W.Linear.Power.Supply.Tech.Spec.png
  
 PS - I don't have one.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Where are the noise figure you are quoting? Note the HDPlex has maybe 70USD worth of Elna Caps for smoothing. It is used by many building  Caps and they also do caps units as well.
> 
> I thought it was good value and has been reliable and quiet. Thgere is many cheap crappy units from China but this is not one of them. The Uptone Audio unit (same R-Core) is 3 times more money. Also the unit you say is better is 100Watt not 150Watt.
> 
> ...


 

 Well you can use a $5 DC splitter cable  -  the MEIYAN produces 6A at 5VDC - enough to power 6 units at 1A 5VDC each.
  
 If you look at my multi-part thead series on power supplies I linked to you can understand.  I go beyond simplistic statements like "cheap crappy units from China" to a more detailed analysis.  You say Chinese LPS have 'packed up' in 6months - really which ones?  Were you using them at their intended voltage?  I have used many like the TeraDak and Breeze for years with a hint of trouble.
  
 BTW Elna caps are not the best for ps filtering - the Panasonic FM, FR and FC and Nichicon HW have much better PSRR, lower ESR and impedance (like the ones TeraDak's use).  See PART 3 of my series on power supplies - the section on capacitors.  They are good in other uses - see my DAC60 mod project thread.
  
 The information on the HDPLEX LPS is right from their website:
 http://www.hd-plex.com/HDPLEX-Fanless-Linear-Power-Supply-for-PC-Audio-and-CE-device.html
  


> *Wattage*100W (Max 160W)
> 
> *Feature*
> 
> ...


 
  
 Here is the link to the LT1083 datasheet:
 http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/108345fh.pdf
  


> RMS Output Noise (% of VOUT) TA = 25°C, 10Hz = ≤ f ≤ 10kHz    0.003 %


 
 This recent comparison of LDO regulators does the conversion to uv RMS:
http://hifiduino.blogspot.com/2010/03/comparing-noise-figures-in-linear.html



> Comparing Noise Figures in Linear Regulators​ Just like phase noise in clocks, it is difficult to compare noise values among linear regulators because there is no common ground in specifying noise figures. Some companies report noise density, others RMS V noise, and yet others % of Vout. The frequency range for the reported noise figures also varies from company to company.​







> We can approximate the total noise Vrms for the 10Hz-100KHz interval by noticing that each frequency range contributes a percentage of the total noise. In the case of the LT1763, we notice that the 10Hz-10KHz range contributes about half of the total 10Hz-100KHz noise. The table below compares all the regulators in the 10Hz-100KHz range.​
> 
> ​


 
 The LT1117 and the LT1083 both quote the same noise levels - equal to about 180uv.  That's pretty poor by today's stds.  The MEIYAN qoutes 13uv with 102 dB of PSRR.
  
  
 The PSRR graph for the LT1083 shown on page 8 - PSRR drops to 30dB at 100K (they don't even show beyond that - likely much worse as these high freq become difficult for these old gen LDO's to deal with).  Very poor by modern standards of 60-100dB at 100K to 1Mhz.
  
 The HDPLEX is better then a SMPS - but for $395 really expensive for what you get today.
  
 PS still waiting for your Rednet review - you know the one you doubted so highly before.


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> I actually have the HDPlex 300W ATX supply for my server pc. Being able to connect directly to the various internal PC power cables and avoid having to use a DC ATX board was attractive to me.  Looks like it only uses the 1083 for the adjustable and 5v outputs.  Not sure about the other outputs though.  I am now thinking of picking up the Meiyan for my NAA which only accepts 12V input.  $200 with shipping is not bad at all.


 

 Well that HDPLEX is a monster for current output - which some PC's need.  12A @18V!  That is tough to do for any LPS.  But it's $795. The 400W TeraDak is similarly priced.
  
 The MEIYAN may not have enough juice depending on what your PC needs - certainly it would be better on the 5VDC stuff.
  
 The MEIYAN is rated at 4.4A@18V.


----------



## rb2013

grizzlybeast said:


> *Maybe I don't have it:*
> 
> I am getting the clicks and noises again whenever my desk is moved. The sound quality sounds slightly more natural but honestly its not worth the 999 to me. I will give it more time. I bought this unit used from Andrew. The USB is a little more vibrant but less smooth. I need to give it some time before I just kick it to the curb because I move around a lot on my desk. I.e. I hit the desk when the music is playing to go along with the beats some times when I really get going and it is causing noises. I may in the end just end up with a Singxer U-1.
> 
> ...


 

 You may have a bad Ethernet cable - try another one.  BJC makes a great $29 CAT6.  But for test purposes any CAT6 UTP would do.
  
 You do make a good point on the more subtle differences may not be heard on all systems.  The AES cable should help - which SPDIF are you using - it could be losing contact as well with movement.  The AES will 'cure' that.
  
 I agree you can get USB to a very high level and the SU-1 would be a good step there.  Another path is a Lynx PCIe E22 card  - about double the SU-1.


----------



## rb2013

3x0 said:


> Have any of you folks still suffering from dropouts/latency spikes tried this?: http://www.windowscentral.com/assign-specific-processor-cores-apps-windows-10
> 
> I'm wondering if assigning 1-2 cores to (1) a media player and (2) Dante Virtual Soundcard might ameliorate the problem.


 

 Good suggestions!


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> Well that HDPLEX is a monster for current output - which some PC's need.  12A @18V!  That is tough to do for any LPS.  But it's $795. The 400W TeraDak is similarly priced.
> 
> The MEIYAN may not have enough juice depending on what your PC needs - certainly it would be better on the 5VDC stuff.
> 
> The MEIYAN is rated at 4.4A@18V.


 
 Sorry for not being more clear.  I meant picking up the meiyan for just my NAA PC which uses a low power i3-5015U CPU.  I will keep the HDPlex for my server which is more power hungry especially running HQP player upsampling to DSD256.
  
 BTW, the HDPlex gets very very hot so that is another reason why I am looking to offload some of my system's power requirements to another linear power supply.


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> i believe the issue involves the use of a shielded Ethernet cable (Cat 6 STP, Cat 7 or 8) which defeats the inherent Ethernet GI.  Or the use of an unshielded CAT6 UTP cable. - which preserves GI - but may pick up some EMI/RFI.  From Mike's posts much earlier in this thread  - he works at a 'server farm'  - one building crammed full of EMI noisy servers, disks, power supplies and has never had an issue using a UTP there.  In one of the most intense EMI/RFI enviroments one could imagine.  The TCP/RTP protocol is inherently robust (unlike USB UAC2), with full duplex error correction and very large buffering.
> 
> But never underestimate us audiophiles attention to obsession about potential noise!  Me for example a 5 PART series on power supply noise.


 
  
 The post to which this reply was made refers to upstream "timing" attributes of a system that may mitigate or exacerbate jitter - however one may measure that downstream - rather than electrical noise introduced because of interference / isolation issues.


----------



## rb2013

patrikh said:


> I got the thing working! The latency is horrible, though. How can I fix it?


 

 What music player - with Dante I can set Foobar to 50ms it's lowest - and that's with 192K running like a breeze.  250us on the RN3 and BURL (funny the BURL using the BK2 Dante card as the D16 does not gray out the 250us setting).


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> The post to which this reply was made refers to *non-electrical* "noise" or "signal error"; more specifically, upstream "timing" attributes of a system that may mitigate or exacerbate jitter - however one may measure that downstream.


 

 Oh sorry  - multiple discussions going on simultaneously .
  
 Well that's for the GISO discussion.


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> Sorry for not being more clear.  I meant picking up the meiyan for just my NAA PC which uses a low power i3-5015U CPU.  I will keep the HDPlex for my server which is more power hungry especially running HQP player upsampling to DSD256.
> 
> BTW, the HDPlex gets very very hot so that is another reason why I am looking to offload some of my system's power requirements to another linear power supply.


 

 Another path for the PC is using a high PSRR fanless switcher - then isolating it with a dedicated PB4X4Pro.  I went this path - then used SATA and fan filters inside the server.
  
 Cheaper - cooler (hate fans!) and seems to work well.
  
 https://www.amazon.com/Seasonic-SS-520FL2-Fanless-Platinum-ATX12V/dp/B009VV56TO
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Elfidelity-PC-Filtering-card-SATA-Power-Noise-Filter-purify-PC-HiFi-Hard-disk-/201675597917?hash=item2ef4cd685d:g:MD0AAOSw4shX5iJq
 http://artproaudio.com/power_solutions/product/pb4x4_pro/


----------



## jabbr

3x0 said:


> Have any of you folks still suffering from dropouts/latency spikes tried this?: http://www.windowscentral.com/assign-specific-processor-cores-apps-windows-10
> 
> I'm wondering if assigning 1-2 cores to (1) a media player and (2) Dante Virtual Soundcard might ameliorate the problem.




This will most likely have no effect at all or only very minor at best. The cause of dropouts is not CPU related but most likely related to the NIC-processing.
I have adjusted the parameters of my NIC and have since a very stable and low latency connection which runs over a switch.

If using a switch you need to have a managed one where you can set QoS configuration.

For the proper NIC parameters do a google search on NIC "settings for low latency applications". I once found two very good pages (1 from Microsoft) and I understand that default NIC settings are truely, truely lousy for low latency applications and understandibly so when reading about the workings of each setting and the change required.

I may have posted the links to these two pages before, but you'll have do a search yourself.


Also a cause for frequent latency spikes is when using a NAS with a large music collection, and having a player which frequently updates its library automatically. This will cause bursts of massive data exchange giving periodic high latency peaks.
Best to do the updates manually when not listening or for only a few new directories at a time.


----------



## 3X0

jabbr said:


> This will most likely have no effect at all or only very minor at best. The cause of dropouts is not CPU related but most likely related to the NIC-processing
> I have adjusted the parameters of my NIC and have since a very stable and low latency connection which runs over a switch.


 
 Given that some users are having trouble with dropouts using OSX, I wonder if the problems are driven by software/OS or hardware issues.
  
 I agree that CPU usage is not a likely factor, but even a NIC optimized in both hardware/software terms could be kneecapped by a motherboard with intrinsically high DPC latency.


----------



## jabbr

3x0 said:


> Given that some users are having trouble with dropouts using OSX, I wonder if the problems are driven by software/OS or hardware issues.
> 
> I agree that CPU usage is not a likely factor, but even a NIC optimized in both hardware/software terms could be kneecapped by a motherboard with intrinsically high DPC latency.


 
 Well, in the beginning I was having some drop outs using Windows, so you could argue it is not OS related 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I would look for the NIC settings, the defaults are sometime completely the opposite required for low latency applications, and they did help me.


----------



## Iving

https://www.audinate.com/faq/how-can-i-tune-windows-pc-best-audio-performance
 IN PARTICULAR the "'Interrupt Moderation'" setting can make a fundamental difference with lo-spec PCs or laptops!
 See also
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/sections/201616569-PC-Optimisation
  
 For DPC latency:
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/208360865-Troubleshooting-DPC-latency
 http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
  
 And for people who just will use Apple products:
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207546515-Optimising-your-Mac-for-Audio


----------



## Tboooe

What are your thoughts on Tx and Rx buffers in the network adapter settings?  Should they be set to max or min or somewhere in the middle?  I assume the lower the better for low latency?


----------



## kazsud

patrikh said:


> The combination of no anti-virus, no firewall and manual installation did the trick.




Raw. Dog.


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> What are your thoughts on Tx and Rx buffers in the network adapter settings?  Should they be set to max or min or somewhere in the middle?  I assume the lower the better for low latency?





Maximum for both settings.

Read this page for the proper settings in low latency environments: https://www.tradingtechnologies.com/help/tt-system-requirements/appendix-setting-descriptions/nic-settings/


And this section about low latency from Microsoft: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj574151(v=ws.11).aspx#bkmk_low


Here the two links I posted earlier:
- http://steamcommunity.com/app/353380/discussions/0/405690850599636269/
- https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc558565(v=bts.10).aspx


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> Maximum for both settings.
> 
> Read this page for the proper settings in low latency environments: https://www.tradingtechnologies.com/help/tt-system-requirements/appendix-setting-descriptions/nic-settings/
> 
> ...


 
 Thank you for the reply.  The recommendation to set the RX and TX buffers to max is opposite to read of have read about getting optimum performance.  Granted what I read was from the perspective of gaming.  Reducing the buffers helped to reduce lag which I assume was caused by the application being "starved" for data due to latency.  Of course gaming has much different network demands than audio.  I must admit that the idea of setting the buffers to max would seem to increase latency????


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> Thank you for the reply.  The recommendation to set the RX and TX buffers to max is opposite to read of have read about getting optimum performance.  Granted what I read was from the perspective of gaming.  Reducing the buffers helped to reduce lag which I assume was caused by the application being "starved" for data due to latency.  Of course gaming has much different network demands than audio.  I must admit that the idea of setting the buffers to max would seem to increase latency????


 
 Your gaming example is, I guess as I'm no gamer, working basically on incoming streams.
 This AOIP is working on outgoing streams. The speed of the computer is filling the buffers is much larger than the transmission speed over ethernet, you would have no risk of empty send buffers.
  
 Though this recommendation comes from a Gaming site:


> Guide: Optimal Wired LAN adapter settings for latency (Windows)
> 
> Since I bought my Steam Link on Amazon and Steam won't let me post a guide unless I buy it through them, I'm posting this here:
> 
> ...


 
  
 And also


> Number of RX buffers = Maximum
> 
> This setting specifies the number of buffers used by the driver when copying data to the protocol memory. The recommended value is usually 16. In high network load situations, increasing receive buffers can increase performance. The tradeoff is that this also increases the amount of system memory used by the driver. If too few receive buffers are used, network performance will suffer. If too many receive buffers are used, the driver will unnecessarily consume memory resources. The valid range of values for Receive Buffers is 80-3000. TT recommends that this is set to the maximum (2048 for Intel and 3000 for Broadcom).
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 And


> *Max Transmit/Send Descriptors and Send Buffers* - This setting specifies how many transmit control buffers the driver allocates for use by the network interface. This directly reflects the number of outstanding packets the driver can have in its “send” queue. Set this value as high as possible for maximum performance. On servers with limited physical memory, this may have a negative impact as send buffers consume system memory. On most systems however, the maximum setting can be applied without significantly reducing available memory.
> 
> *Max Receive Buffers* - This setting specifies the amount of memory buffer used by the network interface driver when copying data to the protocol memory. It is normally set by default to a relatively low value. Set this value as high as possible for maximum performance. On servers with limited physical memory, this may have a negative impact as receive buffers consume system memory. On most systems however, the maximum setting can be applied without significantly reducing available memory.


----------



## Tboooe

Also, the first link reocmmends disabling offload task while all other links recommend enabling?


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> Also, the first link reocmmends disabling offload task while all other links recommend enabling?




Yepp, some conflicting opinions there.

I have them (offload settings) all enabled.

But which Rednet do you have nowadays? 
It is easier if you can try for real and see its effects.


----------



## astrostar59

Hi Guys
 After a couple of weeks go having my new Rednet 3 in my system, I thought I would share my opinions on it.
  
  
  

  
  

*My System*
_*Mac Mini *_*with 12V Uptone Audio mod, SSD and 8 GIG RAM. LPS*_*.*_
 Audio Note DAC 5 Special (R-2R tubed DAC).
 KGSShv Carbon Electrostatic headphone amplifier
 Stax 009s
 Passive Pre-amplifier
 Plinius SA-13 Power Amplifier
 Zingali Client Name EVO 1.2 Horn Hybrid speakers.
  
 I play only 44.1 / RedBook AIFFs at bit prefect (no up sampling) with Audirvana+
  
*Setting up*
  It took me 2 hours to set it up and download the software and set up the routing. It is basically pro-studio gear, so not so easy to set up.
  
 If you are not buying the Dante Card, then you have 3 pieces of software to set up.
  
 1. RedNet Controller
 2. Dante Controller
 3. Dante Virtual Sound Card
  
 I use a Mac Mini and my setup was fairly straight forward. You need to hook the unit up to your system and switch it on. Then download the software from FocusRight, and Audinate for the 2 x Dante bits of software.
  
 The allow the unit to update to the latest version (firmware). The software may need to update as well.

 I got a bit stuck in Dante Controller routing the Mac source and RedNet SPDIF output. I got Sweetwater to do a remote access and go into my Mac and set that bit up, though seeing how easy it seas now could do it myself.
  
*Playing Music*
 Playing music now WOW, hell, it is amazing. I don’t see many jumps up in sound quality this big ever.
  
 I would say my previous USB stack (1.4K worth of M2Tech gear) was good as far as USB chains go I thought. But AOIP (audio over IP) is the way to go.
  
 It is *very very smooth, no digital edge, no bloated bass, massive soundstage and depth*. Vocals and instrument stand *right out in 3D* front to back. Everything sound so real, I would call it liquid as opposed to digital.
  
 I am playing super loud, windows rattling and sitting 4 feet from each speaker, but it sounds fabulous. I am stunned TBH. It is like getting super close to the master tape, that feeling I always had of listening to CD, or more recently listening to a PC feeding tunes is gone. The illusion of real music is so much better. It allows me to relax into the music and just enjoy it more, plus play it louder!
  
*So, forget CDP or USB IMO*
 Ethernet is the way to go. This Rednet 3 inc software for a PC or Mac is 1K USD.
  
 I am recommending it to anyone who asks on the forums now. 
  
 The RedNet 3 has pro S/PDIF output and AES, so will hook up to any DAC. It can handle 44.1 up to 192K DSD.
  
*USB is weak IMO because of:*
 1. It has a 5V feed in the lines, which even if the board in the DAC doesn’t use that (really bad idea if it does), it adds noise and distortion regardless
 2. It was never designed for high end audio, only cameras, memory sticks and printers without needing a driver
 3. It sends data in packets, with gaps, so this induces jitter which has then to be filtered out
 4. The USB bus on a PC or a Mac is shared by other USB devices it uses, like a mouse, printers, keyboard, again causing noise and havoc , latency.
 5. USB has poor latency, it gets going ok (USB2/3) but soon grinds to a slower rate causing latency issues
 6. The last 5 years have seen a plethora of USB fixers, convertors, filters and cabling that add even more parts and problems to remove the grunge and high frequecny hash in USB and were only partly successful. Even the recent XIMOS convertors are still way behind Ethernet.
  
 So IMO, USB is not good for true high level Audio.
  
 Hope this helps folk to make the decision to go for Ethernet. I was nervous but it is way beyond my expectations. And TBH looking at other hifi add ons, is good value.


----------



## Muziqboy

astrostar59 said:


> It is *very very smooth, no digital edge, no bloated bass, massive soundstage and depth*. Vocals and instrument stand *right out in 3D* front to back. *Everything sound so real*, I would call it liquid as opposed to digital.


 
  
 Good to hear that you are enjoying the RN3.
 I can easily relate to this statement since that is exactly what I heard when I reported my findings back in May here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/1830#post_12606908
  
 That REALISM is so compelling and really draws your utmost attention.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## occamsrazor

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Guys
> After a couple of weeks go having my new Rednet 3 in my system, I thought I would share my opinions on it.


 
  
 Very nice review, thanks for posting, and finally this thread gets some photos  
 Looks like a very impressive setup you have there. Rednet is really appealing, but I'm still holding off for something smaller and cheaper.


----------



## soundquest

> *Playing Music*
> Playing music now WOW, hell, it is amazing. I don’t see many jumps up in sound quality this big ever.
> 
> I would say my previous USB stack (1.4K worth of M2Tech gear) was good as far as USB chains go I thought. But AOIP (audio over IP) is the way to go.


 
  
 Thank you for your review. One aspect that caught my attention is that you only changed from usb stack to Rednet (versus changing several components at once) and that you are going direct from mac mini to rednet which is a greatly simplified system. The point is that in your instance we're not considering a host of variables which may have contributed to the improvement in sound quality; it must be the Rednet. 
  
 I have a mac mini running Audirvana and perhaps this Aoip route is a worthy next step as soon as I figure out which gear I should choose. Like others here, 
 I'm sort of waiting to see what "consumer" or prosumer AOIP devices emerge. I'm intrigued by the Arrakis simple AoIP--rb2013 mentioned this unit--because it has a DC input and the option for an AES ouput (AES or ethernet option). Ideally, I wish it had BOTH AES out and ethernet out as that would be more future proof. 
  
 I'm also pondering what "loss" might exist for me given that I'm running a Comet Exogal and the Exogal's usb input slightly exceeds the capabilities of the AES input. And, the Comet regenerates the entire signal avoiding a lot of usb Gremlins. It's quite a sophisticaed FPGA process (well above my neophyte knowledge). 
  


> *The Comet uses an **FPGA** (Field Programable Gate Array) for its DAC. That means that unlike the competition that uses a commercially available DAC chip from from companies like ESS, Wolfson or Burr brown, the Comet is all programmed by Exogal and is upgradable over the web. So it offers built in NON Obsolescence*


 

  
  
 Thank you for the post. 
  
 PS I have no affiliation with Comet. I do love the dac, and the customer service has been excellent.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Guys
> After a couple of weeks go having my new Rednet 3 in my system, I thought I would share my opinions on it.
> 
> *Playing Music*
> ...


 

 Nice review!  Thanks for posting this


----------



## rb2013

soundquest said:


> Thank you for your review. One aspect that caught my attention is that you only changed from usb stack to Rednet (versus changing several components at once) and that you are going direct from mac mini to rednet which is a greatly simplified system. The point is that in your instance we're not considering a host of variables which may have contributed to the improvement in sound quality; it must be the Rednet.
> 
> I have a mac mini running Audirvana and perhaps this Aoip route is a worthy next step as soon as I figure out which gear I should choose. Like others here,
> I'm sort of waiting to see what "consumer" or prosumer AOIP devices emerge. I'm intrigued by the Arrakis simple AoIP--rb2013 mentioned this unit--because it has a DC input and the option for an AES ouput (AES or ethernet option). Ideally, I wish it had BOTH AES out and ethernet out as that would be more future proof.
> ...


 
 Nice looking DAC - the FPGA's are not processing USB - but pre-processing the digital bit stream before sending on to BB DAC chips
  
 The USB processing is handled by a XMOS chip  - and not the latest gen XU208 (like the Singxer F-1, or SU-1), or XU216(DIYinHK Pro3z).  But the older XMOS U8.  It is hard to see if the XMOS USB has it's own PS feed - but DAC internal USB designs can have issues with 'packet noise' making it;s way back into the PS that feeds the DAC clocks.  Not good.  Almost everyone who has tried an external XMOS USB DDC - agrees they sound better then the internal board (including the Yggie Gen3). At least this was commonly reported on my XU208 thread.  You do give up the highest SR though.
  
 The AOIP Dante should be a major step-up in SQ - even when feeding the AES digital input.
 http://hifilive.es/2016/03/23/exogal-comet-2/


----------



## joelha

I'm wondering, if I don't have drop outs, whether further tuning my Ethernet settings would improve sound quality or not.

Opinions?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

joelha said:


> I'm wondering, if I don't have drop outs, whether further tuning my Ethernet settings would improve sound quality or not.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> ...


 
 It's to my understanding that if you're not getting dropouts and keep a low latency - below software settings (actual latency can be checked with Rednet software) then no. Unless you're using the Rednet in recording where you want minimum latency between gear then I see no gains. Doesn't hurt to play with the settings though, just make sure you take note of your 'good' settings so you can always revert to the combination.


----------



## johnjen

muziqboy said:


> Good to hear that you are enjoying the RN3.
> I can easily relate to this statement since that is exactly what I heard when I reported my findings back in May here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/1830#post_12606908
> 
> That REALISM is so compelling and really draws your utmost attention.
> ...


 
 I too agree that the sense of realism is compelling and dare I say it, addictive.
 It can suck you in, to a degree that until you do experience it first hand, a simple written description does not adequately convey the experience itself.
 EVERYTHING you have ever heard in your music library will sound enticing and compelling and fascinating, even the poorly recorded/mastered/performed music you NEVER play because it was just not up to snuff.
 Perhaps especially this entire section of your music library, will delight you even more, perhaps even more than the 'good stuff'.
  
 This level of inner detail and focus can, in one sense, FORCE your attention into the music to the exclusion of all else.
 SuperDuperGlue indeed.
  
 And on a side note I will be adding a Mutec 3+ into the system hopefully this weekend.
 Does anyone know what value of fuse it uses?   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## somestranger26

johnjen said:


> And on a side note I will be adding a Mutec 3+ into the system hopefully this weekend.
> Does anyone know what value of fuse it uses?
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Mutec fuse is not replaceable at all. There is some discussion about it on CA.


----------



## JayNYC

soundsgoodtome said:


> That looks slick!! I may follow up on the plastidip -- trick is waiting enough time between coats and getting 6-7 costs so peeling is easier (if you want to go back to red).


 
 Revisiting the "make RedNet into BlackNet" idea again
  
 Has anyone here successfully made a D16AES faceplate black?  If so, what is the best and sanest way to go about doing this?
  
 Is the faceplate easily removable?  If so, it would seem spraying plastidip or paint might work.  If not, are we stuck with masking and spraying?
  
 Any info/guidance greatly appreciated.
  
 I wish Focusrite would sell black faceplates -- because I believe only the faceplate itself is red, the casework and enclosure is all black anyway.


----------



## artur9

rb2013 said:


> You can get the much better MEIYAN 100VA Low Noise LPS for less then half.  Discrete three stage regulation - 14uv noise - very high PSRR 102dB.
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/131867485038?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rmvSB=true


 
 I  am curious as to why would one want a display on such a thing?  My LPS sit in a closet...


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> I  am curious as to why would one want a display on such a thing?  My LPS sit in a closet...


For me the display is immaterial. I'm more concerned by the design and noise level. I will order one, as well as the components for a DIY lps project.


----------



## rb2013

Someone directed me to another unnamed blog that has very recently 'discovered' AOIP and the Rednet stuff.

 Reading for Schiits and giggles - so much bad information and really just a bunch of folks - who post as if they know what they're talking about - but declare so much bogus stuff - it's laughable.
  
 I'm mentioned there and not in a good way...again I'm quoted to have said so many ridiculous things.  Anyone can read this thread to see what I've really said.
  
 Just a heads-up to some that may stumble into that thread.
  
 Just to set the 'Nervosa' record straight - I never recommended the AQ Diamond CAT7 cable with the Rednet gear.  On the contrary I said I could not hear a difference in different Ethernet CAT6 UTP cables - in fact I just used the supplied Rednet RED Ethernet cable.  Again - to set the record straight a CAT7 cable is shielded and would defeat the inherent Ethernet GI - so other GI devices like FMC or GISO would be needed.  Anyway $600 for an Ethernet cable?  When the BJC CAT6 550Mhz is $29, which I do recommend (for the Nervosa types).
  
 Anyway - a lot of false and misleading info being propagated on AOIP out there - fortunately there is this thread to keep it all straight and correct the record.
  
 I do get a chuckle watching the groping in the dark there...


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> ... groping in the dark there...


 
 Sounds like my love life...
  
 Now a serious question...does anyone know if HQPlayer will recognize the VSC as an output device?


----------



## gldgate

tboooe said:


> Sounds like my love life...
> 
> Now a serious question...does anyone know if HQPlayer will recognize the VSC as an output device?


 
  
 Yes, there is not anything that I have tried (HQP, JRMC, Bughead, Roon) that VSC did not work with.


----------



## marcblux

Hi,

I tried the microrendu on my resolution audio cantata but after the initial good impression due to nice highs, I found that the previous chain, with the last version of pure music, the "pont neuf" usb-ethernet interface of resolution audio, and the ethernet entry of the dac, give much more body and sound is richer.
Probably the usb entry of the cantata is not very good, so I would have to buy better power supplies for the micro-rendu plus an usb-spdif converter, to compensate and possibly improve sound over the pont neuf ... Too expensive to test. Will stick to cantata & pont neuf.

I have nevertheless a second system that I need to equip with a dac. as this system is very transparent and neutral, it could benefit from a warm tonal balance, without compromising the definition.
I see 3 options :
- buy a rednet d16 and a new dac like the yggdrasil
- buy a burl d2
- wait
Will be easy to compare with the cantata a keep the best sounding for this bigger system.

How would you compare the burl and the yggdrasil ?
How complex is it to modify the burl with a better psu ? Can a standard psu be used (several voltages) ?

Also, maybe a stupid question, but is pure music compatible with the Dante virtual sound card ?

Thank you for your opinions


----------



## enginedr

Yes Pure Music works with DVSC . I use Pure Music with my RN3


----------



## marcblux

enginedr said:


> Yes Pure Music works with DVSC . I use Pure Music with my RN3




Thanks !


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Hi,
> 
> I tried the microrendu on my resolution audio cantata but after the initial good impression due to nice highs, I found that the previous chain, with the last version of pure music, the "pont neuf" usb-ethernet interface of resolution audio, and the ethernet entry of the dac, give much more body and sound is richer.
> Probably the usb entry of the cantata is not very good, so I would have to buy better power supplies for the micro-rendu plus an usb-spdif converter, to compensate and possibly improve sound over the pont neuf ... Too expensive to test. Will stick to cantata & pont neuf.
> ...


 
 That Cantana is a beautiful and underrated DAC.
  
 Well as for the Yggie vs the BURL.  There is really no comparison.  The modded BURL is in a whole other league -  that is fed directly by the built in DANTE card.  From a SPDIF input I would put them at a draw.  The Yggie fed by it's own builtin USB falls short.
  
 I only had the Yggie for a few days to compare - and I had sold my Rednet by then.  I used my office system uber USB chain to test SPDIF to SPDIF.
  
 The BURL is definitely warmer and more tube like.  The Yggie no slouch there either - but just a hint of edginess on some tracks.  Both were trounced by my heavily modded tube R2R PCM1704U-K DAC60 - again fed by SPDIF.  As for my DAC60 fed by the RN3/Mutec USB/Antelope OXCO vs the modded BURL fed by the same - I give the DAC60 & AOIP the top slot.  The natural tonal richness is supremely addictive.  The modded DAC60 is no slouch on detail, transparency and sound staging. This is with those magical 'Holy Grail' Russian '75 Reflektor SWGP silver shield 6N23P tubes.
  
 But the modded BURL B2B DAC fed by DANTE AOIP - has a certain quality that is mind blowing.  Just another level of detail - and the bass is most defined and deepest I have heard yet - from any DAC/DDC combination.   But the RN3/MUTEC/OXCO/DAC60 is the tonal king.  So my dilemma at this point - each is near sota in their own right.  Would love to have each to switch between - how to decide?
  
 My optimal setup would be the DAC60 tubed DAC with a built in DANTE board - is that possible?  Not really - but we are working on it. 
  
 The Arrakis Simple 8 AES has me very curious - with it's DC input - fed by a decent LPS.  But not $1000 curious.  Will look for a sub $500 full DANTE BK2 DDC - with DC input before spending any more in that direction.  Note - not a DANTE Optimo chip solution as some threads are touting.
  
 Another note - I tried the iFi iPur SPDIF - to see if this could be a $149 substitute for the $1100 Mutec as SPDIF/AES reclocker - no way.  I sent it back.
  
 To your questions: I would go RN3 and try it with your Cantana just to see - then use in your office system - if it doesn't beat the 'pont neuf'.  Most who have compared the microrendu to the RN gear - have much preferred the Rednet AOIP.
  
 As for the mods on the BURL - yes it not an easy mod - even just replacing the SMPS with a LPS is a difficult job.  We've done some other things as well.  Next on the list is upgrading the on board DANTE Brooklyn 2 card clocks.  The BURL allows the DANTE BK2 card clocks to be set as 'Master'.
  
 I looked at the 'Pont Neuf' when building the XU208 XMS thread - interesting. Too bad limited to 96k. 
  
 Not sure on the Pure Music and DVS - but if it can run off AOIP or CoreAudio it should work (is is UnPN dependent?)


----------



## rb2013

I should point out that even with it's two weak links (noisy SMPS and SPDIF/AES only output) - the Rednet 3 and D16 still sound better than any USB chain I have heard - apples to apples.
  
 It gets more complicated with making comparisons with the modded BURL DAC with DANTE built in.  Here you have to judge DAC+DDC as a system - vs the other possible choices.
  
  
 Just a heads-up someone PM'ed this link to a very low cost PC Music Server - with  built in low noise LPS.  $600 for the package shipped with 8GB RAM and 250GB SSD.
  
 Completely fanless.  I'm very tempted to try one.
  
 http://www.musicalparadise.ca/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=83


----------



## rb2013

Also a note  - made a very significant discovery on the office system this morning.  Will start a new thread on this (could be major).
  
 In my office system I have been using my Uber USB chain.  Which includes the Startech GB LAN USB Extender.  This unit provides galvanic isolation to USB and is possibly the most effective USB 'packet noise' filter available.  Anyway in terms of SQ - it is terrific - in fact gets USB much closer to AOIP then any other of the numerous USB gizmos out there (I have tried almost all of them and many together in almost endless combinations).  I replaced the SMPS power units on the sending and receiving with inexpensive LPS's.  This really helped the SQ.
  
 Any way to cut to the chase - some one PM'd me and asked if I had ever tried running music from a USB stick in one of the empty ports.  The Startech REX has four USB ports - this is the unit after GI and USB PN filtration.  I never thought of that.  So this morning I tried it - Wow!  A very noticeable improvement in liquidity, dynamics and natural musical ease.
  
 This is quite amazing.
  
 I will move this whole rig down to the main listening room over the next few days for a more detailed listening analysis - then start a new a thread.  This could really be big.
  
 The USB stick I had was a very old 8GB one.  Just ordered a 2TB - yes 2TB! on Ebay for $13.  Is this the ultimate SSD storage method?  Completely isolated from the PC and USB noise.
  


 You heard it here first folks
  
 Hum......
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/361698738497
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HFGQESY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## marcblux

rb2013 said:


> That Cantana is a beautiful and underrated DAC.
> 
> Well as for the Yggie vs the BURL.  There is really no comparison.  The modded BURL is in a whole other league -  that is fed directly by the built in DANTE card.  From a SPDIF input I would put them at a draw.  The Yggie fed by it's own builtin USB falls short.
> 
> ...




Thank you for your answer ! Lots of information in it !
The cantata replaced an opus 21 which replaced a zanden /cec tl1x which replaced many other ones (orpheus, wadia, etc) ... It needs a good power cable, 1 week warm-up, and then sounds great. Pont neuf is suggested as a solution for distant connection, but it should be the default choice. I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't get a second cantata, but curiosity ...

As long as I tweak electronics with about the same talent as I cook, I will maybe wait until you sell yours 
i now need to think more about the alternatives ...


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Thank you for your answer ! Lots of information in it !
> The cantata replaced an opus 21 which replaced a zanden /cec tl1x which replaced many other ones (orpheus, wadia, etc) ... It needs a good power cable, 1 week warm-up, and then sounds great. Pont neuf is suggested as a solution for distant connection, but it should be the default choice. I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't get a second cantata, but curiosity ...
> 
> As long as I tweak electronics with about the same talent as I cook, I will maybe wait until you sell yours
> ...


 
 "zanden /cec tl1x"  - that's a mighty nice combo.
  
 See my last post - I'm really floored this morning.   Maybe life left in old USB after all. 
  
 BTW I see the Cantana uses the R2R PCM1704 like my DAC60 - and many other outstanding DAC's.  I hope TI keeps making them.


----------



## marcblux

rb2013 said:


> "zanden /cec tl1x"  - that's mighty nice combo.
> 
> See my last post - I'm really floored this morning.   Maybe life left in old USB after all.
> 
> BTW I see the Cantana uses the R2R PCM1704 like my DAC60 - and many other outstanding DAC's.  I hope TI keeps making them.




Yes, the CEC was a great piece of gear. Had it modified with a better clock and psu.
The zanden sounded very rich.
The resolution audio opus 21 brought speed, better bass, definition and scene. Tough to choose so I kept the less expensive one. The cantata sounded more full and rich, more natural. So I guess getting closer on these aspects to the zanden.

I have seen your last post indeed ... Very interesting !!
Will read the next posts with huge interest, like I have been doing since 2 months


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Also a note  - made a very significant discovery on the office system this morning.  Will start a new thread on this (could be major).
> 
> In my office system I have been using my Uber USB chain.  Which includes the Startech GB LAN USB Extender.  This unit provides galvanic isolation to USB and is possibly the most effective USB 'packet noise' filter available.  Anyway in terms of SQ - it is terrific - in fact gets USB much closer to AOIP then any other of the numerous USB gizmos out there (I have tried almost all of them and many together in almost endless combinations).  I replaced the SMPS power units on the sending and receiving with inexpensive LPS's.  This really helped the SQ.
> 
> ...


 
 Hey Rob,
  
 I'm certainly interested in the outcome of the solution you're looking at.
  
 In the meantime, I'd cancel your order for the flash drive if you can.
  
 First, it's kind of like finding a source for $.19 per gallon gasoline. One would be skeptical of such a proposition.
  
 But more than that, I've read, I think it was reviews on Amazon regarding similar purchases for SD cards, etc., where the buyer came to find out that the seller had just screwed around with the format of the storage device to make it appear as if it had a storage capacity dramatically beyond what it actually had.
  
 I hope you find out differently, but I sincerely doubt it.
  
 Thanks for all of the great information you've been devoting to this and other related threads.
  
 Joel


----------



## InsanityOne

I would hate to burst the bubble on a "$13 2TB USB Flash Drive" as well, but such a thing simply cannot exist for such a low price. The highest capacity USB flash drive that I know of is the Kingston DataTraveler HyperX Predator 1TB USB 3.0 Flash Drive which costs around $550 used or $700 new.
  
 - Insan1tyOne


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> I would hate to burst the bubble on a "$13 2TB USB Flash Drive" as well, but such a thing simply cannot exist for such a low price. The highest capacity USB flash drive that I know of is the Kingston DataTraveler HyperX Predator 1TB USB 3.0 Flash Drive which costs around $550 used or $700 new.
> 
> - Insan1tyOne


 

 Well just bought and paid for one - so we will see what arrives from HK.  Found a few more:
 This one is $12.99! 
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/351817019742?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true
  
 Note these are not USB 3.0 - but USB 2.0 sticks.
  
 I loaded a few more test tracks on the old 8GB USB stick - some L2 tracks of Finzi - "Come Away, Death" these are available free from 2L.com
  
 DXD FLAC/MQA (PCM 352K)
 PCM 192k FLAC
 DSD 64
  
 And some LP's I digitalized at 32 bit 176K WAV.
  
 They all played without a hitch in Foobar and sounded superb!


----------



## rb2013

marcblux said:


> Yes, the CEC was a great piece of gear. Had it modified with a better clock and psu.
> The zanden sounded very rich.
> The resolution audio opus 21 brought speed, better bass, definition and scene. Tough to choose so I kept the less expensive one. The cantata sounded more full and rich, more natural. So I guess getting closer on these aspects to the zanden.
> 
> ...


 
 Those BB(now TI)  PCM1704 DAC chips are the tone chaps.
  
 Have you heard this beauty?
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/aqua/1.html
  


joelha said:


> Hey Rob,
> 
> I'm certainly interested in the outcome of the solution you're looking at.
> 
> ...


 
 Hi Joel,  I can understand your skeptisim - I'm right there with you.
  
 [Edit: Deleted the part on the $12 - 2TB Amazon and Ebay scammers - but the SQ effect is real.  And since I have the Startech anyway - this is still very interesting.  Especially for what the Startech does for USB - this is an add-on benefit. The PS Audio version btw only has one USB slot - so maybe the Startech or Icron are the better ways to go....]
  
 Remember the throughput of these USB 2.0 sticks are 'only' 10MB/sec to 30+MB/sec READ speeds (write speeds are way slower).  And maybe the smaller device print of these new gen 2TB could be faster.  I'll try a few to test SQ.
 http://usbspeed.nirsoft.net
 But on my 'old' WIN 7 iCore5 office machine - even throwing my massive 32/176K WAV files into the mix- they play without an issue and sound amazing.
  
 The more I play with this the more I'm impressed.
  
 So with four slots to work with  - one I have a Jitterbug - which makes a small improvement.  That leaves three open.  In a AOIP that would leave three open - or 6TB!  In my USB system - one is for feeding my F-1 - so that leaves two open - or 4TB.  That is if these ultra high capacity USB sticks sound the same as my small one.  I have a 32GB I pulled from my car - I will try that one to see.
  
 The Startech REX is being powered by a $83 Breeze LPS - with a LT1083 LDO - but an R-core.  This LDO has 180uv of noise - I imagine a lower noise LPS might make for even better SQ.
  
 This is really an interesting development.


----------



## rb2013

Well reading all over there is much about a 'scam' on these USB2.0 flash drives - so what is a legit max USB for under $100?
  
 So here is a Sandisk (doubt these are a 'scam') 256GB for $69.  Maybe that is more realistic?
  
 The effect of the SQ is the same - and with time the prices will fall on high capacity USB drives.
  
 The lowest cost 128GB on NewEgg is $15.99 - I assume this is not a scam drive - but legit.
 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAAWB4D02916&cm_re=usb_drive-_-9SIAAWB4D02916-_-Product
  
 I'll order one of these.
  
 Thanks for the tip-off!
  
 PS - What's this world coming to?  Who'd think that Amazon and Ebay would have fraudulent Chinese sellers?? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Will have to wait for Moore's Law to work a few more iterations...for $12 2 TB USB flash drives.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> In my office system I have been using my Uber USB chain.  Which includes the Startech GB LAN USB Extender. * This unit provides galvanic isolation to USB and is possibly the most effective USB 'packet noise' filter available.*  Anyway in terms of SQ - it is terrific - in fact gets USB much closer to AOIP then any other of the numerous USB gizmos out there (I have tried almost all of them and many together in almost endless combinations).  I replaced the SMPS power units on the sending and receiving with inexpensive LPS's.  This really helped the SQ.


 
 What a cool idea using the USB port of the REX ! 
 (I was wondering if there would be any benefit to try one of those higher-end SD->USB card readers in a USB port..)
  
 How does the Startech packet noise suppression compare to the Intona (which also provides USB GI)?
  
 http://intona.eu/en/answer/1239
  
 quote:_ "By using a technology well known in digital communication systems called Spread Spectrum, any harmonics produced through periodic packet transmission (like 8kHz packet noise) could be eliminated."_


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> What a cool idea using the USB port of the REX !
> (I was wondering if there would be any benefit to try one of those higher-end SD->USB card readers in a USB port..)
> 
> How does the Startech packet noise suppression compare to the Intona (which also provides USB GI)?
> ...


 

 The comparison to the Intona and the Startech is an interesting one.  They both go about providing USB GI in different manners - although they do have similarities.
  
 With the Startech at least is the use of the inherent GI of GB LAN Ethernet.  But the protocol goes deeper - in fact it's a compelete translation of USB packets to IP packets (and hence can be transmitted over a GB LAN), then once the IP packets arrive, they are re-translated back to USB packets - but in essence recreated devoid of the noise on the PC USB bus.
  
 The Startech I have uses powerful Xilinx SPARTAN 6 FPGA's on both ends - with XO clocks on board.
  
 The advantages of the Startech/Icron appoarch?  Well lower inherent noise - LAN Ethernet capable - LPS power on the REX and LEX ends, etc...
  
 As an isolated SSD type of HD alternative to SSD's themselves?  Well again the GI and PC noise environment is elminated.  I suppose you can go with an external SSD - but many are USB powered - and interfaced:
 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=A8746565&ST=pla&dgc=ST&cid=302824&lid=5758064&acd=12309152537461010&ven1=A8746565:112781467989:901pdb6671:c&ven2=:
  
 Maybe an external Thunderbolt SSD drive enclosure - but those get expensive.
  
 This may just be a lower cost and simpler route.


----------



## artur9

rb2013 said:


> Just a heads-up someone PM'ed this link to a very low cost PC Music Server - with  built in low noise LPS.  $600 for the package shipped with 8GB RAM and 250GB SSD.
> 
> Completely fanless.  I'm very tempted to try one.
> 
> http://www.musicalparadise.ca/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=83


 
  
 Why would you want that over a MicroRendu or SotM SMS-200?


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> Why would you want that over a MicroRendu or SotM SMS-200?


Well not for the audio analog outputs of course. Just as a low cost WIN10 fanless, Linear power supplied pc. The microrendu is just a render. That as far sq is concerned is crushed by AOIP Dante, or even well done USB with GB Ethernet isolation.

And as for the SMS200, why would I want that? A $510 DNLA sucks render? Oh that needs a power supply at additional cost.

I want to be able to use any asio player I choose. Not roon thanks


----------



## rb2013

Wanting to avoid these fake off brand Chinese USB sticks for my little USB/Startech HD experiment.  I chose to stay with name brand USB flash drives; SanDisk, Kingston, Lexar - I found this 256GB on Amazon for $49.
  
 So three of these would give me 750GB for $150.  Not bad.  And I can return back to Amazon if it doesn't work as advertised.
  
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00S5V5PTC/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Well reading all over there is much about a 'scam' on these USB2.0 flash drives - so what is a legit max USB for under $100?
> 
> So here is a Sandisk (doubt these are a 'scam') 256GB for $69.  Maybe that is more realistic?
> 
> ...


 
 The cheapest I could find are these 256GB models from PNY on Amazon. We use this model at work and they have been pretty reliable so far, although they have slow read / write speeds (only around ~115 mb/s) but they are only $50 so I can't complain too much. If you want a 256GB or 512GB flash drive that has faster speeds (like ~280 mb/s) you will be looking at ~$150 for the lowest price point.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> The cheapest I could find are these 256GB models from PNY on Amazon. We use this model at work and they have been pretty reliable so far, although they have slow read / write speeds (only around ~115 mb/s) but they are only $50 so I can't complain too much. If you want a 256GB or 512GB flash drive that has faster speeds (like ~280 mb/s) you will be looking at ~$150 for the lowest price point.
> 
> - Insan1tyOne


Thanks. That $49 Lexar 256gb should be fine. The Startech only does USB 2.0, so those 3.0 speeds won't matter ( other then initial file loading which I'll do from a 3.0). My only concern is compatiblity with the Startech REX and SQ.

Listening this morning again, doing a/b comparison of the same tracks. I really like the SQ improvements.

PS Just checking on the PNY 256GB - Bestbuy stocks them for $49. 25% discount if you buy three. Which I did, so 750GB total for $112.

Thanks!


----------



## InsanityOne

rb2013 said:


> Thanks. That $49 Lexar 256gb should be fine. The Startech only does USB 2.0, so those 3.0 speeds won't matter ( other then initial file loading which I'll do from a 3.0). My only concern is compatiblity with the Startech REX and SQ.
> 
> Listening this morning again, doing a/b comparison of the same tracks. I really like the SQ improvements.
> 
> ...


 
 Nice! Glad I could help you out! Another device you could try (in-theory) would be an external USB HDD. You could get the space you are looking for in a much cheaper price point going that route.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## artur9

rb2013 said:


> And as for the SMS200, why would I want that? A $510 DNLA sucks render? Oh that needs a power supply at additional cost.


 
 It's not just a DLNA renderer. 
  
 So you prefer something feeding Dante's VCS over all other alternatives?


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Nice! Glad I could help you out! Another device you could try (in-theory) would be an external USB HDD. You could get the space you are looking for in a much cheaper price point going that route.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 

 Well I want to elminiate any spinning HD - even a SSD would have to have external power.  These USB sticks are perfect.  I suppose a TB PCIe ext SSD enclosure would be nice to try - they aren't cheap.  And I'd need another LPS.  If this experiment pans out - I will get a better 24VDC LPS for the Startech REX.  This will do double duty - USB GI and PN filter and solid state external drive.
  
 Just got back from Bestbuy to give a listen with the PNY.


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> It's not just a DLNA renderer.
> 
> So you prefer something feeding Dante's VCS over all other alternatives?


 

 I guess you haven't read this thread - you might want to read the first few pages.  I reposted there (and a few other times here along the way) some comments from knowledge folks - including audio engineers - their abhorrence to the DNLA/UpNP scheme...including the creator of HQPlayer.
  
 I do believe USB can be made very good - but it takes hero measures - even then a simple chain PC>DANTE>DAC beats it.
  
 There have been quite a few posts here and on a few other blogs that have compared the microrendu to the Rednet - I think it's been about 100% in favor of Rednet.  One of the best parts - you can use any audio player that works with ASIO.
  
 Now take the superiority of AOIP and eliminate the SPDIF/AES weak link - remove the SMPS ad add a LPS for power.  Now you have a world class digital chain.


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Nice! Glad I could help you out! Another device you could try (in-theory) would be an external USB HDD. You could get the space you are looking for in a much cheaper price point going that route.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 

 Oh yeah!  That PNY USB 3.0 256GB stick works great - and sounds even better then that old 8gb one.
  
 And using a USB3.0 port loading a few hundred albums will go much faster.  Really liking this.


----------



## artur9

rb2013 said:


> I do believe USB can be made very good - but it takes hero measures - even then a simple chain PC>DANTE>DAC beats it.


 
 I've read the thread but the MicroRendu and SMS-200 are very similar so I was wondering why you slammed one but not the other.
  
 So, say you got a nice NUC and put windows on it to feed into  VSC.  How would you control playback (pause, rewind, etc)?  You do not use Roon, you said?  I don't want a keyboard attached to the NUC.  I suppose Jriver/JRemote? (don't like it, personally).
  
 In other words, I do not want to be sitting at a computer to control my playlists etc and I do not consider remote desktop a suitable solution.
  
 Not intending to be feisty here but I realize it can be read that way.  Just wondering how people using AOIP are controlling playback.


----------



## panhead

rb2013 said:


> Well reading all over there is much about a 'scam' on these USB2.0 flash drives - so what is a legit max USB for under $100?
> 
> So here is a Sandisk (doubt these are a 'scam') 256GB for $69.  Maybe that is more realistic?
> 
> ...


 
 Newegg is owned by the Chinese now....


----------



## patrikh

Excuse me but how does a usb stick "sound" good?!?


----------



## haywood

patrikh said:


> Excuse me but how does a usb stick "sound" good?!?



The theory is something like faster drives generate more rf / electrical noise. It's the same general idea about moving to devices like microrendu and raspberry.pi that are low-power and have a dedicated operating system.


----------



## motberg

rb2013 said:


> Well I want to elminiate any spinning HD - even a SSD would have to have external power.  These USB sticks are perfect.  I suppose a TB PCIe ext SSD enclosure would be nice to try - they aren't cheap.  And I'd need another LPS.  If this experiment pans out - I will get a better 24VDC LPS for the Startech REX.  This will do double duty - USB GI and PN filter and solid state external drive.
> 
> Just got back from Bestbuy to give a listen with the PNY.


 

 This is getting to be a cool idea, I hope the SQ experiments are positive...
 there may be a SQ benefit to the 3 smaller USB sticks anyways over a larger SSD or something....
 (.....funny that the LANRover did not maintain some similar option in its design...)
  
 Do you know the working voltage range for the REX ?
 TIA !


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> I've read the thread but the MicroRendu and SMS-200 are very similar so I was wondering why you slammed one but not the other.
> 
> So, say you got a nice NUC and put windows on it to feed into  VSC.  How would you control playback (pause, rewind, etc)?  You do not use Roon, you said?  I don't want a keyboard attached to the NUC.  I suppose Jriver/JRemote? (don't like it, personally).
> 
> ...


 

 Well I have not heard anyone compare the SMS-200 to the REDNET - so no comment there.
  
 I use Foobar and love it.  The SQ is outstanding - and with a Redbook collection near 3000 CDs and add to that a few hundred LP's, SACD, DVD-A's digitalized.  A pure graphic interface would be to cumbersome.  Some of my playlists are over 5000 tracks.  With Foobar I can find any track on any album in seconds.  Build a playlist with any artist - like say Van Morrison (with over 30+ albums in seconds, a playlist with every classical album (all alphabetized)) in seconds.  And then search those playlists by scroll or search - again in seconds.
  
 This:

  
 Versus this:

  
 If I want liner notes while listening or a singer's bio - I have an Asus tablet and Wiki - with hyperlinks all over the place.
  
 But if Roon works for you (and you are paying the annual $120 fee or the upfront $500 fee) - then great - it's completely compatible with DANTE DVS.
  
 Can you say the same for the microrendu and SMS-200 for Foobar or JRMC.
  
 Note on the webpage for the $600 fanless music server with built in LPS - which you originally asked "Why would you want that?"  there is this posted:


> 12. Supports Microsoft Remote Desktop and Foobar2000 Mobile Control APP. Remote Controlled by Your PC, Android and iOS Devices in the same network.​


----------



## rb2013

panhead said:


> Newegg is owned by the Chinese now....


 

 Yeah  - I saw those other seller links on a search.  So sad - was a great go to place for info and computer gear.


----------



## rb2013

patrikh said:


> Excuse me but how does a usb stick "sound" good?!?


 
 Good question - well at least for now in my office system - as I haven't yet had time to move it into my main system.  But doing direct A/B comparison from SATA WD Black drive with El Fidelity SATA filter and low noise and high PSRR - fanless Seasonic PS - i immediately heard a greater ease and musicality to the music.  An increased clarity and dynamics was the second thing I noticed.  The sound become tonally richer and more vibrant.
  
 Now for my 'guess' as to the technical explanation - I don't know how familiar you are with the issues of PC USB and SATA galvanic isolation and noise.  Or the issues of USB 'packet noise'- I won't go into that here in depth - but just to say much has been posted about these issues.  Now it's not much a secret that even a well designed LPS driven PC or MAC music server is a very noisy place.  The massive CPU processors and MB chipsets put out noise, and I'm sure EMI - but on the MB a highly contaminated ground plane.  Does this noise in some way create audio playback issues with digital files during the critical read transition - from solid state to electrical (or magnetic pulses to electrical signals)?  Seems they would be impervious to any issues - but that's what we were told about USB audio in the beginning.
  
 In fact the very beginning of digital music - that every CD player would produce 'perfect' music.  Not like those nasty turntables...Ha!
 http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/computer-audio-misconceptions/
  
 Anyway the Startech GB LAN USB extender acts to provide galvanic isolation from the PC's ground plane - and supply a separate clean linear power supply.  The critical read phase of the digital bit stream creation would be much less effected by these noise issues.  Once the digital music bit stream has crossed the GI barrier it is recreated with higher signal integrity USB stream then that would occur inside a PC - this is then streamed to the CPU for processing and passed back out to the GI barrier - again the IP to USB packet translation occurs - again galvanically isolated from the PC and this bitstream is passed through to the XMOS processor.
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQjJke5uM2g


----------



## artur9

rb2013 said:


> I use Foobar and love it.  The SQ is outstanding - and with a Redbook collection near 3000 CDs and add to that a few hundred LP's, SACD, DVD-A's digitalized.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


 
 Thanks for a great answer.  I see where you are coming from now.  No fan of Roon here.


----------



## Iving

> Just wondering how people using AOIP are controlling playback.


 
  

 In praise of foobar2000
  
 I love foobar aka foobar2000 aka fb2k.
 I love it for its simplicity.
 All I want to do is play music I already own, and listen to that music undistracted.
 The Filter tool is awesome for playing what I want and creating playlists for the occasion
 ... in a heartbeat - since I have my Library all tagged up the way I want it.
 I disable Album Art even in fb2k.
 I mean - what's the point?
 A vinyl record (with its correct inner sleeve) is one thing.
 Playing it on a turntable is ritualistic like smoking a cigarette.
 (Which I gave up 12 years ago I hasten to add.)
 With a cigarette you know you've got a lit one somewhere till you put it out.
 (Unless you want to barbecue yourself and your family.)
 Same thing with a record.
 It spins till you turn it off.
 And then if you care at all for it you must put the record away in its correct sleeve.
 So Album Art means something if we are talking about LPs.
 I would recognise any of my Album covers if I saw the same one somewhere else in the world.
 I have a brain component that lets me do that - like everyone can recognise familiar faces.
 (The loss of the capacity to recognise faces is "prosopagnosia". I would hate to have "lp-art-agnosia".)
 But after 1980 and the advent of digits and CDs, the meaning of Album Art was lost to its rightful place in history - 1955-ish to 1980-ish.
 So given that in fb2k I am listening to digits, what is the point of Album Art.
 Anyway - it only gives the computer something else to do  - a load which every audiophile knows is a menace.
 And another "anyway" - what is the meaningful Album Art for a live and obscure classical performance - say.
 I already know most of what I want to know about Artists and Music History - but I think about these things often and look them up all the time.
 Doing so can create the desire to listen to something in particular.
 So I take my brain with me to the Hi-Fi.
 When I met my wife her bank account was riddled with Direct Debits and Standing Orders
 because she loved salesmen coming to the door.
 fb2k costs nothing.
 And lets you think for yourself.
 Now she is much happier.
 And has more money for her other love (other than me that is) - the garden.


----------



## Iving

> Will have to wait for Moore's Law to work a few more iterations...for $12 2 TB USB flash drives.


 
  

 Within a year or two many of us we will be playing our (computer) music off of U.2 (formerly SFF-8639) drives connected directly to our mobos. The PC's credentials are vital.


----------



## Iving

iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.
> 
> (iii) The new machine is a silent (no moving parts) PC comprising:
> - Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC Thunderbolt™ 3 Certified C236 Chipset Motherboard;
> ...


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> I have had to swap the PSU from Seasonic 400fl because of coil whine (found on >1 instance) to Aurum AU 500 Gold (very nicely silent)
> and
> the mobo from Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC because of mysterious screeching around the CPU (6700) area [voltage regulation circuitry?] to ASUS Z170 Premium (more expensive but a way to keep Thunderbolt 3). The latter has two different Intel NICs but not the Killer E2400.
> 
> When I get the machine back I'll report on any changes. I have asserted that an up-to-date competent PC with specs such as these (vs. a basic laptop or a good W10 tablet with Docking Station) raises SQ by as much as going from USB to AOIP.


 
  
 Update: The ASUS Z170 Premium was quiet but had "connectivity" problems with Thunderbolt 3 ("when a thunderbolt device is connected to the system the devices are not receiving power and therefore are not being recognised in Windows" x 2 instances). The engineers are still waiting for a reply from Asus about it. The final replacement is a Gigabyte Z170X Designare which I am told is behaving itself. It has 2 x Intel NICs and 2 x USB C / Thunderbolt 3 ports as well as M.2 and U.2 on board (Windows 10 Pro is on a dedicated M.2). The RAM is upgraded to Dominator 2666 MHz.
  
 With a following wind I will have the machine within a day or two. I don't expect ever to use the "teaming" capacity of the two Intel NICs (although I dare say one day I will experiment), but I do hope that the Killer NIC wasn't a necessary ingredient in the stupendous SQ enjoyed previously. The PC I am told is super-quiet now. I am really looking forward to its homecoming.


----------



## ccschua

i believe LPS for the PC is important. I am sure even with AOIP you will still hear a difference. like someone just use 2012 R2 for audio.


----------



## rb2013

artur9 said:


> Thanks for a great answer.  I see where you are coming from now.  No fan of Roon here.


 

 Music players, at least for me, come down to convenience, stability, flexibility, and of course SQ.  Appearance is somewhat important for me, but not the highest priority.
  
 But this of course this is highly personal.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> In praise of foobar2000
> 
> I love foobar aka foobar2000 aka fb2k.
> I love it for its simplicity.
> ...


 
 Three Cheers for Foobar! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










  
 I use an interesting system to tag music - the Windows file directory and name.  I have a directory for each type of music  - then sub for artist - then sub for album.  Each WAV file name has the Artist - Album - Track number - Songname - track time.  This is all automatically loaded by EAC (Exact Audio Copy) when a CD is burnt.  There is an feature in EAC that does this from an online database.  Other then the sub dir name - I never have to type a key.  This 'tagging' system is impervious to corruption - unlike the ID meta tagging system (oh I have horror stories from my early years).  Album art is loaded to the album sub dir, and named 'cover' - Foobar will automatically load it.
  
 Now to transfer my collection to these 256GB USB sticks -  simply copy and paste the entire genre directory - and wait a few hours as thousands of albums transfer.  All with perfect structure and tagging.  Easy peasy.


----------



## rb2013

dup


----------



## rb2013

ccschua said:


> i believe LPS for the PC is important. I am sure even with AOIP you will still hear a difference. like someone just use 2012 R2 for audio.


 

 Good points - these new low power 14n CPUs make an LPS much easier to use.
  
 Anybody compare 2012 R2 to WIN10 with DANTE?


----------



## astrostar59

soundquest said:


> Thank you for your review. One aspect that caught my attention is that you only changed from usb stack to Rednet (versus changing several components at once) and that you are going direct from mac mini to rednet which is a greatly simplified system. The point is that in your instance we're not considering a host of variables which may have contributed to the improvement in sound quality; it must be the Rednet.
> 
> I have a mac mini running Audirvana and perhaps this Aoip route is a worthy next step as soon as I figure out which gear I should choose. Like others here,
> I'm sort of waiting to see what "consumer" or prosumer AOIP devices emerge. I'm intrigued by the Arrakis simple AoIP--rb2013 mentioned this unit--because it has a DC input and the option for an AES ouput (AES or ethernet option). Ideally, I wish it had BOTH AES out and ethernet out as that would be more future proof.
> ...




I would say go for the Rednet 3 unit. It killed my USB. The treble is so clean and lifelike so undigital. It say to me loud n clear that audio over USB is compromised.


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> Each WAV file name has the Artist - Album - Track number - Songname - track time.


 
 I am the same with all my file types (FLAC, DSF, etc) except I add year and disc #.  So my format file name:
  
 Artist - Album (year) - disc #_track #_Title.
  
 Album cover is saved in each album folder.
  
 Album directory structure is year - Album
  
 I am so OCD especially about the music library. I have literally spent years of my life making sure every track has the correct info and cover art.  Its very very satisfying for me to be able to browse my 40K song library and see everything is organized as it should be.  I've got issues!!!!


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> I am the same with all my file types (FLAC, DSF, etc) except I add year and disc #.  So my format file name:
> 
> Artist - Album (year) - disc #_track #_Title.
> 
> ...


 

 Need to see someone about that - kidding.  I'm not quite as concerned.  I just want to find the music I want to listen to with the least hassles.  No scrolling through endless pages of album covers.
  
 For me one of the best things I love about computer audio - is just that - the organization and location of music is inherent in the storage.  All my CD's and most of my LPs are in storage.  But I visited a friend who displays his  - endless racks of plastic (CD's) and carboard (LPs).  I guess for some folks.  Reminds me of one of my favorite John Cusak movies:


 Re-organizing his LP's - Autobiographically!


----------



## grizzlybeast

Okay....
  
  
 Okay... 
  
  
 ummm...
  

  
  
 Rednet now hooked up via AES, able to play 192 k files, Pavane is SICK, no more gitter or clicks!!!! 
  
 I am upset at the same time. I was selling my Rednet to fund another amp.... NOPE!!!!!!


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> Re-organizing his LP's - Autobiographically!


 
  
 wtg!


----------



## Tboooe

grizzlybeast said:


> Okay....
> 
> 
> Okay...
> ...


 
 Forgive me for being thick....but does this mean you are very very satisfied with the Rednet????    
  
 Can someone please hurry up and develop a more consumer friendly version of AOIP please??  I need to try this out ASAP!


----------



## grizzlybeast

tboooe said:


> grizzlybeast said:
> 
> 
> > Okay....
> ...


 
 Yes
  
 pic above means my mind is blown
 upset because since I wont sell the Rednet now I cant afford the amp I wanted
 Never have I heard music this pure before.
 ​  ​  ​  ​ 

Pavane via USB still clear and detailed RedNET 3 into AES of the Pavane      
  
  
 ​


----------



## Tboooe

That was what I was afraid of!  I need to start saving my pennies so I can try this AOIP thing out.


----------



## Muziqboy

grizzlybeast said:


> pic = mind blown
> upset because since I wont sell the Rednet now I cant afford the amp I wanted
> Never have I heard music this pure before.
> ​  ​  ​  ​
> ...


 
  
 Glad that you decided to keep the RN3 and tried all the connections.
  
 The DB-25 to AES breakout cable from the RN3 feeding into a DAC (given that it has the AES Digital input) is the best way to get the most out of that combo.
 Now if you can diy a DB-25 to AES silver wire cable like JJ and I did, you can get an even cleaner oil painting.


----------



## rb2013

grizzlybeast said:


> Okay....
> 
> 
> Okay...
> ...


 

 Nice!  Better then the Pavane's USB?


----------



## grizzlybeast

^yes indeed.


----------



## Calipso

Hi . Anybody have try rednet 3 / dante with TinySqueeze or TinyMPD under Linux ? 

Or FEDOLIGHT AUDIO RT ?


----------



## artur9

calipso said:


> Hi . Anybody have try rednet 3 / dante with TinySqueeze or TinyMPD under Linux ?
> 
> Or FEDOLIGHT AUDIO RT ?


 

 AFAIK, there are no Dante drivers for Linux.  Windows or Mac only.


----------



## johnjen

grizzlybeast said:


> Okay....
> 
> Okay...
> 
> ...


 
 Ah, I see the RN3 settled in and took a step up.
  
 We have you now, buhahahahahahaha…
  
 JJ


----------



## REXNFX

rb2013 said:


> Yes that's true, and it will be interesting to see his take.  The old YMMV - applies to AOIP as well.  But so far it's been a knock down winner in almost every matchup.  Including that unnamed forum's posting by a micorendu convert to RN.
> 
> And I have a pretty deep history in perfecting USB chains - the PUC2 was not at the top of the list:
> 
> ...


 
 Will be interesting to see where to rank the Startech/USB stick solution, could break a few hearts...


----------



## patrikh

grizzlybeast said:


> ^yes indeed.


 

 I confirm this as well.


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> That was what I was afraid of!  I need to start saving my pennies so I can try this AOIP thing out.


 
 Are you going to aim for the daily scaled down Mivera Audio Ravenna Box or for a RedNet?


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> Are you going to aim for the daily scaled down Mivera Audio Ravenna Box or for a RedNet?


 
 I would much prefer something more consumer focused like the Mivera.  I assume that since its using Ravenna it will have all the same sonic benefits of the Rednet AOIP but with only 1 output versus many?  Another preference is for a device that supports DSD.  I may not end up getting the Mivera but  I am definitely going to wait for something that supports DSD.  I am hopeful that Rednet's "major announcement" that @rb2013 mentions a while back will be something more along the lines of what I am looking for.  If not, then I will happily keep using my Singxer SU-1.


----------



## rb2013

rexnfx said:


> Will be interesting to see where to rank the Startech/USB stick solution, could break a few hearts...


 

 Great question - I see this as really a separate part of the DDC chain - although the Startech can be used to dramatically improve a USB DDC chain.  I see this as part of the music server/storage chain.  Two separate chains - with in the computer audio chain.  As the whole DAC issue is separate - but part of the greater digital source chain.
  
 {Music Server/Storage Chain}>{DDC(Digital to Digital Converter) Chain}>{DAC}
  
 So, while I'm really psyched at the SQ improvement - I don't see this changing those ranking.  I can be used with AOIP as well as with USB - or even DNLA/UnUP I suppose -  even PCIe, TB2 and TB3.  Just an alternative to an external SATA, USB or TB SSD storage.  But cheaper and upgradeable over time.  Is it better then those other external solid state storage solutions?  Probably not - but only a direct comparison could determine.  Most likely better then a USB SSD external with direct PC connection.
  
 An update - and I promise to move this to a new thread when I get time to create it.  I tried the iFi DC iPur on the Breeze (LT1083-RCore)24VDC LPS feeding the REX unit of the Startech.  A small but noticeable further gain in SQ.  The only trouble is the DC iPur caused the audio to drop out occasionally - it got very warm.  At 24VDC it's right at the upper end of it's capability.  So took I it out and will order a MEIYAN (13uv) LPS set to 24VDC to power the REX.


----------



## rb2013

patrikh said:


> I confirm this as well.


 

 Great - so we have AOIP beating a nice M2Tech EVO stack, a Uber F-1 XU208 USB chain, the well regarded Melos Music Server, the MicroRendu, the built in USB on the PAVANE DAC.
  
  
 Don't know if the fellow with the Chord DAVE - has reported back his comparison yet.  That would be the DAVE's built in USB vs REDNET by SPDIF or AES.


----------



## rb2013

muziqboy said:


> Glad that you decided to keep the RN3 and tried all the connections.
> 
> The DB-25 to AES breakout cable from the RN3 feeding into a DAC (given that it has the AES Digital input) is the best way to get the most out of that combo.
> Now if you can diy a DB-25 to AES silver wire cable like JJ and I did, you can get an even cleaner oil painting.


 

 I have a silver DB-25 to AES cable still for sale in the classifieds - if anyone with a REDNET 3 needs one.  I''l bump it today.


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Great question - I see this as really a separate part of the DDC chain - although the Startech can be used to dramatically improve a USB DDC chain.  I see this as part of the music server/storage chain.  Two separate chains - with in the computer audio chain.  As the whole DAC issue is separate - but part of the greater digital source chain.
> 
> {Music Server/Storage Chain}>{DDC(Digital to Digital Converter) Chain}>{DAC}
> 
> ...


 
 Rob,
  
 This post gets me to wondering again as to what, if anything, upstream of the Rednet devices, improves the sound of the system.
  
 So far, outside of an optical to ethernet connection between the PC and Rednet, I haven't found anything definitive, but I'll welcome anyone else's input.
  
 Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Rob,
> 
> This post gets me to wondering again as to what, if anything, upstream of the Rednet devices, improves the sound of the system.
> 
> ...


 

 Once I get time to move the Startech down to the main room  - I will test this as an external SSD like drive - with the BURL DANTE DAC.
  
 This really could make a difference.


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Once I get time to move the Startech down to the main room  - I will test this as an external SSD like drive - with the BURL DANTE DAC.
> 
> This really could make a difference.


 
 Thanks a lot, Rob.
  
 Looking forward to learning the result.
  
 Although you're cost me money here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Joel


----------



## patrikh

rb2013 said:


> Great - so we have AOIP beating a nice M2Tech EVO stack, a Uber F-1 XU208 USB chain, the well regarded Melos Music Server, the MicroRendu, the built in USB on the PAVANE DAC.
> 
> 
> Don't know if the fellow with the Chord DAVE - has reported back his comparison yet.  That would be the DAVE's built in USB vs REDNET by SPDIF or AES.


 

 Pavane has M2Tech usb as well.


----------



## Iving

iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.
> 
> (iii) The new machine is a silent (no moving parts) PC comprising:
> - Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC Thunderbolt™ 3 Certified C236 Chipset Motherboard;
> ...


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> I have had to swap the PSU from Seasonic 400fl because of coil whine (found on >1 instance) to Aurum AU 500 Gold (very nicely silent)
> and
> the mobo from Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC because of mysterious screeching around the CPU (6700) area [voltage regulation circuitry?] to ASUS Z170 Premium (more expensive but a way to keep Thunderbolt 3). The latter has two different Intel NICs but not the Killer E2400.
> 
> When I get the machine back I'll report on any changes. I have asserted that an up-to-date competent PC with specs such as these (vs. a basic laptop or a good W10 tablet with Docking Station) raises SQ by as much as going from USB to AOIP.


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> Update: The ASUS Z170 Premium was quiet but had "connectivity" problems with Thunderbolt 3 ("when a thunderbolt device is connected to the system the devices are not receiving power and therefore are not being recognised in Windows" x 2 instances). The engineers are still waiting for a reply from Asus about it. The final replacement is a Gigabyte Z170X Designare which I am told is behaving itself. It has 2 x Intel NICs and 2 x USB C / Thunderbolt 3 ports as well as M.2 and U.2 on board (Windows 10 Pro is on a dedicated M.2). The RAM is upgraded to Dominator 2666 MHz.
> 
> With a following wind I will have the machine within a day or two. I don't expect ever to use the "teaming" capacity of the two Intel NICs (although I dare say one day I will experiment), but I do hope that the Killer NIC wasn't a necessary ingredient in the stupendous SQ enjoyed previously. The PC I am told is super-quiet now. I am really looking forward to its homecoming.


 
  

 In case of possible interest to prospective PC buyers or upgraders, two main  points:
 - The Gigabyte Z170X Designare exhibits the same mobo ringing phenomenon as the Extreme-ECC - but whereas the latter screeched, the Designare's self-pronouncement is much milder and very probably below a bothersome threshold. We are talking mainly about The High Performance Power Profile (in Control Panel) and, in particular, Minimum Processor State = 100%. The effect is mitigated significantly in the Balanced Profile (Min. Proc. State = 5%) - in which mode the Designare can hardly be heard at all. My wife can't hear the new mobo even in High Performance mode - but she has tinnitus.
 - Using the primary NIC; i.e., the integrated I219-V (PCI-Express 3.0 version of the I218-V), the SQ is top notch. At first I wondered whether it was deader than the Killer E2400 (present on the Extreme-ECC), but my system hadn't warmed up. There is nothing missing. If anything, the speakers are more transparent and easier on the ear outside the sweetspot. The tone is liquid. My early undisciplined thinking was that "wall of sound" noises such as Jackson Browne's "Looking East" and Liz Phair's "Turning Japanese" were more distilled (components of the sound distinguishable). Bass thuds. It is very AOIP. Latency averages less than 900µs and peaks at <1msec over extended playing intervals.
 It has taken 40 days to establish this PC. That has been a PIA but I am grateful to the building company for staying with me throughout the time it took to get it all fettled. Long and short - I don't doubt the value of the investment in the PC.


----------



## 3X0

iving said:


> Using the primary NIC; i.e., the integrated I219-V (*PCI-Express 3.0 version of the I218-V*), the SQ is top notch. [ . . . ] Latency averages less than 900µs and peaks at <1msec over extended playing intervals.


 
 Interesting. My primary NIC (X99E-ITX/ac) is the I218-V and my average latency is just below 2ms with peaks of up to 4ms. I notice many of the builds with sub-1ms typical latency seem to be built around the Skylake platform.


----------



## jabbr

3x0 said:


> Interesting. My primary NIC (X99E-ITX/ac) is the I218-V and my average latency is just below 2ms with peaks of up to 4ms. I notice many of the builds with sub-1ms typical latency seem to be built around the Skylake platform.




My Haswell board has an I217-V NIC, runs at just a little over 800 usec on average with a peak around 850 usec.
I don't agree this latency is hardware related, but is determined by the NIC-parameter setting which are by default not optimal for low latency applications.


----------



## Iving

The secondary Intel NIC, I211, performs about the same although my impression from the latency charts (in Dante Controller/Device View [select RedNet box and latency tab]) is that it is the poorer relation by about 50-100 µs. This is consistent with the mobo's review here http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/08/29/gigabyte_z170x_designare_lga1151_motherboard_review/. I haven't had enough listening experience to remark on comparative SQ although I don't suppose there is anything in it.
  
 My latency data for both NICs are with Interrupt Moderation Disabled in CP/Device Manager/Network adapters/[Adapter]/Properties/Advanced. This is a vital setting that will bring down latency on any machine it seems - and can make the difference between awkward and acceptable performance on PCs with marginal specs. It may also help to set Duplex at 1Gb (which you can do with Intel NICs whereas there is no such facility for Killer). There is plenty of info on other settings that can help latency in this thread both recently and back a bit.


----------



## astrostar59

Talk on latency here, is this with an ethernet card or using the DVS. I see 1.8 lagency with DVS. Oddly there seems no way to reduce latency in the DVS software to below 4.Anyone here confirm this..?


----------



## jabbr

astrostar59 said:


> Talk on latency here, is this with an ethernet card or using the DVS. I see 1.8 lagency with DVS. Oddly there seems no way to reduce latency in the DVS software to below 4.Anyone here confirm this..?




In DVS the latency can indeed not be set lower than 4 ms.
The latency figures talked about, are those shown in the Dante Controler on the Latency tab of the RN3/D16 device.
In the graph on that tab you can see what the actual measured latency is to the RedNet device (and you will also see the 4 ms setting of the DVS mentioned in that graph as that is what is the maximum latency that the AOIP-algorithms are using)


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> I would much prefer something more consumer focused like the Mivera.  I assume that since its using Ravenna it will have all the same sonic benefits of the Rednet AOIP but with only 1 output versus many?  Another preference is for a device that supports DSD.  I may not end up getting the Mivera but  I am definitely going to wait for something that supports DSD.  I am hopeful that Rednet's "major announcement" that @rb2013 mentions a while back will be something more along the lines of what I am looking for.  If not, then I will happily keep using my Singxer SU-1.


 
 Very doubtful you will see any new DANTE device with native DSD - just the usual DoP.  It will take a major upgrade from Audinate for native DSD.  A DANTE Brooklyn 3 card.
  
 Since mastering DSD is so difficult - though today not impossible.  Most studios will master in PCM - fortunately today 192K is becoming the standard. And with PC processing power accelerating away from Moore's curve (2nd derivative is now positive - the rate of change of the parabolic rise is accelerating) - DxD is moving more into the mainstream.  Even most (but not all) DSD recorded music is converted to PCM for mastering - before conversion back to DSD.
  


rb2013 said:


> Great - so we have AOIP beating a nice M2Tech EVO stack, a Uber F-1 XU208 USB chain, the well regarded Melos Music Server, the MicroRendu, the built in USB on the PAVANE DAC.
> 
> 
> Don't know if the fellow with the Chord DAVE - has reported back his comparison yet.  That would be the DAVE's built in USB vs REDNET by SPDIF or AES.


 
 I also remember a fellow with a Berkeley Alpha DDC - trying Rednet and preferring it.  I think that was posted over on the CA thread.
  


joelha said:


> Rob,
> 
> This post gets me to wondering again as to what, if anything, upstream of the Rednet devices, improves the sound of the system.
> 
> ...


 
 No doubt the Mutec-3+ USB as AES/SPDIF reclocker.  Then the Antelope OXCO clocks (like LiveClock).  Haven't seen anyone use an atomic clock with the Antelope to feed the Rednet Wclock.
  
 I did find using a better power cord (Cerious Tech - Graphene Extreme Red) helped the SQ on the RN3 - same for AC line filtering and isolation.  I suppose replacing the REDNET $4 SMPS power supply module - with a decent low noise LPS would really help - esp run on the internal clock.
  


joelha said:


> Thanks a lot, Rob.
> 
> Looking forward to learning the result.
> 
> ...


 
 Well the Startech GB LAN USB extender is $450 - with four 256GB USB PNY flash drives - that's around $600.  That's not cheap.  The newer ICRON GB LAN USB extender (and the PS Audio LANRover) use a ASIC - the Startech the better more powerful Xilinx SPARTAN 6 FPGA's - one on each end to do the USB packet to IP packet conversions.  I prefer the Startech's more robust processors - but the ASIC's are cheaper and the ICRON 4 port Ranger is around $370.  Still expensive.
  


3x0 said:


> Interesting. My primary NIC (X99E-ITX/ac) is the I218-V and my average latency is just below 2ms with peaks of up to 4ms. I notice many of the builds with sub-1ms typical latency seem to be built around the Skylake platform.


 
 Running a iCore-7 4390 Haswell I had 1.1 ms latency on the DVS - with the 4ms setting

  
  
  


jabbr said:


> My Haswell board has an I217-V NIC, runs at just a little over 800 usec on average with a peak around 850 usec.
> I don't agree this latency is hardware related, but is determined by the NIC-parameter setting which are by default not optimal for low latency applications.


 
 Can you post your setting again?
  


iving said:


> The secondary Intel NIC, I211, performs about the same although my impression from the latency charts (in Dante Controller/Device View [select RedNet box and latency tab]) is that it is the poorer relation by about 50-100 µs. This is consistent with the mobo's review here http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/08/29/gigabyte_z170x_designare_lga1151_motherboard_review/. I haven't had enough listening experience to remark on comparative SQ although I don't suppose there is anything in it.
> 
> My latency data for both NICs are with Interrupt Moderation Disabled in CP/Device Manager/Network adapters/[Adapter]/Properties/Advanced. This is a vital setting that will bring down latency on any machine it seems - and can make the difference between awkward and acceptable performance on PCs with marginal specs. It may also help to set Duplex at 1Gb (which you can do with Intel NICs whereas there is no such facility for Killer). There is plenty of info on other settings that can help latency in this thread both recently and back a bit.


 
 Funny the Rednet 3 could be set to 150us - where the Rednet D16 has that grayed out - the lowest available is 250us.
  
 On the BURL using the same BK2 Dante card as the D16 - 150us is available.
  
 I notice SQ improvements with each reduction in Rednet latency.  With the 150us setting sounding the best.  Try it  - start at 5ms (the highest) and go down the list to the shortest and see.


----------



## jabbr

rb2013 said:


> ....
> Funny the Rednet 3 could be set to 150us - where the Rednet D16 has that grayed out - the lowest available is 250us.
> 
> ....




The reason for this that D16 has 2 ethernet ports and an inbuilt switch to service these 2 ports. In the Dante topology this adds one switch to the signal path regardless of other devices in the network. This makes that using a D16 always has 'too many' relay points to allow for the 150 usec setting that is offered on RN3 which only has one port.
So I read on either Focusrite or Audinate website recently.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> The reason for this that D16 has 2 ethernet ports and an inbuilt switch to service these 2 ports. In the Dante topology this adds one switch to the signal path regardless of other devices in the network. This makes that using a D16 always has 'too many' relay points to allow for the 150 usec setting that is offered on RN3 which only has one port.
> So I read on either Focusrite or Audinate website recently.


 

 That makes sense - and the BURL has only one Ethernet port as well.  Thanks for that explaination.  I think for that reason the RN3 maybe the better unit.
  
 If you need an extra Ethernet port  - you can always add an Intel NIC - if you have a PC.  Mac Mini - no such luck- you'd need a QoS switch.


----------



## astrostar59

jabbr said:


> In DVS the latency can indeed not be set lower than 4 ms.
> The latency figures talked about, are those shown in the Dante Controler on the Latency tab of the RN3/D16 device.
> In the graph on that tab you can see what the actual measured latency is to the RedNet device (and you will also see the 4 ms setting of the DVS mentioned in that graph as that is what is the maximum latency that the AOIP-algorithms are using)



Thanks for the carificaruon. So I assume dedicated card would sound better?


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> Very doubtful you will see any new DANTE device with native DSD - just the usual DoP.  It will take a major upgrade from Audinate for native DSD.  A DANTE Brooklyn 3 card.


 
 The Rednets support DoP?  Of course this is limited to DSD64 only right?


----------



## jabbr

astrostar59 said:


> Thanks for the carificaruon. So I assume dedicated card would sound better?




I don't expect it to be, honestly.

The low latency dedicated Dante PCIe card only allows to have more channels run in parallel with low latency/high sample rate.
This Dante latency is not so much an issue for SQ, but for synchronicity of multiple and parallel devices/signal paths.
The only issue IMhO is to get a *stable* latency and not the lowest latency persé.

When using the DVS with its 4 msec latency and say a D16 with 250 usec latency, what the AOIP algorithm does is to say: OK, 4 msec is the worst latency of any device in my signal path, so I'm going to make sure I send out all my sample as soon as possible and I make the IP-package size just so big that enough data will be sent in one go to be easily transfered and converted into samples again, with that 4 msec, but I will not wait longer than 4 msec before I decide to drop it a the receiving end.
I know it doesn't do this at exactly 4 msec, there is a bit more leeway, because dropout only become noticeable at 15 msec (the red column in the latency graph), but this is sort of how it operates.

These latency settings only say what each device is *capable* of, and the AOIp algorithm will take that into account when determining package size and try to minimize the chance of dropouts.
The conversion of ethernet packages into audio samples only occurs at the RedNet and as long as the latency is low _enough_, it will handle up to 192kHz (ca 5 msec between samples) just fine.
Trying to explain it like this, it occurs to me that there could be SQ effects on the amount of buffering and processing inside the Rednet, which is dependent on latency, as latency has an effect on the AOIP package size.

Cheers


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> The Rednets support DoP?  Of course this is limited to DSD64 only right?




Still haven't tried DoP. 
It requires 176.4 kHz support, so only D16 users could try, but I haven't got a DoP capable DAC available at the moment, so perhaps another D16 user that has a DOP DAC could try?

I would be surprised if it did BTW, as the Rednet would need to construct these special PCM words, and since DoP is a 100% consumer 'thingy' , I don't think that Pro-gear will support it.
Certainly the Mutec MC-3+usb in my chain doesn't have a pass-through for DoP (perhaps also my Grimm CC1 doesn't do a DoP pass through).


----------



## Golfnutz

rb2013 said:


> That makes sense - and the BURL has only one Ethernet port as well.  Thanks for that explaination.  *I think for that reason the RN3 maybe the better unit.*
> 
> If you need an extra Ethernet port  - you can always add an Intel NIC - if you have a PC.  Mac Mini - no such luck- you'd need a QoS switch.


 
 Not necessarily true...
  
 Would also depend on your PC. With D16 @ 250 usec, my latency is <1ms. Your latency is 1.1ms @ 150usec.


----------



## jabbr

golfnutz said:


> Not necessarily true...
> 
> Would also depend on your PC. With D16 @ 250 usec, my latency is <1ms. Your latency is 1.1ms @ 150usec.




Here as well, latency between 820-860 usec.
But these settings don't set any _actual_ latency, but tell the Dante Controler what latency it is _capable_ of, and those values are used in the AOIP algorithms.
The calculations for the complete whole chain are based on the 'worst' performing device, and, as I said above, only are to minimise the chance of dropouts.

@Rob: tomorrow I will try to list the parameters that I changed in the NIC settings, what I know of, from top of my mind, are the interrupt moderation off; the receive and send buffers to maximum;, all energy efficiencies, green ethernets and the like, turned off; no power management;

I followed these guidelines: http://steamcommunity.com/app/353380/discussions/0/405690850599636269/
and applied:

 Interrupt Moderation: This is the big one. Microsoft themselves[technet.microsoft.com] recommends turning this off for low-latency applications. Set this to Disabled.
 Recieve/Send Buffers: Some drivers do not have this set to the maximum level by default. Just click the up arrow on the value until it maxes out.
 Energy Efficient Ethernet: Some driver implementations can cause the adapter to go into low power mode while running active applications. If you notice intermittent freezing or stuttering, disable this.
 Green Ethernet: Ditto for the above

and also from: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc558565(v=bts.10).aspx
and applied:


 Power Option – Configure the network adapter driver to prevent power management functionality from turning off the network adapter to save power. This functionality may be useful for client computers but should seldom, if ever, be used on a BizTalk Server or SQL Server computer.
 
 Fixed Speed/Duplex (do not use AUTO) - It is very important that the network speed, duplex, and flow control parameters are set to correspond to the settings on the switch to which they are connected. This will mitigate the occurrence of periodic “auto-synchronization” which may temporarily take connections off-line.
 
 Max Coalesce Buffers - Map registers are system resources used to convert physical addresses to virtual addresses for network adapters that support bus mastering. Coalesce buffers are available to the network driver if the driver runs out of map registers. Set this value as high as possible for maximum performance. On servers with limited physical memory, this may have a negative impact as coalesce buffers consume system memory. On most systems however, the maximum setting can be applied without significantly reducing available memory.
 
 Max Transmit/Send Descriptors and Send Buffers - This setting specifies how many transmit control buffers the driver allocates for use by the network interface. This directly reflects the number of outstanding packets the driver can have in its “send” queue. Set this value as high as possible for maximum performance. On servers with limited physical memory, this may have a negative impact as send buffers consume system memory. On most systems however, the maximum setting can be applied without significantly reducing available memory.
 
 Max Receive Buffers - This setting specifies the amount of memory buffer used by the network interface driver when copying data to the protocol memory. It is normally set by default to a relatively low value. Set this value as high as possible for maximum performance. On servers with limited physical memory, this may have a negative impact as receive buffers consume system memory. On most systems however, the maximum setting can be applied without significantly reducing available memory.
 
 All offload options ON - In almost all cases performance is improved when enabling network interface offload features. Some network adapters provide separate parameters to enable or disable offloading for send and receive traffic. Offloading tasks from the CPU to the network adapter can help lower CPU usage on the server which will improve overall system performance. The Microsoft TCP/IP transport can offload one or more of the following tasks to a network adapter that has the appropriate capabilities:
 
 Checksum tasks - The TCP/IP transport can offload the calculation and validation of IP and TCP checksums for sends and receives to the network adapter, enable this option if the network adapter driver provides this capability.
 
 IP security tasks - The TCP/IP transport can offload the calculation and validation of encrypted checksums for authentication headers (AH) and encapsulating security payloads (ESP) to the network adapter. The TCP/IP transport can also offload the encryption and decryption of ESP payloads to the network adapter. Enable these options if the network adapter driver provides this capability.
 
 Segmentation of large TCP packets - The TCP/IP transport supports large send offload (LSO). With LSO, the TCP/IP transport can offload the segmentation of large TCP packets.
 
 Stack Offload – The entire network stack can be offloaded to a network adapter that has the appropriate capabilities. Enable this option if the network adapter driver provides this capability.
 
 Wake On LAN disabled (unless being used) – Configure the network adapter driver to disable wake-on lan functionality. This functionality may be useful for client computers but should seldom if ever be used on a BizTalk Server or SQL Server computer.


----------



## Golfnutz

For what we're doing, not sure the latency settings have that much of an impact (which is in line with your conclusion).
  

  
 Still <1ms @ 10msec.


----------



## astrostar59

I guess ALL the settings you describe relate to an Ethernet card equiped PC? 
Please list any setting gems that apply to Rednet5 with a DVS. 
Thanks


----------



## jabbr

astrostar59 said:


> I guess ALL the settings you describe relate to an Ethernet card equiped PC?
> Please list any setting gems that apply to Rednet5 with a DVS.
> Thanks




These settings are all applied to the NIC of the PC that is running DVS.


----------



## 3X0

Hmm, not sure I want to disable C1E and/or EIST. I imagine C3-C7 states would reduce latency variance, but not the mean. The variance is likely a bigger deal than the average anyway.


----------



## Tboooe

I dont know if this matters in terms of sound or latency but in my experience disabling all offloading greatly reduced the amount of discarded Rx and Tx I was getting.  Having to resend or request a discarded packet must somehow increase latency I think.  In my case, my networks adapters are whatever came with the mobo so nothing too special.  I went from about 5% discard rate to 0.02%.  You can check these and other network adapter related stats with the netstat command.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Still haven't tried DoP.
> It requires 176.4 kHz support, so only D16 users could try, but I haven't got a DoP capable DAC available at the moment, so perhaps another D16 user that has a DOP DAC could try?
> 
> I would be surprised if it did BTW, as the Rednet would need to construct these special PCM words, and since DoP is a 100% consumer 'thingy' , I don't think that Pro-gear will support it.
> Certainly the Mutec MC-3+usb in my chain doesn't have a pass-through for DoP (perhaps also my Grimm CC1 doesn't do a DoP pass through).


 

 Just install the DSD to PCM Foobar DLL and run the DSD file - Foobar will then convert to PCM (with any SR you choose).  Look under Preferences>Tools>SACD.  Set the ASIO Drive Mode to PCM, PCM SR to 352800, load the SoX resampler as a DSP  - then set to what ever SR you chose to down sample to.
  
 Works great on the 2L 64 and 128 DSD files I have downloaded.  On my APL I SR to 192k and on my DAC60 96k.


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> Not necessarily true...
> 
> Would also depend on your PC. With D16 @ 250 usec, my latency is <1ms. Your latency is 1.1ms @ 150usec.


 

 I have not detected any SQ change by setting the DVS latency to higher levels - but I certainly hear noticible differences setting the DANTE BK latency to lower levels.
  
 The difference of DVS latency of 952us vs 1.1ms is meaningless SQ wise.  But on the Rednet DANTE side very noticible going from 250us vs 150us.  At least in my system.


----------



## rb2013

jabbr said:


> Here as well, latency between 820-860 usec.
> But these settings don't set any _actual_ latency, but tell the Dante Controler what latency it is _capable_ of, and those values are used in the AOIP algorithms.
> The calculations for the complete whole chain are based on the 'worst' performing device, and, as I said above, only are to minimise the chance of dropouts.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks!


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> I followed these guidelines: http://steamcommunity.com/app/353380/discussions/0/405690850599636269/
> and applied:
> Interrupt Moderation: This is the big one. Microsoft themselves[technet.microsoft.com] recommends turning this off for low-latency applications. Set this to Disabled.
> Recieve/Send Buffers: Some drivers do not have this set to the maximum level by default. Just click the up arrow on the value until it maxes out.
> ...


 
  
 One thing I just learned is that if you just go into the Network settings and raise your Receive Buffer setting you will also need to also go into the DVS control panel and set the buffers similarly.
  
 JRMC gave me an error until I did that.


----------



## Golfnutz

rb2013 said:


> I have not detected any SQ change by setting the DVS latency to higher levels - but I certainly hear noticible differences setting the DANTE BK latency to lower levels.
> 
> The difference of DVS latency of 952us vs 1.1ms is meaningless SQ wise.  But on the Rednet DANTE side very noticible going from 250us vs 150us.  At least in my system.


 
 When I changed DVS to 10ms, I also changed Rednet to 5ms (displayed results on previous post). Sorry, I couldn't detect any SQ differences at all.


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> When I changed DVS to 10ms, I also changed Rednet to 5ms (displayed results on previous post). Sorry, I couldn't detect any SQ differences at all.


 

 Well I guess YMMV - mine definitely sounds best set to 150us.  Anybody else try it - with a RN3


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> When I changed DVS to 10ms, I also changed Rednet to 5ms (displayed results on previous post). Sorry, I couldn't detect any SQ differences at all.



I wonder if it depends on the amount i any of upsanpling on the PC as that will load the network and also push the PC processor harder. I am on44.1 so not applicable to me maybe? Will deff look at my setting though as kindly detail above. Thanks for that.


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> I dont know if this matters in terms of sound or latency but in my experience disabling all offloading greatly reduced the amount of discarded Rx and Tx I was getting.  Having to resend or request a discarded packet must somehow increase latency I think.  In my case, my networks adapters are whatever came with the mobo so nothing too special.  I went from about 5% discard rate to 0.02%.  You can check these and other network adapter related stats with the netstat command.


 
 Dante AOIP doesn't do resends of dropped packages.
 Dante AOIP uses UDP and not TCP, so no error checking or resends, just very fast package transfer.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> One thing I just learned is that if you just go into the Network settings and raise your Receive Buffer setting you will also need to also go into the DVS control panel and set the buffers similarly.
> 
> JRMC gave me an error until I did that.


 
 I did not have to do that!
 I'm also using JRMC, BTW.


----------



## Iving

3x0 said:


> Interesting. My primary NIC (X99E-ITX/ac) is the I218-V and my average latency is just below 2ms with peaks of up to 4ms. I notice many of the builds with sub-1ms typical latency seem to be built around the Skylake platform.


 
  
 Thank you for this. It implies or even is explicit that X99s as a class present network latency challenges. I should like to know whether this is true since I am still considering changing my mobo. There are a lot of nice-looking X99s out there. Should they be avoided. Why is latency affected by X99 vs. Skylake?


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> I wonder if it depends on the amount i any of upsanpling on the PC as that will load the network and also push the PC processor harder. I am on44.1 so not applicable to me maybe? Will deff look at my setting though as kindly detail above. Thanks for that.


 
 Very little, if any impact on my PC (intel 6700k - used as music server only). I think if anyone is having issues, it's more to do with the NIC, Router/Switches, and/or Network settings.
  
 You should download and run latencymon on your PC (assuming they have MAC version).
  
http://www.resplendence.com/latencymon


----------



## Tboooe

jabbr said:


> Dante AOIP doesn't do resends of dropped packages.
> Dante AOIP uses UDP and not TCP, so no error checking or resends, just very fast package transfer.


 
 Sorry for not being more clear. I was referring to discarded packets, not dropped packets.  Discarded packets actually gets to the NIC but for a variety of reasons is thrown away.  Dropped packets never reach its destination.  There are lots of reasons including full NIC buffer, bad header, etc.  So in the case of NIC in your PC, tuning it may help with discards as it did for me.  If as you mention, there is no error checking it is even more important to ensure that no packets are discarded by the NIC for whatever reason.  In my case, I think because my NICs are not very powerful, I was getting lots of discards with offloading enabled even with the buffers maxed out.  Again, not sure if this impacts sound.


----------



## artur9

golfnutz said:


> Very little, if any impact on my PC (intel 6700k - used as music server only).


 
 Any idea if Dante is doing any compression of the audio stream?
  
 It's often the case these days that doing some form of data compression on the computers saves a lot of bandwidth etc on the network.


----------



## 3X0

jabbr said:


> Here as well, latency between 820-860 usec.
> But these settings don't set any _actual_ latency, but tell the Dante Controler what latency it is _capable_ of, and those values are used in the AOIP algorithms.
> The calculations for the complete whole chain are based on the 'worst' performing device, and, as I said above, only are to minimise the chance of dropouts.
> 
> ...


 
 Interestingly at least one of these changes appeared to increase latency variance on my system. I suspect it may be the send/receive buffers (raised it from somewhere around 128 to 2048 for my I218-V).
  
 Practically speaking it does not seem to introduce any dropouts though. I'll run LatencyMon and play around with my C-states if need be.
 Quote:


iving said:


> Thank you for this. It implies or even is explicit that X99s as a class present network latency challenges. I should like to know whether this is true since I am still considering changing my mobo. There are a lot of nice-looking X99s out there. Should they be avoided. Why is latency affected by X99 vs. Skylake?


 
 I can't speak for all X99 motherboards or CPUs. My ASRock motherboard is in the ITX format so it's possibly a little compromised relative to a larger motherboard -- unfortunately I'm not aware of any tools that would allow me to test for DPC latency accurately on Windows 10 for comparative purposes.
  
 I also have a 5960X with fairly aggressive power-handling features (i.e. to fit within the specified thermal design power). While it runs at 4.4GHz for heavy loads, it frequently drops to very low clocks and voltages for idle and near-idle activities. This is why I wonder if playing around with the motherboard's CPU power-saving features might yield any benefit. I suspect HEDT/server CPUs are more affected by C-states and EIST than the daintier mainstream processors.


----------



## Golfnutz

artur9 said:


> Any idea if Dante is doing any compression of the audio stream?
> 
> It's often the case these days that doing some form of data compression on the computers saves a lot of bandwidth etc on the network.


 

 From Audinate website:
  
 Based on industry standards, Audinate created Dante, an uncompressed, multi-channel digital media networking technology, with near-zero latency and synchronization. Dante is the preferred audio networking solution that has been adopted by more pro-audio AV manufacturers than any other networking technology.


----------



## Tboooe

golfnutz said:


> From Audinate website:
> 
> Based on industry standards, Audinate created Dante, an uncompressed, multi-channel digital media networking technology, with near-zero latency and synchronization.




I am not sure how Audinate can make that claim since there are so many other factors out of its control that can contribute to latency, the most prevalent of which is Windows not being a real time os. Other factors include network hardware, traffic, etc. Am I perhaps missing something?


----------



## astrostar59

jabbr said:


> These settings are all applied to the NIC of the PC that is running DVS.


 

 I am on a Mac. I don't think I can change any Ethernet settings as you have done in the 'Network Interface Card' that is fitted in a PC.
  
 My Mac Mini is set to auto configure for Ethernet. Is anyone here who knows how to manually alter this i.e. the settings in DHCP that may be better for the RedNet?
  
 Thanks


----------



## jabbr

tboooe said:


> I am not sure how Audinate can make that claim since there are so many other factors out of its control that can contribute to latency, the most prevalent of which is Windows not being a real time os. Other factors include network hardware, traffic, etc. Am I perhaps missing something?


 
 Yes, the fact your missing is they are talking about the latency between Dante devices, not inside your PC.
 And even taking the inside of the PC and RedNet device into the equation, with their most optimal device (their PCIe Rednet NIC's) they obtain "Under 3ms analogue-to-analogue round-trip latency", which you could describe as "near-zero latency".
  
 Dante's AOIP from Audinate is a realtime protocol, like VOIP for telephone calls, and lives (and dies otherwise) from being virtualy real time and "near zero latency" in a practical sense like required in distributed venues of recording studio setups and like with public speaker systems.


----------



## goodvibes

and favors low latency with error correction over buffering for accuracy. I'm not looking to digitally reformat and recover my music whether digital or analog. I can see this as great for real time pro use but I don't see myself ever going here for personal listening. Like most new formats, there is both good and bad. Early adopters concentrate on the good and the bad is usually discovered later, when practical applications are more scrutinized. Pro or studio kit isn't always better than Home kit. They have different needs and uses. I'm familiar with both and find adopting top home kit to studio use tends to work better than the other way around, if, durability and use are a fit and price isn't a major obstacle. I have yet to hear a Genelec speaker I could listen to at home yet they work well enough for their intended use. It's all rather relative and not all good or all bad and generally these sorts of things are designed to fill specific needs. The amount of latency for good home hidef UPNP listening is negligible and no issue in use. Bringing that up as a reason for REDNET is a complex solution looking for a problem.


----------



## joelha

goodvibes said:


> and favors low latency with error correction over buffering for accuracy. I'm not looking to digitally reformat and recover my music whether digital or analog. I can see this as great for real time pro use but I don't see myself ever going here for personal listening. Like most new formats, there is both good and bad. Early adopters concentrate on the good and the bad is usually discovered later, when practical applications are more scrutinized. Pro or studio kit isn't always better than Home kit. They have different needs and uses. I'm familiar with both and find adopting top home kit to studio use tends to work better than the other way around, if, durability and use are a fit and price isn't a major obstacle. I have yet to hear a Genelec speaker I could listen to at home yet they work well enough for their intended use. It's all rather relative and not all good or all bad and generally this sorts of things are designed to fill specific needs. The amount of latency for a good home hidef UPNP listening is negligible and no issue in use. Bringing that up as a reason for REDNET is a complex solution looking for a problem.


 
 One question and one question only: Have you heard it?
  
 Joel


----------



## astrostar59

goodvibes said:


> and favors low latency with error correction over buffering for accuracy. I'm not looking to digitally reformat and recover my music whether digital or analog. I can see this as great for real time pro use but I don't see myself ever going here for personal listening. Like most new formats, there is both good and bad. Early adopters concentrate on the good and the bad is usually discovered later, when practical applications are more scrutinized. Pro or studio kit isn't always better than Home kit. They have different needs and uses. I'm familiar with both and find adopting top home kit to studio use tends to work better than the other way around, if, durability and use are a fit and price isn't a major obstacle. I have yet to hear a Genelec speaker I could listen to at home yet they work well enough for their intended use. It's all rather relative and not all good or all bad and generally this sorts of things are designed to fill specific needs. The amount of latency for a good home hidef UPNP listening is negligible and no issue in use. Bringing that up as a reason for REDNET is a complex solution looking for a problem.


 
 Stop looking for reasons. Have you heard it? I used to believe USB was good, and before that a good CDP was good. Rednet has changed my mind. It is not good at all, is is amazingly good, like forget the gear good. Buy a Rednet them come back, or just take away your convincing strategies until you have heard something that you can then comment on in a detailed way (as you have tried to).


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> and favors low latency with error correction over buffering for accuracy. I'm not looking to digitally reformat and recover my music whether digital or analog. I can see this as great for real time pro use but I don't see myself ever going here for personal listening. Like most new formats, there is both good and bad. Early adopters concentrate on the good and the bad is usually discovered later, when practical applications are more scrutinized. Pro or studio kit isn't always better than Home kit. They have different needs and uses. I'm familiar with both and find adopting top home kit to studio use tends to work better than the other way around, if, durability and use are a fit and price isn't a major obstacle. I have yet to hear a Genelec speaker I could listen to at home yet they work well enough for their intended use. It's all rather relative and not all good or all bad and generally this sorts of things are designed to fill specific needs. The amount of latency for a good home hidef UPNP listening is negligible and no issue in use. Bringing that up as a reason for REDNET is a complex solution looking for a problem.


 

 All I can say is 'Listen' - everyone who has  - has been converted.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

I think a lot of people would convert and the yay- sayers would be a lot if the Rednet units were more user friendly and didn't require maybe desk space or a rack; user friendly as in plug and play with only drivers needed like a usb ddc.


----------



## rb2013

soundsgoodtome said:


> I think a lot of people would convert and the yay- sayers would be a lot if the Rednet units were more user friendly and didn't require maybe desk space or a rack; user friendly as in plug and play with only drivers needed like a usb ddc.


 

 Agree completely - but as someone posted over on that other unnamed forum - the set-up complexity is a bit over rated.  I struggle almost everyday with USB  - figgity drivers, any change at all in the USB data stream wrecks havoc.  Endless reboots to fix, with Rednet once set-up it very hard to go wrong. For example when I had the RN3 - I inserted a optical FMC in the Ethernet connection - no worries - fired the red box up and worked like a champ.
  
 Just did moved my F-1 USB to my main system to try out the new Startech/USB Flash drive experiment - took a day to get it sorted and working.
  
 BTW - the sound is excellent from these 256GB sticks in the Startech.  But not enough of an improvement to justify using in a AOIP set-up. In a USB with the Startech doing double duty (USB GI and SI improvement - as well as GI isolated solid state storage - all LPS powered) - definitely yes.


----------



## jabbr

goodvibes said:


> .... Bringing that up as a reason for REDNET is a complex solution looking for a problem.





You are turning the world (and argument) upside down.
NOBODY brought up low latency as a reason for the use of a Rednet in our home context, it is absolutely irrelevant AFAIC.
I gave the explanation because of the argument of another doubter who has never heared one, has little knowledge of the technology running it, and tries to drag the product down based on nothing.
 The low latency is part of the technology and Pro Audio requirements that brought these Rednet into existence.
And boy does it sound terrific in the home too!!! But I'm sure it doesn't sound good BECAUSE of the low latency.

BTW. The AOIP technology by Dante doesn't do error correction. Error correction is NOT part of the network technology used by Dante. So you're wrong there as well, as you are on comparing it with network technology used by UPNP, the only common ground is they both use an ethernet connection and that's about it!

Listen to a Rednet first before commenting on them!


----------



## grizzlybeast

rb2013 said:


> soundsgoodtome said:
> 
> 
> > I think a lot of people would convert and the yay- sayers would be a lot if the Rednet units were more user friendly and didn't require maybe desk space or a rack; user friendly as in plug and play with only drivers needed like a usb ddc.
> ...


 
 yup its is a set it and forget it. Except for the SR's
  
 However, this forces me to listen to albums as a whole now. Sort of like popping a record on. You have to change the Vinyl every time. You can't make a playlist with vinyl. Im cool with it as is.


----------



## Golfnutz

Sure, plug and play would be nice, but not really necessary. Especially if it's going to add to the price.
  
 Seems to me there are less issues with installing the firmware updates with the newer units. If you search, there are also some specific instructions on installation.
  
 Really, it's not that much different than installing any application on a PC. I've seen a lot worse with certain Windows updates.


----------



## gefski

When I listened to Andrew's rig at the Bellingham meet last spring, I liked it a bunch. But I've been watching from the weeds on this because 1) It's been a busy summer and 2) There were other system improvements I wanted to make. Since I'm still interested I have a couple basic questions.

Both Rednet and Arrakis installation guides suggest I may need something more in terms of Ethernet connectivity/switching. All we have in our home is a Verizon router with 4 Ethernet ports (10/100). Don't know anything about it. It runs everything in our house, but has nothing to do with my HeadFi other than my occasional streaming of Tidal. So do I need a dedicated system for audio, or????

OS X users--anyone use Audirvana+ and how is that working?

Recent posts here suggest the "fiddle-factor" is not as bad as I thought, so any basic help for this newbie will be appreciated!


----------



## grizzlybeast

I use audirvana plus and it works great.


----------



## 3X0

So my latency variance was mostly improved by setting the minimum CPU state to 100% in Windows. I believe this is equivalent to disabling Enhanced Intel SpeedStep (EIST) and/or setting the High Performance power profile. For my Haswell system this disables all of the intermediary processor states between 4.4GHz@1.2v and 1.2GHz@0.7v. Mean latency is still 1.7-1.8ms but LatencyMon doesn't indicate any problems and neither does listening.
  
 Interestingly this comes at little cost to thermal performance and appears to be benefiting my SSD read/write performance too.


----------



## johnjen

grizzlybeast said:


> yup its is a set it and forget it. Except for the SR's
> 
> However, this forces me to listen to albums as a whole now. Sort of like popping a record on. You have to change the Vinyl every time. You can't make a playlist with vinyl. Im cool with it as is.


 
 Not knowing what player you're using potentially makes what I'm about to write null and void…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 There are players that can perform SR up or down shift, in 'real' time, and as such the player can perform the sample rate conversion to a 'set' rate (RedNet Control), which is how I run.
  
 And if you are running windows then the Sample Rate Follows feature becomes an option as well.
 These are the only 2 ways I know about, of getting around this pesky fly in the ointment.
  
 Some just max everything out, (up sample everything to 192KHz) and leave it there, while others pick one of the 2 mid sample rates (88 or 96KHz).
 88.2KHz is the one I run because it's an exact double of the 44.1 CD resolution.
  
 And since I don't have a lot of albums at 96KHz and above (and very few 48KHz), I don't worry about them too much.
  
 In effect all of my redbook (44.1KHz) and 88.2 and 176.4 Khz tracks are all exact multiples of each other.
 And the 96 and 192Khz files are the 'orphans', so if I worry about maxing the SQ for those few files, I fuss with the buttons to switch the SR around to accommodate.
  
 Thus far this seems to work out rather well for me.
  
 Just something to consider.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> When I listened to Andrew's rig at the Bellingham meet last spring, I liked it a bunch. But I've been watching from the weeds on this because 1) It's been a busy summer and 2) There were other system improvements I wanted to make. Since I'm still interested I have a couple basic questions.
> 
> Both Rednet and Arrakis installation guides suggest I may need something more in terms of Ethernet connectivity/switching. All we have in our home is a Verizon router with 4 Ethernet ports (10/100). Don't know anything about it. It runs everything in our house, but has nothing to do with my HeadFi other than my occasional streaming of Tidal. So do I need a dedicated system for audio, or????
> 
> ...


 
 Those admonishments from Dante/RedNet are based upon Pro Audio use where the number of channels and thus the demand for bandwidth is (or can be) considerable.
  
 For our use the bandwidth requirements are miniscule, like 0.58*KB/s* (for 44.1) to 2.4*MB/s* (192KB/s) and you probably have at least a 100MB/s ethernet capable network.
 What this means is, as long as there are no 'bottlenecks', your existing network infrastructure should be way more than you need, especially when you run 44.1 into your Jggy.
  
 But if you do get drop outs (which is what would happen if the bits don't arrive in time) then the solution is a 2nd ethernet port from your iMac directly to the RedNet box.
 Or you could install a switch between your Mac and the Verizon router, and then run from that switch to the RedNet box.
  
 The fiddle factor also involves the learning curve of the new terms and their meaning and interaction etc., as much as the content of the sequence of installation.
  
 JJ


----------



## grizzlybeast

johnjen said:


> grizzlybeast said:
> 
> 
> > yup its is a set it and forget it. Except for the SR's
> ...


 
 Thanks!
  
 Could be placebo but I felt that playing lower sample rates with my system set to 96 and Audirvana set to upsample made the quality take a hit. I have left it mostly at 96 because most of my files are 96 or 44.1. Sometimes I leave it at 44.1. Its not a pain though to just switch it to 192 for certain albums (dont have many anyway).


----------



## gefski

johnjen said:


> Those admonishments from Dante/RedNet are based upon Pro Audio use where the number of channels and thus the demand for bandwidth is (or can be) considerable.
> 
> For our use the bandwidth requirements are miniscule, like 0.58*KB/s* (for 44.1) to 2.4*MB/s* (192KB/s) and you probably have at least a 100MB/s ethernet capable network.
> What this means is, as long as there are no 'bottlenecks', your existing network infrastructure should be way more than you need, especially when you run 44.1 into your Jggy.
> ...




Thanks JJ, very helpful!


----------



## johnjen

grizzlybeast said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Could be placebo but I felt that playing lower sample rates with my system set to 96 and Audirvana set to upsample made the quality take a hit. I have left it mostly at 96 because most of my files are 96 or 44.1. Sometimes I leave it at 44.1. Its not a pain though to just switch it to 192 for certain albums (dont have many anyway).


 
 As a test try upsampling to 88.2 using your 44.1 files and see if that also degrades or perhaps enhances those tracks.
 And try down sampling the 192 to 96 as well, just to figure if there is any advantage/disadvantage in that scheme.
  
 And I agree the differences between the up/down-sampling is subtle which is actually quite remarkable, given all that is going on in the renderer s/w.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> Thanks JJ, very helpful!


 
 :thumb
 :thumb
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

And following the example that MusigBoy set of using an akiko canister inside his RN3, I have borrowed a 2-wire stick (thanks BigPoppa 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) and attached it to the RN3 and my 3+.
 Again the changes are subtle and very slightly noticeable.
  
 I'll let it settle in and then remove it to get a better idea of its net effect.
  
 I figure a canister will yield a similar net result as my 1st canister which is now connected to my Dac and Rok amp.
 We'll see.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> As a test try upsampling to 88.2 using your 44.1 files and see if that also degrades or perhaps enhances those tracks.
> And try down sampling the 192 to 96 as well, just to figure if there is any advantage/disadvantage in that scheme.
> 
> And I agree the differences between the up/down-sampling is subtle which is actually quite remarkable, given all that is going on in the renderer s/w.
> ...


 

 I very much doubt any of that will improve quality. The whole reason DS DACs up sampled was to allow the filter to block noise above 18K. You are not doing that, so no point.
  
 Anyway, if you are using a DS DAC it will be up sampling in the DAC anyway, can't avoid that.


----------



## goodvibes

rb2013 said:


> All I can say is 'Listen' - everyone who has  - has been converted.


 
 I will but I don't need to be converted from USB. I totally agree with you about that.


----------



## astrostar59

goodvibes said:


> I will but I don't need to be converted from USB. I totally agree with you about that.


 

 Tech specs and endless technical diatribe is of no interest to me. For example I believed in the Delta-Sigma oversampling bull and that was for 20 years a big marketing con trick. I now use my ears.


----------



## goodvibes

astrostar59 said:


> Tech specs and endless technical diatribe is of no interest to me. For example I believed in the Delta-Sigma oversampling bull and that was for 20 years a big marketing con trick. I now use my ears.


 
 as do I and I never believed in Delta Sigma as something better. I also am not a fan of converting on the fly which is part of this protocol but will listen when I can as anything can be faulted.
  
  My ears tell me that my source is not limiting. I will wait and listen to Rednet for a final opinion but don't expect me to use your ears to tell which is better.
  
 I can easily differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192 wav dubs on what I use and can compare to what was just recorded in the same room by loading a dig file to my dedicated server or just use the recorder (no PCs). The upnp setup beats a Nagra 6 with linear supply direct or if it's feeding the same costly ladder DAC (Naim NDS) in the streaming setup. Anything can be beat but really, I have a little issue with the perceived 'faults' of UPNP when implemented optimumly. Sure, what I'm using is more costly than most use but when comparing formats, one needs to compare the best offered by each. This isn't airplay. I don't think there needs to be a villian for Rednet to be viable. It will be great for it's purpose and perhaps more. I actually hope it's as good as advertised for home use but can see why it may not be best at everything.


----------



## rb2013

grizzlybeast said:


> yup its is a set it and forget it. Except for the SR's
> 
> However, this forces me to listen to albums as a whole now. Sort of like popping a record on. You have to change the Vinyl every time. You can't make a playlist with vinyl. Im cool with it as is.


 
 How often do you mix tracks with different SR's in one playlist?  For me it's usually Redbook WAV in one, Hi Res 32/176 digtialized LP's in another, etc...so no need to change SR after each album.
  
 Or just use a resampler like SoX in Foobar and set the the resampler to SR.  I really like what SoX does for 16/44 Redbook files.
  
 But Dante can now do SR following


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> as do I and I never believed in Delta Sigma as something better. I also am not a fan of converting on the fly which is part of this protocol but will listen when I can as anything can be faulted.
> 
> My ears tell me that my source is not limiting. I will wait and listen to Rednet for a final opinion but don't expect me to use your ears to tell which is better.
> 
> I can easily differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192 wav dubs on what I use and can compare to what was just recorded in the same room by loading a dig file to my dedicated server or just use the recorder (no PCs). The upnp setup beats a Nagra 6 with linear supply direct or if it's feeding the same costly ladder DAC (Naim NDS) in the streaming setup. Anything can be beat but really, I have a little issue with the perceived 'faults' of UPNP when implemented optimumly. Sure, what I'm using is more costly than most use but when comparing formats, one needs to compare the best offered by each. This isn't airplay. I don't think there needs to be a villian for Rednet to be viable. It will be great for it's purpose and perhaps more. I actually hope it's as good as advertised for home use but can see why it may not be best at everything.


 

 If your UnNP is so great - why are you reading this thread?  Something must be lacking in your source or you wouldn't be searching for alternatives...


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> Not knowing what player you're using potentially makes what I'm about to write null and void…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I did a lot experimentation with samplers in Foobar - SRC, SSRC, SoX, etc...  Most depreciated the SQ when upsampling redbook - but not SoX.  I wouldn't play a redbook track without it.
  
 Nice SQ improvement whether upsampling redbook to 96k to my R2R PCM1704U-K DAC60 or 192k to my APL.  176k and 192k and even DxD files down sample to appropriate SR to good effect as well.  This seems to hold for my uber usb chain or AOIP Dante chain.


----------



## Tboooe

rb2013 said:


> I did a lot experimentation with samplers in Foobar - SRC, SSRC, SoX, etc...  Most depreciated the SQ when upsampling redbook - but not SoX.  I wouldn't play a redbook track without it.
> 
> Nice SQ improvement whether upsampling redbook to 96k to my R2R PCM1704U-K DAC60 or 192k to my APL.  176k and 192k and even DxD files down sample to appropriate SR to good effect as well.  This seems to hold for my uber usb chain or AOIP Dante chain.


 
 rb, sorry if this has been asked but have you tried HQPlayer?  Curious what think versus Foobar.


----------



## rb2013

tboooe said:


> rb, sorry if this has been asked but have you tried HQPlayer?  Curious what think versus Foobar.


 

 No - and I'm sure it's SQ is very good - but the interface is not spectacular.  The SQ of FB2K is very good and I know how to tweek to the nth degree.  If anyone has tried Foo without SoX they are really missing out on what it's capable of.
  
 I don't see me leaving Foobar anytime soon.  Compared to the SQ with iTunes - iTunes is a joke - but that's not saying much.
  
 Here is an interesting comparison going PCM>DSD:
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/head-head-jrmc19-foobar-sacd-and-hq-player-doing-cd-standard-lpcm-sampled-16-bits-and-44-100-times-second-aimed-reproducing-sound-20-20-000hz-direct-stream-digital-and-native-direct-stream-digital-20687/
  


> *Redbook​**to DSD conversion -​*_voices and acoustic instruments the big winners, more texture and detail​_​ JRMC 19​Redbook>​DSD128 results are very good (CPU load 13%)​​ Foobar + SACD in Integer (?) mode >​DSD256 is even better, jaw dropping for me as I have never heard​Redbookthis good. We almost gave up on Foobar until we switched to non 32 bit Floating Point mode (therefore Integer mode ?) in the SACD plug-in, and then the SQ difference was night and day (CPU load 13%).​​ ​ What was also interesting was comparing Foobar+SACD converting to DSD64 (waste of time, a wet blanket), DSD128 very good, slightly better than JRMC19, and then superb with DSD256 in a class by itself.​​ HQ Player is good but the CPU load is much higher (40 %) and this might be negatively impacting the sound we could get from HQ Player, the results were not as good as the other two players. We had expected HQ Player to be the best, further investigation and tweaking is required.​


 
  
 More good info on the comparisons between XXXplayer, HQplayer and FB2K:
 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,93807.0.html


----------



## Golfnutz

Not running DSD, but I am upsampling to 176.4 w/sinc filter.
  

  
 Only reason for posting is to give you an idea of CPU load.


----------



## goodvibes

rb2013 said:


> If your UnNP is so great - why are you reading this thread?  Something must be lacking in your source or you wouldn't be searching for alternatives...


 
 Because I like music, technology and may have a use for it at some point. Not everything needs to be the absolute best at everything to be the right thing for something. Why are you so defensive of the tech and offensive to posters at the same time? My posts are neither aggressive nor dismissive and I didn't see this as a REDNET appreciation thread but you're right, I have no need to be insulted here, multiple times. I left for a few weeks earlier after a couple posts for the same reason and here we are again. If you don't want any scrutiny, which is part of good science, make it an appreciation thread.
  
 I honestly wish you well and hope you're more open to other views in the future.


----------



## kazsud

Does anyone on here w/ a rednet happen to live near Philadelphia?


----------



## patrikh

Switched sample rate to 96k and got an improvement in soundstage. Although spotify is 44k and I'm running NOS, this sounds better to me.


----------



## goodvibes

patrikh said:


> Switched sample rate to 96k and got an improvement in soundstage. Although spotify is 44k and I'm running NOS, this sounds better to me.


 
 One last post. Try 88 or 176 if available. Less interpolation is usually a good thing.


----------



## patrikh

goodvibes said:


> One last post. Try 88 or 176 if available. Less interpolation is usually a good thing.


 

 Will do!


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> I very much doubt any of that will improve quality. The whole reason DS DACs up sampled was to allow the filter to block noise above 18K. You are not doing that, so no point.
> 
> Anyway, if you are using a DS DAC it will be up sampling in the DAC anyway, can't avoid that.


 
 My aim was not to improve the SQ but to not loose any, and if it were improved it would be icing on the cake so to speak.
  
 And while I do hear subtle differences, they are well under my *ToP* (Threshold of Perceptibility), which is my means of determining if any changes make a step in either direction.
  
 And my goal was to find a simplified approach to feeding my RN3 so as to not have to fuss much at all, unless I wanted to.
  
  
  
 And lastly sox has been added to the latest version of Jriver Media Center and it does contribute to better SQ.
 Not by a huge amount (at least in my system) but it does help.
  
 JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

The measurements and explanations of the power supply noise in your DIY thread was very good info JJ. Now to think what these units sound like with a linear power supply instead of the noisy stepped ones that it comes with.


----------



## Iving

goodvibes said:


> If you don't want any scrutiny, which is part of good science, make it an appreciation thread.


 
  
 Science for the most part involves experimentation or an *empirical* approach (= "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"). Scientists "scrutinise" by *replicating* other people's results; i.e., subjecting  them to "falsification". You can't "falsify" someone else's observations from the armchair rather than the laboratory. Good reviews tend to focus more on "scrutinising" poor methodology - but that could hardly apply here where the weight of "evidence" (first hand aural experience) is so unmissable. Folks responding to you (as I) are trying to say that you have to hear a RedNet to understand what it can deliver in SQ terms. Those on this thread that have done so do tend to appreciate it. I can understand that if you've invested significantly in an alternative, cognitive dissonance may restrain your willingness to experiment, and perhaps it is difficult to road test these boxes before buying.


----------



## Iving

goodvibes said:


> One last post. Try 88 or 176 if available. Less interpolation is usually a good thing.


 
  
 My head tells me this should be so. But I keep listening to redbook upsampled to 192 instead of 176.4 - because of first hand experience. I enjoy 192 more - I think!


----------



## johnjen

soundsgoodtome said:


> The measurements and explanations of the power supply noise in your DIY thread was very good info JJ. Now to think what these units sound like with a linear power supply instead of the noisy stepped ones that it comes with.


 
 Thanks!
  
 And yeah the lesson from using the LPS on the Fibre Media Converter, if it were applied to the RN3 or the RND16 etc., should yield some welcome SQ changes.
  
 And to that end I may have found a triple output LPS that won't break the bank, even if it is ugly, and needs a box to put it into, etc.
  
 At least it will allow for another experiment to test to see what would happen with swapping out the SMPS for a decent (2mv rms, 3mv P-P, rated noise) linear PSU.
  
 The only unknown left to sleuth out is, do these RedNet boxes actually use the 51 volts being supplied by the stock SMPS, or can we ignore that voltage when we replace the SMPS.
 I'm hoping it can be ignored…
  
 And the last hitch in the git along is the lead time (4-6 weeks) for the triple PSU's I've found, but the price ≈ $100 each is attractive in and of itself.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

iving said:


> My head tells me this should be so. But I keep listening to redbook upsampled to 192 instead of 176.4 - because of first hand experience. I enjoy 192 more - I think!


 
 In my experiments I've tried the 192 and the 96 and the 88 Khz SR's using both step up and step down sample rate conversions.
 The differences are slight, and are not, OMG! this is WAY better…
  
 This to me is a high praise in that we can up sample and down sample with minimal differences in terms of SQ changes.
 This isn't to say there are no differences, but it seems like sticking with even multiples (x2, /2) is slightly better than jumping across the 44.1 to 48KHz (and their multiples thereof) sample rate series.
 Which is why I use the 88.2 as my SR of choice.
  
 JJ


----------



## goodvibes

iving said:


> Science for the most part involves experimentation or an *empirical* approach (= "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"). Scientists "scrutinise" by *replicating* other people's results; i.e., subjecting  them to "falsification". You can't "falsify" someone else's observations from the armchair rather than the laboratory. Good reviews tend to focus more on "scrutinising" poor methodology - but that could hardly apply here where the weight of "evidence" (first hand aural experience) is so unmissable. Folks responding to you (as I) are trying to say that you have to hear a RedNet to understand what it can deliver in SQ terms. Those on this thread that have done so do tend to appreciate it. I can understand that if you've invested significantly in an alternative, cognitive dissonance may restrain your willingness to experiment, and perhaps it is difficult to road test these boxes before buying.


 
  I reserve the right to respond to quotes.
  
 Just to be clear. The cost of a REDNET setup isn't an issue and I readily admit to not hearing it so have no 1st hand experience of performance nor have ever implied as much. That was never in question. Just pointing out what may or may not be limitations. I remember when USB via Itunes and before that, CDs were perfect sound forever and praised. I never accepted either of those 'truths' either, regardless of what others may have 'heard' or argued. Other's 1st hand experience is not first hand for me. I currently have no opinion of the actual sound of Rednet and never said I did. I do believe this could be much better than USB because, for me, USB isn't very good. Like I said, I was already using JET clocking via firewire a decade ago and know it's a better way. I appreciate that Rednet uses it as well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 My point was that with UPNP, establishing a clean stream at the source is what's needed for a good result and clocking doesn't require a solution because all playback is localized within the renderer. With a good all in one renderer and no need for an additional SPdif or other digital interface, clocking is a non issue to the ability of the playback device which is a given in every setup.  The advantage of rednet isn't as much accuracy as it's realtime aspects which are great. That doesn't mean it isn't accurate (enough or very) but the emphasis is realtime with sufficient accuracy. It won't clock better than proper UPNP nor be more bit correct than proper UPNP. In fact, it could be less so but not necessarily so. It will have significantly less latency for real time type work but that isn't really important for home use. None of that means it isn't accurate or at least accurate enough to be invisible for most or even all but they are points worth making even if you don't want to hear them. Being this sensitive to these points does not make you appear more objective.
  
 If there's someone with a setup in Chicago, I'd love to hear it and compare. PM me.


----------



## Iving

goodvibes said:


> I reserve the right to respond to quotes.
> 
> Just to be clear. The cost of a REDNET setup isn't an issue and I readily admit to not hearing it so have no 1st hand experience of performance nor have ever implied as much. That was never in question. Just pointing out what may or may not be limitations. I remember when USB via Itunes and before that, CDs were perfect sound forever and praised. I never accepted either of those 'truths' either, regardless of what others may have 'heard' or argued. Other's 1st hand experience is not first hand for me. I currently have no opinion of the actual sound of Rednet and never said I did. I do believe this could be much better than USB because, for me, USB isn't very good. Like I said, I was already using JET clocking via firewire a decade ago and know it's a better way. I appreciate that Rednet uses it as well.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Arguing that one football team has better credentials than another when you've never attended a match between them is hardly legitimate "scrutiny". And I object to your (impolite) appropriation of "science" in a challenge to this thread when you said, "If you don't want any scrutiny, which is part of good science, make it an appreciation thread". That is my only sensitivity to what you are saying, and I have already explained why. Your remarks about UPnP don't mean anything to me - I am no longer interested in UPnP. This isn't a UPnP thread.


----------



## astrostar59

Oh my goodness 'goodvibes' lets drop the verbage and get to hear the thing, please. Hearing is believing. I for one am now 100% happy with digital after a 20 year love/hate affair with it.
  
 Of course, AOIP is part of the story, you still need a good server, and then a good DAC and HPs or speakers. But getting USB out of the chain is a no brainer to me now. All those silly USB devices and money spent and it never got a clean sound. That saw tooth treble and on/off modulation in the high registers used to drive me nuts. The small soundstage and restricted dynamics, a haze about everything, the false detail. I could go on.
  
 What we probably need now is an audiophile AOIP box that is a bit smaller and less channels, probably in black and more plug n play. Then it will be flying off the shelves! Hell, I may just make one myself.... what number is my bank manager?


----------



## Iving

> saw tooth treble and on/off modulation in the high registers used to drive me nuts. The small soundstage and restricted dynamics, a haze about everything, the false detail


 
  
 ... matches my first hand experience (and nearly matches my own capacity for describing it )


> Hell, I may just make one myself.... what number is my bank manager?


 
  
 lol - Go astro


----------



## goodvibes

I'm open. Chill guys. Can't wait to hear it. I'm hoping there's someone in this big city willing to help with a compare. Seems the criticism is of me and not my tech points so I'm good. The notion put forth that I'm protecting my investment with bias is what got this going and honestly, I'm all for cheaper and better so lets move on. I have never said it was worse than UPNP. Just don't understand why it would be better for home use and pointing at differences. I'm off till I get a listen and I hope someone PMs me with an opportunity. Cheers all.


----------



## Iving

goodvibes said:


> Just don't understand why it would be better for home use


 
  
 My main criteria for choosing equipment are SQ and affordability.
 It is Pro Audio gear. Some domestic audiophiles don't like that - but I don't mind it at all - in fact I like the robust feel.
 Some folks don't like that these interfaces are red - but I don't mind the colour at all. (I like people and things just as they were created - you know - up to a point.)
 So, for me, "better for home use" just translates as "sounds better and I can afford it" (even if I am deluded on that latter count).
 Good luck with an audition.
 I don't think we have encountered anybody yet who has dismissed the RedNets on SQ grounds after any kind of protracted hearing.


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> Not running DSD, but I am upsampling to 176.4 w/sinc filter.
> 
> 
> 
> Only reason for posting is to give you an idea of CPU load.


 

 What CPU?  A iCore 7 is going to have a lower load then the iCore 5 they used.  One reason I'm a little hesitant to move away from the 7 to the lower processing N3150 Quad cores.
  
 The Dante DVS does need to processing power, esp at the highest SR rates.


----------



## rb2013

goodvibes said:


> Because I like music, technology and may have a use for it at some point. Not everything needs to be the absolute best at everything to be the right thing for something. Why are you so defensive of the tech and offensive to posters at the same time? My posts are neither aggressive nor dismissive and I didn't see this as a REDNET appreciation thread but you're right, I have no need to be insulted here, multiple times. I left for a few weeks earlier after a couple posts for the same reason and here we are again. If you don't want any scrutiny, which is part of good science, make it an appreciation thread.
> 
> I honestly wish you well and hope you're more open to other views in the future.


 

 I'm all for more opinions - but I'm skeptical of those who declare their USB or UpNP/DNLA chains better then AOIP (whether DANTE or RAVENNA) - without ever hearing them.  Then go on and on theorizing as to why it sounds inferior. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  If you read the beginning of this thread - many, who have not heard, tried shooting down AOIP in the beginning.  Fortunately we persisted  - armed with our own listening experience.  In the many months since - quite a few others have tried the Rednet boxes and have come away very impressed.  You're a little late to the AOIP skeptics dance.  That's why I wonder why you spend so much energy fighting that losing battle?  Just to rain on other's parade?
  
 I welcome any knowledgeable debate - and I certainly don't think we have reached computer Nirvana with DANTE - it does have it's warts.  But to just crash the party with silly critiques of this technology is going to get push back. Posting inaccurate, and somewhat silly stuff is going to get rebuked - sorry if you don't like that.  I cut you some slack from your posting - as you are new to this thread - but to set the record straight.  You wrote:


> 10/23/16 at 7:56am
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Wrong on the 'error correction' and sorry to break the news to you - but almost all recorded music you hear has been 'reformatted and recovered' - both digital and analog.  How do you think those grooves get into the LP?  Pits in those CD's?  Bits get turned into analog signals your amps can use? Nobody ever said that 'Pro or studio kit' is better then 'Home kit' - where did you get that impression?  If you have read some of this thread - you will see my and others - criticism of Pro Audio gear.  I have pointed out the flawed SMPS power supplies as a big one.  You mention my recommending AOIP over UpNP/DNLA - saying Rednet is a 'complex solution' to a non-existent problem with UpNP/DNLA - and that's NOT complicated??
  
  
 BTW this is audio and NOT science - but if you want to read about the hypocrisy in science - try reading Mathematician and Physicist Peter Woit's 'Not Even Wrong'.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> And lastly sox has been added to the latest version of Jriver Media Center and it does contribute to better SQ. Not by a huge amount (at least in my system) but it does help.
> 
> JJ


 
 Good to know on the JMC add of SoX.  Thanks
  


iving said:


> You can't "falsify" someone else's observations from the armchair rather than the laboratory. Good reviews tend to focus more on "scrutinising" poor methodology - but that could hardly apply here where the weight of "evidence" (first hand aural experience) is so unmissable. Folks responding to you (as I) are trying to say that you have to hear a RedNet to understand what it can deliver in SQ terms. Those on this thread that have done so do tend to appreciate it.


 
 Well said my friend!
  


iving said:


> My head tells me this should be so. But I keep listening to redbook upsampled to 192 instead of 176.4 - because of first hand experience. I enjoy 192 more - I think!


 
 Same here - going to 192k with the SoX upsampler better then 176k for 44k Redbook files.  Same for 96k vs 88k with my R2R DAC.
  


johnjen said:


> Thanks!
> 
> And yeah the lesson from using the LPS on the Fibre Media Converter, if it were applied to the RN3 or the RND16 etc., should yield some welcome SQ changes.
> 
> ...


 
 Nice - looking froward to reading more about that.  That high voltage is an issue.  And why something like the external DC powered Arrakis Simple-IP AES3 XLR may be an interesting path.
 http://arrakis-systems.com/pdfs/Simple-IP-8A&D%20Manual.pdf
 I see it does not do 176k so it likely has the the Brooklyn I Dante card - like the RN3.  Wonder what the DC input voltage is?


----------



## Fredoo

After following this topic quite some time with interest, does anyone have an impression when the first simplified AOIP DDC or DAC -targeted at home users- will hit the market?? Either from the established pro-audio firms (i.e. Burl, Focusrite,..) of an innovative consumer HiFi brand (i.e. Schiit, ..).


----------



## jabbr

fredoo said:


> After following this topic quite some time with interest, does anyone have an impression when the first simplified AOIP DDC or DAC -targeted at home users- will hit the market?? Either from the established pro-audio firms (i.e. Burl, Focusrite,..) of an innovative consumer HiFi brand (i.e. Schiit, ..).


 
 My idea is probably never or many years away


----------



## 3X0

fredoo said:


> After following this topic quite some time with interest, does anyone have an impression when the first simplified AOIP DDC or DAC -targeted at home users- will hit the market?? Either from the established pro-audio firms (i.e. Burl, Focusrite,..) of an innovative consumer HiFi brand (i.e. Schiit, ..).


 
 One or two years ago.
  
 http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie5/560/index.php
 http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie7/760/index.php
  
 US$35k and US$50k respectively.


----------



## InsanityOne

3x0 said:


> One or two years ago.
> 
> http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie5/560/index.php
> http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie7/760/index.php
> ...


 
 I don't think I would consider $35,000 - $50,000 anywhere near "targeted at home users", and probably not even "targeted at pro users" I am not sure what makes those two DACs special but that is "targeted at .0001% of users" pricing.
  
 I don't think it is crazy to assume that within the next few years we will see fully AOIP capable DACs in the $500 - $1000 range, I couldn't see prices going much below $500 though as the BK2 card alone costs somewhere around $200 - $300, unless Audinate has some really good bulk pricing that we don't know about.
  
 ASIDE: The device I am still _very _curious about is the Arrakis Simple IP. Is it a DAC, or just a converter like a RedNet device? At $999 it is an extremely tempting buy if it has a DAC. I cannot find any information about it anywhere, and the website is not very insightful. But, if it doesn't have a DAC then you might as well just stick to hunting for a used RN3 for ~$700.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## 3X0

insanityone said:


> I don't think it is crazy to assume that within the next few years we will see fully AOIP capable DACs in the $500 - $1000 range, I couldn't see prices going much below $500 though as the BK2 card alone costs somewhere around $200 - $300, unless Audinate has some really good bulk pricing that we don't know about.


 
 If that Audinate Brooklyn card pricing is accurate, it is unlikely we would see a AOIP DAC solution that is cheaper than even the RedNet 3. It would need to use something outside of the Brooklyn cards to actually be profitable.


----------



## goodvibes

rb2013 said:


> I'm all for more opinions - but I'm skeptical of those who declare their USB or UpNP/DNLA chains better then AOIP (whether DANTE or RAVENNA) - without ever hearing them.  Then go on and on theorizing as to why it sounds inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Never claimed UPNP was better, said I didn't like USB, Transcoding is different than encoding or decoding but whatever, man. Do you guys buy those pointed sticks or widdle them yourselves?


----------



## gefski

insanityone said:


> ASIDE: The device I am still _very _curious about is the Arrakis Simple IP. Is it a DAC, or just a converter like a RedNet device? At $999 it is an extremely tempting buy if it has a DAC. I cannot find any information about it anywhere, and the website is not very insightful. But, if it doesn't have a DAC then you might as well just stick to hunting for a used RN3 for ~$700.
> 
> - InsanityOne




Looks like a Rednet 3 type device with an outboard power supply and AIF outputs. I'm eyeballing it because its skinny form factor would better fit my desktop. The minimal information suggests it may be a relatively new product for them, but they're a 30+ year old U.S. company.


----------



## Golfnutz

rb2013 said:


> What CPU?  A iCore 7 is going to have a lower load then the iCore 5 they used.  One reason I'm a little hesitant to move away from the 7 to the lower processing N3150 Quad cores.
> 
> The Dante DVS does need to processing power, esp at the highest SR rates.


 

 Yes, Intel 6700k.
  
 That post was over 2 years ago, and I believe there have been enhancements to reduce CPU load.
  
 I'm not trying to sell or defend HQP, just wanted to show how low the CPU load could be.


----------



## johnjen

insanityone said:


> snip
> ASIDE: The device I am still _very _curious about is the Arrakis Simple IP. Is it a DAC, or just a converter like a RedNet device? At $999 it is an extremely tempting buy if it has a DAC. I cannot find any information about it anywhere, and the website is not very insightful. But, if it doesn't have a DAC then you might as well just stick to hunting for a used RN3 for ~$700.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
 It appears to be an Dante ethernet to AES (the IP-D version) converter much like the RedNet boxes.
 It is roughly the same price as the RedNet 3 but with fewer channels and no front panel indicators.
 But it does use the standard XLR connectors instead of a DB-25, which is a bit more convenient.
  
 IOW not a dac, it's just a bridge from ethernet to AES.
 And there is no indication as to what type of PS it comes with (SMPS or LPS) and my guess is, it's supplied with a SMPS, due to the 'universal' ac voltage input range (100-240vac).
  
 JJ


----------



## motberg

johnjen said:


> It appears to be an Dante ethernet to AES (the IP-D version) converter much like the RedNet boxes.
> It is roughly the same price as the RedNet 3 but with fewer channels and no front panel indicators.
> But it does use the standard XLR connectors instead of a DB-25, which is a bit more convenient.
> 
> ...


 

 This is interesting from the specs:
 Sample Rates - 44.1 / 48/88.2 / 96 / *176.4* / 192kHz
 That along with the size, XLR output, color, and external PS could make it somewhat more convenient/upgrade-able than the RN3
  
 I just wonder how much of the AOIP sound improvement is actually due to the SPDIF/AES conversion implementation vs. the Dante data transmission method though..
 Focusrite seem to have a solid reputation for exceptional SQ and I think sometimes that is overlooked as an important factor in what you guys have been hearing...


----------



## johnjen

Yes, I agree it is comparable to an RN3 but with the Brooklyn II card (it has the 176.4KHz) instead of the v.1 Brooklyn card.
 And I must confess having the operational status lights available to tell me what is happening is quite handy at times, especially when I'm fussing with the knobs and buttons.
  
 As for the SPDIF/AES vs the remaining hardware/software implementation…
 That's a good question and I doubt there is a clear cut answer.
  
 For myself in my system the AES was clearly superior to the SPDIF data path, which in turn was clearly superior to the…
  
 I did read where the designer of the RedNet series talked about keeping EVERYTHING running in balanced mode from input to output, along with paying careful attention to a myriad of other design details all focused upon maximizing the SQ.
  
 And that there are further tweaks which can be applied as well, (Mutecs, word clocks, LPS's, etc.) only says these designs can scale quite well too, which also speaks to the thoroughness of the design.
  
 JJ


----------



## artur9

Anyone willing to try this thing to see how it compares to the Rednet+DAC solutions? *Amphe-Dante RJ45 Audio Adapter with Two XLR Outputs. *It's cheaper than a Sonos:Connect.
  
 I wish they made that same thing with just a single XLR AES output.


----------



## PCWar

I'm geeting into the AOIP train as well. Pretty much followed all recommendations from rb2013 starting from the Gustard U12. Then changed for the Breeze Audio U8 and finally got the Sinxger F1-U.
  
 I personally don't find too much value on scoring audio quality but I should give him credit on identifying that really each of these DDCs have been at least technically an upgrade to each other. Followed this thread from it's genesis and am really curious to see if AOIP is real or hype.
  
 During my long and expensive journey with audio I'm learned to limit a lot expectation bias. Just to render the idea I changed so many IEMs through the years and now I have only 1 pair of them which I sold 2 times and purchased 3 times. The Sony EX1000 which I recently got for ~300USD. I found nothing even north of 1K beats them for me.
  
 That's why I decided to go for the ultimate investment and purchased the *Atterotech unDaes-o interface *and a *Canare 110/75 impedance transformer* to finally input to the SPDIF of my Theta Generation V dac. Down the chain I have an Auralic Taurus amp driving my SD modded HD800. 
  
 Atterotech unDaes-o is limited to 24/96 but that's perfectly fine with me since 99% of my library consists of redbook files. 
  
 Expect to have the unit by end of next week and will compare it to the Singxer F1.


----------



## rb2013

fredoo said:


> After following this topic quite some time with interest, does anyone have an impression when the first simplified AOIP DDC or DAC -targeted at home users- will hit the market?? Either from the established pro-audio firms (i.e. Burl, Focusrite,..) of an innovative consumer HiFi brand (i.e. Schiit, ..).


 

 Well the first already has - Merging Tech NADAC - but this is a high end audio unit and way overpriced.  Most l likely you will see Focusrite come out with a Scarlett version for around $500.  Same thing happened with USB - now you have the $300 Scarlett 18i8.
  
 Still looking for pricing on this one:
 Looks very interesting - but no details yet:
 Fairlight Frames MX500 -
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/30VA-LPS-DC-9V-3A-Linear-Power-Supply-psu-option-12V-15V-18V-24V-for-AMP-HiFi/131861257445?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26a
  



> Lastly, the Dante-powered MSX500 compact desktop unit with 4 physical slots, of which 3 are wired. This configuration is ideal when Audio over IP is a requirement, but you only need limited I/O, or you need a flexible solution that supports AoIP on-the-go.​


----------



## rb2013

3x0 said:


> One or two years ago.
> 
> http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie5/560/index.php
> http://www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie7/760/index.php
> ...


 

 This is a 'steal' at $11k - LOL!
 http://nadac.merging.com/nadac
  
 I see a Ethernet port - but does it do AOIP - or UpNP?


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> I don't think I would consider $35,000 - $50,000 anywhere near "targeted at home users", and probably not even "targeted at pro users" I am not sure what makes those two DACs special but that is "targeted at .0001% of users" pricing.
> 
> I don't think it is crazy to assume that within the next few years we will see fully AOIP capable DACs in the $500 - $1000 range, I couldn't see prices going much below $500 though as the BK2 card alone costs somewhere around $200 - $300, unless Audinate has some really good bulk pricing that we don't know about.
> 
> ...


 

 The Arrakis is a DDC - similar to the RN3.  The advantages are it has AES digital sockets (vs DB25 on the RN3), and a ext DC port port.  So using a LPS would be easier - you would have to make a DC cable though to fit their socket.  Downside - no WClock input, no JetPLL?, need to see a board photo.


----------



## rb2013

3x0 said:


> If that Audinate Brooklyn card pricing is accurate, it is unlikely we would see a AOIP DAC solution that is cheaper than even the RedNet 3. It would need to use something outside of the Brooklyn cards to actually be profitable.


 

 You can buy a full DANTE Brooklyn II card for the BURL for $250 retail...just need a control interface board to mount it to.  I sure wholesale they're 1/2 that.
  
 Vintage King has them for $185.
 http://vintageking.com/burl-audio-bkii-card-for-b2-dac


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> Yes, Intel 6700k.
> 
> That post was over 2 years ago, and I believe there have been enhancements to reduce CPU load.
> 
> I'm not trying to sell or defend HQP, just wanted to show how low the CPU load could be.


 

 I believe you are right  - later in the thread they changed some setting and that dropped CPU load - and improved the SQ to surpass Foobar and JMRC.  But that was a PCM>DSD conversion - did they use SoX - no.  I have to say that the foobar DSD>PCM converter is excellent.


----------



## rb2013

motberg said:


> This is interesting from the specs:
> Sample Rates - 44.1 / 48/88.2 / 96 / *176.4* / 192kHz


 
 I know it says 176.4k on the front page - but note the double asterisks.   If you open the manual - the DANTE DVS has 176.4k with the double asterisks as well.  But under the SIMPLE-IP-8D specs it shows -


> SIMPLE-IP-8D Digital Inputs Number 8 mono, (4 stereo) Connectors XLR (qty 4) Sample rates 32/44.1/48/96/192kHz Clock DANTE network clock Digital Outputs Number 8 mono, (4 stereo) Connectors XLR (qty 4) Sample rates 32/44.1/48/96/192kHz Clock DANTE network clock Note The Simple-IP-8D does not have sample rate converters. Whatever sample rate is received at a digital input will be the sample rate sent out an assigned digital output


 
 Note the 88k & 176k are missing!  But 192k is there - so it's not a Dante Optimo chip - and most likely the BK 1 card like the RN3.
 http://arrakis-systems.com/pdfs/Simple-IP-8A&D%20Manual.pdf
  
 Also note the SIMPLE-IP-8A - is a DAC with DANTE input - but the analog outputs are on rj-45's not RCA's.
  


johnjen said:


> Yes, I agree it is comparable to an RN3 but with the Brooklyn II card (it has the 176.4KHz) instead of the v.1 Brooklyn card.


 
 See above


----------



## JayNYC

pcwar said:


> <snip>
> That's why I decided to go for the ultimate investment and purchased the *Atterotech unDaes-o interface *and a *Canare 110/75 impedance transformer* to finally input to the SPDIF of my Theta Generation V dac. Down the chain I have an Auralic Taurus amp driving my SD modded HD800.
> 
> Atterotech unDaes-o is limited to 24/96 but that's perfectly fine with me since 99% of my library consists of redbook files.
> ...


 
 PCWar -- very, very, very interested in your reaction to the unDAES.  Ideally someone could lend you a RN3/D16AES for comparison....Also curious to know the rest of your listening system.  The reason I did not go with the unDAES is because I don't like sample rate conversion, and wanted Rednet to perform Sample Rate Follow on Rednet devices.


----------



## PCWar

That would have been great Jay. I currently use a Dell XPS 13 and a Furutech usb cable that also powers the Singxer F1. Nothing fancy since wanted to go the AOIP route as soon I got the F1 and not upgrade in full the DDC route. Also have a Chord Hugo.


----------



## rb2013

pcwar said:


> I'm geeting into the AOIP train as well. Pretty much followed all recommendations from rb2013 starting from the Gustard U12. Then changed for the Breeze Audio U8 and finally got the Sinxger F1-U.
> 
> I personally don't find too much value on scoring audio quality but I should give him credit on identifying that really each of these DDCs have been at least technically an upgrade to each other. Followed this thread from it's genesis and am really curious to see if AOIP is real or hype.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for the kind words this has been an interesting year so far for computer audio.  Least anyone think I'm an AOIP snob - I still run a Uber chained F-1 USB DDC in my office. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 And it sounds excellent!
  
 Just know (as has been posted here many times) - the Atterotech is not the totl DANTE Brooklyn implementation.  It uses a the DANTE Ultimo chipset - so no dedicated XO clock, or full FPGA processor - like on the Brooklyn 1 & 2 cards.
  
 This is the reason the Atterotech is so much cheaper and limited to 96k.  It will be interesting to get your take on it.
  
 BTW the lower cost Rednet 2 AM uses the same chip and has analog outs and a HP out.  But unfortunately no digital output.
  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-ultimo

  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-brooklyn-ii


----------



## PCWar

So it's "best" DDC versus "just" AOIP solution comparison. If the advantage really comes more from skipping the USB it looks like a fair comparison to me.


----------



## Golfnutz

pcwar said:


> That would have been great Jay. I currently use a Dell XPS 13 and a Furutech usb cable that also powers the Singxer F1. Nothing fancy since wanted to go the AOIP route as soon I got the F1 and not upgrade in full the DDC route. Also have a Chord Hugo.


 
 This may or may not affect you. Here are the results from latencymon on my Dell XPS 13. I haven't bothered trying to change/fix anything because I use a different PC for music. This is just some information for you, nothing else.


----------



## PCWar

Thanks for that. Fortunately I have 2 other desktops and a MBP 2013 too. I find the dell the best still with my F1.


----------



## rb2013

pcwar said:


> So it's "best" DDC versus "just" AOIP solution comparison. If the advantage really comes more from skipping the USB it looks like a fair comparison to me.


 

 Yes it 'just' AOIP - but who knows - no one tried that Ultimo chip yet.  Not at least having commented here.
  
 So you'll be the first.


----------



## joelha

Ever since I updated the Rednet control software (now with automatic sample rate changing) I can't get it to play 176.4 or 192 sample rates.

My dac reads 192, but I'm getting no sound.

At lower sample rates everything's fine.

I even manually set both the Dante and Rednet software to the right sample rates and still nothing.

One other strange issue is that I can't get the Rednet software to show 176.4 as a sample rate option.

I'm bracing myself for a simple answer or an embarrassing omission.

Between my pride and good sound, I'll sacrifice my pride.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions offered.

Best regards.

Joel


----------



## johnjen

So I dove into the guts of my RN3 and looked for any evidence of the 51 volt being used in the circuit and found nothing.
 So I assume it isn't being used and will proceed accordingly.
  
 So does anyone want to join me in using one of these triple voltage PSU's?
  
 There is a 4-6 week lead time for them to make them, since there are none in stock.
 The price is ≈$105 for the properly configured unit (it includes a fuse and fuse holder as the only added option) plus shipping etc.
  
 I am about ready to place my order and so if anyone else wants to join me in this now would be a good time.
  
 And when I was poking around inside the RN3 I saw feed thru holes already in the circuit board for the +5 and ±15 volt connections, which will facilitate adapting a LPS to these units.
  
 If anyone is interested I can provide additional details and a better idea of what is involved in this experiment, but I'm going to forge ahead and find out what happens when a LPS with 2mv (rms) of ripple noise is used instead of the stock SMPS.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

joelha said:


> Ever since I updated the Rednet control software (now with automatic sample rate changing) I can't get it to play 176.4 or 192 sample rates.
> 
> My dac reads 192, but I'm getting no sound.
> 
> ...


 
 What pops up as the first possibility is that your latency settings are either getting in the way, or are not getting out of the way for these higher sample rates.
  
 It could be either the DVS settings or the latency settings for the RedNet box itself.
 Or it could be that they aren't properly synch'd to each other.
  
 Anyway that would be the place I'd start fussing 1st, just to see what happens.
  
 And of course the Focusrite help desk is always an option as well.
  
 Let us know what you find out.
  
 JJ


----------



## somestranger26

johnjen said:


> So I dove into the guts of my RN3 and looked for any evidence of the 51 volt being used in the circuit and found nothing.
> So I assume it isn't being used and will proceed accordingly.
> 
> So does anyone want to join me in using one of these triple voltage PSU's?


 
 I am interested. Where are you getting the PSUs from?


----------



## johnjen

The source is PowerVolt, a US company.
 http://www.powervolt.com/index.html
  
 And here is the page with the triple output supplies.
 http://www.powervolt.com/bva.html
 Scroll down to get to the triple output units.
  
 I have used these PSU's in several process control boxes I built in previous jobs.
 They are robust and very durable, but are ugly and need a box to house them (if aesthetics and not having exposed wiring are important).
  
 The unit I'm looking at is the BVA-53B12T1-F, which would be used externally to the RN3 and a 4 wire cable (+5, +15, -15, grnd) run from the PSU to the RN3.
 Although it might be possible to mount it internally, depending upon how much room is available if the stock SMPS is removed.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Ever since I updated the Rednet control software (now with automatic sample rate changing) I can't get it to play 176.4 or 192 sample rates.
> 
> My dac reads 192, but I'm getting no sound.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a couple of thoughts.
  
 First. I found on my PC that for rate following to work you need to keep Rednet Control open. If you close it you will still hear music from your last song but it will no longer "follow".
  
 Second. 176.2 will not show up in the Rednet Control drop-down box but it is available and you can see it by right clicking on your Rednet device(RN3/D16), choosing Dante Controller, and the looking at the Device View. There is a sample rate box where it can be seen. When sample rate following is working correctly you should not need to make any choices however. It should change automatically as different music rates are sent to the Rednet box. Also in this box choose the lowest latency you can without getting dropouts.
  

  
  
 Third. If you have not done so consider rebooting all of your devices from PC to DAC and then choose sample rate follow again.
  
 To be honest I found sample rate follow to be a bit balky and went back to just playing everything at 192k which for me gives wonderful results.


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> So I dove into the guts of my RN3 and looked for any evidence of the 51 volt being used in the circuit and found nothing.
> So I assume it isn't being used and will proceed accordingly.
> 
> So does anyone want to join me in using one of these triple voltage PSU's?
> ...


 

 Hi Johnjen
 I am very interested in this subject. But I already have a HDPlex which has a 12VDC, 15VDC and 5V. I use the 12V for my Mac Mini but have the 15 and 5 spare.
  

  
 Please post back once you get yours up and running. Are you to drill and fit 2 x rear plugs for the power connections on the RedNet? Guess this will void the warranty but I will take that risk if the SQ gains are there.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> So I dove into the guts of my RN3 and looked for any evidence of the 51 volt being used in the circuit and found nothing.
> So I assume it isn't being used and will proceed accordingly.
> 
> So does anyone want to join me in using one of these triple voltage PSU's?
> ...


 

 Nice!  I would but sold my RN.  Any photos would be appreciated I'm sure by those who do.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Ever since I updated the Rednet control software (now with automatic sample rate changing) I can't get it to play 176.4 or 192 sample rates.
> 
> My dac reads 192, but I'm getting no sound.
> 
> ...


 

 Try closing DVS, Dante and RN control - then shutting down the PC and turning off the RN box.  Turn on the RN first then restart the PC. Reopen DVS and Dante control. 
 Check to see that both DVS and Dante Control are set to 24 bits.
  
 Good Luck


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Johnjen
> I am very interested in this subject. But I already have a HDPlex which has a 12VDC, 15VDC and 5V. I use the 12V for my Mac Mini but have the 15 and 5 spare.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Judging by what I see in your photo that PS doesn't supply ±15 vdc.
 That was the trick, getting all 3 voltages (+5, +15, -15) out of one PSU, at least for cheap with sufficiently low noise.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

To johnjen, mourip, and rb2013,
  
 First and most of all, thanks for all of your suggestions.
  
 In short, I have rebooted my PC and Rednet device and have always left the Rednet software open. No luck there.
  
 I don't believe the 24 bit settings are causing an issue as I am able to play 24 bit files at lower sample rates.
  
 As for latency settings, I'll need a little more time to play with that.
  
 But at this point I'm not hopeful and have a call into Focusrite for help.
  
 I'll keep everyone posted.
  
 But in the meantime, thanks again guys.
  
 Joel


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Johnjen
> snip
> Are you to drill and fit 2 x rear plugs for the power connections on the RedNet? Guess this will void the warranty but I will take that risk if the SQ gains are there.


 
 I forgot to comment on this, so here is what I'm thinking.
  
 Right now I see 2 ways of proceeding.
  
 #1 is to yank the existing SMPS out and mount the LPS in its place.
 This would be the ideal solution because I should be able to use the existing IEC receptacle and power switch and the wire run from the LPS to the mainboard would be as short as possible.
  
 The 1st problem to overcome will be, can the LPS actually fit in the space available, and if not, do not pass go and proceed to option #2…
 Also note I am modding the RN3 which is a 2U height box. 
 The D16 and other 1U height boxes will not be large enough for mounting the LPS internally, so option #2 is the only option.
  
 #2 Make the LPS external and run a 4-wire cable into the box and add a on/off switch to the LPS.
 I suppose I could panel mount an XLR 3 or 4 pin connector, with a matching mate from the LPS, but…
 For me I'm gunna hardwire it end to end if I can, but I probably will have to use short smaller gauge wire to feed into those hole thru solder points on the mainboard.  Which means a terminal strip of some sort to step down the bigger gauge wires to the wires that are soldered to the mainboard.
  
 And I would leave the SMPS in place to make it a plug-n-play operation to restore it back to stock condition.
  
 Because when I mod anything I do so such that I can reverse my mods and take the unit back to stock, if need be.
 Sometimes the mods I make don't work out as anticipated, and being able to go back to square 1 is always a good thing to be able to do.
  
 This is one of the Murphy's law sorta things, only sideways, where if I plan on being able to undo my efforts, I rarely ever do so… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## Youth

Anyone compared Audio-gd DI-U8 vs Singxer SU-1?
  
 Thinking about buying something around $350 ish.


----------



## jabbr

youth said:


> Anyone compared Audio-gd DI-U8 vs Singxer SU-1?
> 
> Thinking about buying something around $350 ish.


 
 Wrong thread!!!


----------



## Youth

jabbr said:


> Wrong thread!!!


 My bad. You know where I should post this?


----------



## mourip

youth said:


> My bad. You know where I should post this?


 
 It would have been...
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/3660#post_12893293
  
 ...but that thread got closed. You could probably read through it for ideas or else start a new thread.
  
 Good luck.


----------



## rb2013

youth said:


> Anyone compared Audio-gd DI-U8 vs Singxer SU-1?
> 
> Thinking about buying something around $350 ish.


 
 Go for the SU-1 - it is way better and newer technology.  PM me and I can give you details.
  


mourip said:


> It would have been...
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/3660#post_12893293
> 
> ...


 
 Such a shame that was closed - I still get 3-4 PM's a week asking questions on subject.
  
 I will open a new thread regarding the XU208 DDC's - as there is still fruit on that tree for those with more modest budgets that AOIP requires.  At least for now.
  
 I still have to start a thread on the Startech/USB stick SS storage - the SQ is really excellent.  Need a better LPS to feed the REX to finish my explorations.  And I need to complete the 5 PART series on power supplies.  Looking at JJ's recommendation to include in the PART 5 DIY.  Looking over their website - did not see anywhere that the 1uv noise was quoted.  Did see they use a EI transformer - while I prefer R-core for better PSRR - it is better then using a toroidal.
  
 But will recreate the XU208 first.
  
 So much to do - so little blogging time!


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Go for the SU-1 - it is way better and newer technology.  PM me and I can give you details.
> 
> Such a shame that was closed - I still get 3-4 PM's a week asking questions on subject.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for all of your work on this. I still shake my head in amazement every time I turn on my system and enjoy the SQ of my RedNet unit...


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Thanks for all of your work on this. I still shake my head in amazement every time I turn on my system and enjoy the SQ of my RedNet unit...


 

 Yes - the gift that keeps on giving!
  
 Cheers


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Yes - the gift that keeps on giving!
> 
> Cheers


 

 Yes, and on that my RedNet 3 was amazingly better than USB off the bat, but did burn in IMO. It now sounds even better, faster and more transparent yet still liquid smooth no harshness in the treble, just superb.
  
*rb2013*, what did you gain with the Mutec? I am not buying one right now, but curious as to what and how much it brought to the table.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Yes, and on that my RedNet 3 was amazingly better than USB off the bat, but did burn in IMO. It now sounds even better, faster and more transparent yet still liquid smooth no harshness in the treble, just superb.
> 
> *rb2013*, what did you gain with the Mutec? I am not buying one right now, but curious as to what and how much it brought to the table.


 

 For me a great level of detail, better transparency, deeper sound stage image.  But most notable deeper and better defined bass.  As far as tremble - a bit smoother and even more of that relaxed natural musicality that AOIP is excellent at.  Expensive though.


----------



## joelha

So the latest is that I took my Mutec MC-3+ USB out of the chain to see if for some weird reason that unit was causing the problem with my inability to get sound at 176.4 and 192 sample rates.
  
 But no, the same issue exists.
  
 I'm thinking about trying a different DAC to see what will happen.
  
 But in the meantime, when I do try to play the higher sample rates, looking at the latency measurements, I can see they skyrocket to something like 52msecs.
  
 Any further thoughts? My first call to Focusrite support didn't get me very far but I think, if the issue exists with another DAC, I have to call them back.
  
 Joel


----------



## astrostar59

joelha said:


> So the latest is that I took my Mutec MC-3+ USB out of the chain to see if for some weird reason that unit was causing the problem with my inability to get sound at 176.4 and 192 sample rates.
> 
> But no, the same issue exists.
> 
> ...


 
 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?


----------



## Iving

joelha said:


> So the latest is that I took my Mutec MC-3+ USB out of the chain to see if for some weird reason that unit was causing the problem with my inability to get sound at 176.4 and 192 sample rates.
> 
> But no, the same issue exists.
> 
> ...


 
  

 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 ...


----------



## joelha

astrostar59 said:


> 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

iving said:


> 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

astrostar59 said:


> 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

golfnutz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> 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

astrostar59 said:


> 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

golfnutz said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


 

 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

joelha said:


> 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.
  


astrostar59 said:


> 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

astrostar59 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
  
 That is an example of a non-AOIP rant!


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> 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

astrostar59 said:


> 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

iving said:


> 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....


----------



## peteAllen

Question... I want to try out the audio from my oppo bluray player through rednet. My d16 has a spdif input. How can i configure it to switch between my audio server pc/roon and the bluray audio signal. 
Also wondering if I can plug the spdif into my audio server and pump it through hqplayer? Any ideas?
Is any of this worth trying?


----------



## peteAllen

Oh, another thing...
I still haven't been able to get the direct connection between pc and d16 configured as 1gb lan. It appears as 10mbps on the pc even though i have tried cat5e cat6 and cat7 cables. Is a switch really necessary to speed it up?
In practice this means that latency often goes up to 10ms meaning I cant stream anything higher than 24/96


----------



## Golfnutz

peteallen said:


> Oh, another thing...
> I still haven't been able to get the direct connection between pc and d16 configured as 1gb lan. It appears as 10mbps on the pc even though i have tried cat5e cat6 and cat7 cables. Is a switch really necessary to speed it up?
> In practice this means that latency often goes up to 10ms meaning I cant stream anything higher than 24/96


 
 Shouldn't need a switch. I was connecting my PC to D16 secondary port for awhile before adding a switch. I never had an issue with speed.
  
 Edit: Just removed the switch and connected PC to D16 secondary port, it's showing as 1Gb.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

 Did you not read my post?  You are confusing D-S vs R2R noise shaping by oversampling/upsampling with audio wave form interpolation upsampling like in HQ Player and Foobar/SoX.  Yes they are both 'upsampling' as a process - but the implementations are different.
  
 Then you confuse DAC 'oversampling' with 'upsampling' filtering with a NOS implementation.
 Many DACs have various filters to choose from.   Very few like the Zanden are NOS (Non-OverSampling).  They used a 16-bit R2R DAC chip called the TDA-1541A.  The infamous Zanden 5000 and 5000 MKII used the closer matched resistors 'Double Crown' version - which had lower distortion.  With this chip you could use it without Nyquist sharp cut off reconstruction filters.   Instead Yamada-San used a analog 'bridged-T fixed-impedance filter'.
  
Just because a DAC is Non-Oversampling - does not mean it does use digital filtering. And this digital Nyquist filtering can cause all kinds of issues.
  
 The Audio Note DAC 5 uses the 18-bit R2R AD1865 - which was designed for 16X per channel Oversampling (see the AD1865 datasheet).  Audio Note uses a proprietary filter with just 1X Oversampling.
  
 Why is DAC Oversampling important to Nyquist filtering?
  
 Great explanation of why DAC's use Nyquist filtering, Aliasing, Brickwall filters and phase shift, Oversampling and Upsampling:
 http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/gettingtechnical200311.htm


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> The Audio Note DAC 5 uses the 18-bit R2R AD1865 - which was designed for 16X per channel Oversampling (see the AD1865 datasheet).  Audio Note uses a proprietary filter with just 1X Oversampling.


 
 All Audio Note DACs use the AD1865 in non oversampling mode. Also they have the digital filtering removed i.e. no filter. Any filtering is accomplished in the analogue domain.
  
 My point on oversampling/upsampling is, what is achieved by doing that on your PC. Oversampling on a DAC was originally created to allow a better filter to operate with less ringing. Oversampling isn't creating new information or better detail. If as you say it sounds better doing that in HQPlayer, this may be due to a level of softening of the data IMO. Remember if you upsample in anything outside of ratio x 2 or x 4, for example 192 it will be even worse, i.e. *resample* all the samples and basically blur the data. It is like upsampling an image in photoshop, the sharp squares (pixels in this case) of detail go soft as they bridge the gap to newer and more frequent squares. Try it and see.
  
 If you view a track in a music program look at the sample data, then upsample it. It will present a completely new set of samples.
  
 My view on this subject is simple, listen to a good non oversampling DAC and then come back. You may be surprised. If not, fine. I found the way after years of cost and searching, buying and selling. It is what this hobby is about. It is impossible for everyone to agree on that destination piece.
  
 Having said that, and getting back on topic, I don't see many (if any) claiming USB is better than RedNet.


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


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


 
 +1


----------



## astrostar59

mourip said:


> +1


 

 Agree, but no point IMO. So much has already been said, so many get mad and disagree. Best to forget it.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> All Audio Note DACs use the AD1865 in non oversampling mode. Also they have the digital filtering removed i.e. no filter. Any filtering is accomplished in the analogue domain.
> 
> My point on oversampling/upsampling is, what is achieved by doing that on your PC. Oversampling on a DAC was originally created to allow a better filter to operate with less ringing. Oversampling isn't creating new information or better detail. If as you say it sounds better doing that in HQPlayer, this may be due to a level of softening of the data IMO. Remember if you upsample in anything outside of ratio x 2 or x 4, for example 192 it will be even worse, i.e. *resample* all the samples and basically blur the data. It is like upsampling an image in photoshop, the sharp squares (pixels in this case) of detail go soft as they bridge the gap to newer and more frequent squares. Try it and see.
> 
> ...


 

 Not true - read the Audio Note website: "1xoversampling™ direct from disc™ technology based on the AD1865N"  And they use a filter - but it's analog not digital.
  
This is not 'no Oversampling'.  
  
 Oversampling and Upsampling are different.


> In an oversampling system, the input sampling rate (Fs) is increased 8 times, and the output sampling rate is therefore 8 x Fs. This 8 x Fs clock is generated by an 8 x phase-locked loop based on Fs.  So the two clocks are strongly linked and any imperfection appearing on the Fs clock will be reflected in the 8 x Fs clock. With upsampling we use _unrelated_ clocks to drive the input and the output respectively. This means that even if the input clock is imperfect, the output clock will remain as precise as it is."
> 
> Oversampling, he says, can allow the use of a "lighter output reconstruction filter with all the benefits it brings, but we are not isolated from clock imperfections that would pass on to the 8 x Fs clock." Upsampling, on the other hand, can help to overcome the clock imperfections.


 
  
Just like on your HDplex using the LT1083 with 180uv of noise.  How many times do I need to prove you wrong?


----------



## REXNFX

astrostar59 said:


> 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.


 
 Qobuz


----------



## jabbr

http://www.findhdmusic.com/


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Not true - read the Audio Note website: "1xoversampling™ direct from disc™ technology based on the AD1865N"  And they use a filter - but it's analog not digital.
> 
> This is not 'no Oversampling'.
> 
> Oversampling and Upsampling are different.


 
 Believe me, Audio Note DACs from 1.1 up have NO OVERSAMPLING or UPSAMPLING. And as I said they use some filtering in the analogue domain.
  
 Maybe you want to rewrite their company design facts and philosophy yourself.
  
 Email Peter Q the MD and tell him yourself.... reading stuff on the web doesn't make you an expert, sorry.
  
_Quote from Peter's article about the DAC 5:_
_Among the handful of companies whose CD players do not perform either over or upsampling, Audio Note is best known in the high end circle for its steadfast advocacy in SET amplification. From this company that offers audiophiles the $90,000, 27 Wpc Ongaku integrated amplifier, comes a $30,000 DAC with no oversampling, upsampling, or digital filter: the DAC 5 Special._
  
1xOversampling is a registered term Audio Note use for marketing, it means *NO Oversampling*.


----------



## mourip

astrostar59 said:


> Believe me, Audio Note DACs from 1.1 up have NO OVERSAMPLING or UPSAMPLING. And as I said they use some filtering in the analogue domain.
> 
> Maybe you want to rewrite their company design facts and philosophy yourself.
> 
> ...
 
  
 "Agree, but no point IMO. So much has already been said, so many get mad and disagree. Best to forget it."
  
 How about moving to PM or starting your own thread?


----------



## Iving

iving said:


> The PC *does* make a difference.
> 
> (iii) The new machine is a silent (no moving parts) PC comprising:
> - Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC Thunderbolt™ 3 Certified C236 Chipset Motherboard;
> ...


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> I have had to swap the PSU from Seasonic 400fl because of coil whine (found on >1 instance) to Aurum AU 500 Gold (very nicely silent)
> and
> the mobo from Gigabyte GA-X170-EXTREME ECC because of mysterious screeching around the CPU (6700) area [voltage regulation circuitry?] to ASUS Z170 Premium (more expensive but a way to keep Thunderbolt 3). The latter has two different Intel NICs but not the Killer E2400.
> 
> When I get the machine back I'll report on any changes. I have asserted that an up-to-date competent PC with specs such as these (vs. a basic laptop or a good W10 tablet with Docking Station) raises SQ by as much as going from USB to AOIP.


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> Update: The ASUS Z170 Premium was quiet but had "connectivity" problems with Thunderbolt 3 ("when a thunderbolt device is connected to the system the devices are not receiving power and therefore are not being recognised in Windows" x 2 instances). The engineers are still waiting for a reply from Asus about it. The final replacement is a Gigabyte Z170X Designare which I am told is behaving itself. It has 2 x Intel NICs and 2 x USB C / Thunderbolt 3 ports as well as M.2 and U.2 on board (Windows 10 Pro is on a dedicated M.2). The RAM is upgraded to Dominator 2666 MHz.
> 
> With a following wind I will have the machine within a day or two. I don't expect ever to use the "teaming" capacity of the two Intel NICs (although I dare say one day I will experiment), but I do hope that the Killer NIC wasn't a necessary ingredient in the stupendous SQ enjoyed previously. The PC I am told is super-quiet now. I am really looking forward to its homecoming.


 
  
 Quote:


iving said:


> In case of possible interest to prospective PC buyers or upgraders, two main  points:
> - The Gigabyte Z170X Designare exhibits the same mobo ringing phenomenon as the Extreme-ECC - but whereas the latter screeched, the Designare's self-pronouncement is much milder and very probably below a bothersome threshold. We are talking mainly about The High Performance Power Profile (in Control Panel) and, in particular, Minimum Processor State = 100%. The effect is mitigated significantly in the Balanced Profile (Min. Proc. State = 5%) - in which mode the Designare can hardly be heard at all. My wife can't hear the new mobo even in High Performance mode - but she has tinnitus.
> - Using the primary NIC; i.e., the integrated I219-V (PCI-Express 3.0 version of the I218-V), the SQ is top notch. At first I wondered whether it was deader than the Killer E2400 (present on the Extreme-ECC), but my system hadn't warmed up. There is nothing missing. If anything, the speakers are more transparent and easier on the ear outside the sweetspot. The tone is liquid. My early undisciplined thinking was that "wall of sound" noises such as Jackson Browne's "Looking East" and Liz Phair's "Turning Japanese" were more distilled (components of the sound distinguishable). Bass thuds. It is very AOIP. Latency averages less than 900µs and peaks at <1msec over extended playing intervals.
> It has taken 40 days to establish this PC. That has been a PIA but I am grateful to the building company for staying with me throughout the time it took to get it all fettled. Long and short - I don't doubt the value of the investment in the PC.


 
  

 First, and on the basis that the PC *does* make a difference in AOIP playback, the final instalment in establishing the ideal for PC for me. Whilst I have a separate Windows 7 machine for ripping and library management, my listening pleasure is gained at my coffee table where I can operate at my convenience in fb2k my source PC with, of course, DVS etc - all on a dedicated LAN (i.e., just a single ethernet cable with no switches or anything else in the way) between my PC and D16 AES. I wanted an *audibly silent* PC with no moving parts - and with headroom spec including future-proofing with Thunderbolt etc in mind. The *audibly silent* bit has taken two months to achieve. At first, Gigabyte mobos were chosen for Thunderbolt 3 credentials, but the two I tried (GA-X170-EXTREME ECC and GA-Z170X-Designare) howled, screeched and whistled and I could not establish the cause - except that the problem corresponded exactly with Minimum Processor State = 100% - an aspect of the High Performance Power Profile - an ordinary Windows setting. Now that I have my final mobo - an ASUS Z170-WS - I have been able to resolve the issue - which featured in a similar way on this expensive mobo too - by *Disabling C States in the BIOS*. I never discovered this solution with the Gigabyte mobos and there are no equivalent settings in their BIOSs - although for all I know similar ones may exist. It seems that Enabled C States are antithetic to Minimum Processor State = 100% - erupting in (probably) voltage control-related whining. With C States Disabled, my ASUS mobo and, in turn, the whole machine are super-silent. Sitting in a proud brushed aluminium case, it is also rather handsome like its owner - but I digress. The machine now comprises in a Streacom F12C:
 AURUM Xilenser 500W PSU;
 Asus Z170-WS Motherboard with dual Intel Gigabit LAN: I219-LM and I210-AT;
 Intel i7-6700 3.4 GHz CPU;
 NOFAN CR-80EH Copper IcePipe CPU Cooler;
 16Gb Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4 2400MHz RAM;
 Windows 10 Pro on Samsung SM951 128Gb M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD;
 *.flac on Samsung 850 EVO 1Tb SSD.
 The SQ is better than ever with enhanced transparency across the spectrum, deeper soundstage and lucid thumping bass (a reliable AOIP feature to my way of thinking).
  
 Big shout out to scan.co.uk for persevering with me to this point. A particular aspect of their service - old-fashioned emphasis on customer satisfaction - has been exemplary. If you want an audiophile PC, you can rely on scan to walk with you to your goal. Now of course they have the added advantage of having worked with me!
  
 Second, a summary of trial-and-error settings with emphasis on Network Adapters. One advantage of a hi-spec PC is that all buffers and other settings can be set to their most favourable free of dread regarding performance. Also, library management on the fly is as smooth as butter. Accordingly, all DVS, RedNet Control and Dante Controller settings are stretched/optimal. Without fiddling with Advanced Network Adapter Properties, I210-AT latency is some 10-20 μs lower than I219-LM - possibly because the latter is " Dual interconnect between MAC & PHY ". I thought perhaps the latter more "analogue" and the former more "refined". Latency swung it and I am using the I210-AT for the RedNet LAN and the I219-LM for the internet. I think disabling the online route could only help rather than hinder the audiophile and have done that having completed all necessary updates etc. I have spent a considerable number of hours (not days or weeks I hasten to add - I am not that much of a loser) reading up on and experimenting with Advanced Network Adapter settings. The chart below is the result. I guess I was trying to generate the lowest possible latency. The only setting that made an unequivocal difference is Interrupt Moderation Disabled. That is recommended anyway. I am not going to lecture on these settings as I am no technician. Aside from latency, I was interested in stability of latency and of course SQ. The final set of settings I thought generated noticeable mojo and, since that is everything to me, I left it there (for now).
  

 *DATE: 2016-11-04*
 *Intel I219-LM Gigabit **LAN** - Dual interconnect between **MAC** & PHY*​  *Intel I210-AT Gigabit **LAN** controller*​  *SETTING*
 Adaptive Inter-Frame Spacing
 Disabled​  N/A​  ARP Offload
 N/A​  Disabled​  Enable PME
 Disabled​  N/A​  Energy Efficient Ethernet
 Off​  N/A​  Flow Control
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  Gigabit Master Slave Mode
 Auto Detect​  Force Master Mode​  Interrupt Moderation
 Disabled​  Disabled​  Interrupt Moderation Rate
 Off​  Off​  IPv4 Checksum Offload
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  Jumbo Packet
 Disabled​  9014 Bytes​  Large Send Offload V2 (IPv4)
 Enabled​  Enabled​  Large Send Offload V2 (IPv6)
 Enabled​  Enabled​  Legacy Switch Compatibility Mode
 Enabled​  N/A​  Locally Administered Address
  Not Present​   Not Present​  Log Link State Event
 Disabled​  Disabled​  Maximum Number of RSS Queues
 2 Queues​  4 Queues​  NS Offload
 N/A​  Disabled​  Packet Priority & VLAN
 Packet Priority & VLAN Enabled​  Packet Priority Enabled​  Protocol ARP Offload
 Disabled​  N/A​  Protocol NS Offload
 Disabled​  N/A​  Receive Buffers
 2048​  2048​  Receive Side Scaling
 Enabled​  Enabled​  Reduce Speed On Power Down
 Disabled​  N/A​  Speed & Duplex
 Auto Negotiation​  1.0 Gbps Full Duplex​  System Idle Power Saver
 Disabled​  N/A​  TCP Checksum Offload (IPv4)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  TCP Checksum Offload (IPv6)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  Transmit Buffers
 2048​  2048​  UDP Checksum Offload (IPv4)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  UDP Checksum Offload (IPv6)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Rx & Tx Enabled​  Wait for Link
 Auto Detect​  Auto Detect​  Wait on Link Settings
 Disabled​  N/A​  Wake on Magic Packet
 Disabled​  N/A​  Wake on Pattern Match
 Disabled​  N/A​  Average / Peak LATENCY (>1 hr)

 INTERNET [DISABLED]​
 790 μs / 1 msec​

  

  
 My system feels balanced right now (remainder = | Blue Jeans Cat 6 ethernet cable (40') | Focusrite RedNet D16 AES | van den Hul AES-EBU 110 Ohm Professional cable (0.8m) | Dangerous Convert-2 DAC [Word Clock Out to Focusrite RedNet D16 AES via Pro Co Premium Canare cable (3')] | Bespoke Achtung Audio Silver XLR/RCA "Pin 3 Floating" interconnects (1.2m) | Linn AV 5103 System Controller | Linn Silver interconnects (1.2m) | 2 x stereo Quad 909 power amps with identical DADA revisions | vertically bi-amping via Linn LK400 (c. 3m) | Snell Type A III) - and after a difficult year (much, much more difficult than I would ever have thought) I want to promote listening and enjoying over establishing and fettling. I have a lot of vinyl records as well as a large digital library, and I have always wanted to educate myself in the domain of classical music.


----------



## jabbr

iving said:


>





> Jumbo Packet
> Disabled​  9014 Bytes​


 
  
  
 Do you feel this setting has a positive impact on SQ? 
 I thought that Focusrite only supports packet size of 1500 bytes and if I understand correctly the receiving end will have to do extra 'things' to handle these Jumbo Packets, either fragmenting too large packets or dropping packets and requesting resends in a smaller package size.
  
 A reply from Cisco on MTU mismatch in a network:


> There are a number of things which can affect this but the short answer is that by default the frames will not be dropped, they will be fragmented.  The payload is split into smaller pieces and forwarded, then reassembled at the far end. In the example you give, 9k frames will probably not be received on the switch interface.  They'll likely be fragmented by the PC before they're sent out on the network. Windows, Linux, OSX and other operating systems that support Ethernet interfaces have their own MTU at each layer of the network stack and/or protocol involved.  If a layer receives a datagram from the layer above it for processing that's larger than that layer can support, it will generally fragment the datagram into an acceptable size.  Unless you've explicitly configured the Ethernet MTU on the host for a larger size, the host's MTU for Ethernet is probably set for 1500 and it will send packets of a maximum of that size, regardless of the size of the chunks that are being sent from the FTP server running on the host.
> I'm throwing a lot of "probably" and "likely" qualifications in there because, as I noted, there are a number of factors which can affect this.  But fragmentation as it goes through the network stack is typical behavior.


----------



## Iving

jabbr said:


> Do you feel this setting has a positive impact on SQ?
> I thought that Focusrite only supports packet size of 1500 bytes and if I understand correctly the receiving end will have to do extra 'things' to handle these Jumbo Packets, either fragmenting too large packets or dropping packets and requesting resends in a smaller package size.
> 
> A reply from Cisco on MTU mismatch in a network:


 
  
 Thanks for this.
 I had it on and off (Disabled) at various points.
 I can't say that it had an impact on SQ.
 But I might venture that it is a little bit possible that some permutation of settings as per table does.
 Because mojo dropped in - I am happy to say that.
 I didn't know about Focusrite and 1500 - that is interesting and I will assimilate it.
 I understand that all devices on the LAN have to be Jumbo-compatible else it doesn't work.
 Perhaps it is irrelevant then.
 As your Cisco person says, there are lots of "probably" and "likely" in the mix.
 Perhaps I got "lucky"?


----------



## robi20064

Since the other xmos thread is closed, I will try to have my question answered here. I currently use AES out on SOtM dX-USB HD / mBPS-d2s combo into a DIDiT DAC212SE. I was thinking of either testing the Singxer SU-1 and replacing the SOtM if that turns out to be better, or taking the network path and going for an Aries or RedNet. Do you think the Singxer would be a step up, or should I just forget the whole USB implementation (what I dislike ever since firewire become obsolete partly due to that) chain and go straight Ethernet?


----------



## johnjen

In my experience the RedNet/ethernet solution is superior to any flavor of USB implementation.
  
 Using USB anywhere in the chain can be ok but can be surpassed by just about any other approach.
 But I must also add the Singxer SU-1 can come close when using either the SPDIF or AES feed to the dac.
  
 I hope this helps.
  
 JJ


----------



## robi20064

Thanks for your opinion! If there was any reasonable alternative to RN3/D16 (these just way too big and a waste of those 16/32 channels) I would have probably bought it already. One of these many audio vendors should go for a proper - but light - 2 channel solution. Maybe Sonore guys are reading these threads (wishful thinking)...


----------



## Youth

robi20064 said:


> Thanks for your opinion! If there was any reasonable alternative to RN3/D16 (these just way too big and a waste of those 16/32 channels) I would have probably bought it already. One of these many audio vendors should go for a proper - but light - 2 channel solution. Maybe Sonore guys are reading these threads (wishful thinking)...


 
  
 I'm waiting for a cheaper AOIP option as well!


----------



## robi20064

It's not just about the price - however something between $300-600 would appeal much more to the masses - but the size and the extra channels/features we aren't really going to ever use.


----------



## Youth

robi20064 said:


> It's not just about the price - however something between $300-600 would appeal much more to the masses - but the size and the extra channels/features we aren't really going to ever use.


 
  
 Excatly. So they should make one for this market, which would be cheaper - I hope


----------



## johnjen

Early on when this community was 1st diving into the AOIP pool, Focusrite was contacted and asked about a more focused version of the RedNet series for us to use, (fewer channels, better PS etc.).
 Their initial reply was it would only drop the price by ≈ 25-30%
  
 I figure that much of the price has to do with the need for both Dante and Focusrite to be included in the mix.
  
 IOW implementing AOIP involves s/w (the ethernet network aimed at AOIP) and the h/w (ethrnet, SPDIF, AES, USB etc.) to plug wires into, AND having these 2 separate functions seamlessly work together from 2 separate companies.
  
 That isn't to say other companies couldn't (and have already) provide their own products, but none are specifically aimed at the high end of the consumer audio market, yet.
  
 For instance the Dante transceiver board is ≈ $2-300 (perhaps a bit less in quantity) but that kinda shoots the cheap solution in the foot, and that is only the ethernet input portion of this flavor of a DDC, and the PS and output electronics won't be cheap, if the goal is to keep it at the same (or better) level of SQ as the RedNet boxes.
  
 Perhaps given enough time and competition the prices will drop below $500 while retaining the same degree of SQ.
 But I doubt it will happen anytime soon. 
 But it would be rather nice to be surprised and the chinese are very capable of doing so.
 Only I wouldn't want to be an early adopter, as there are always 'hitches in the git along' with such complex interactions and with expectations being as high as they are.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

robi20064 said:


> It's not just about the price - however something between $300-600 would appeal much more to the masses - but the size and the extra channels/features we aren't really going to ever use.


 
 Why would that be a waste? The designer / builder of the D16/RN3 probably had to do very little extra to get the extra channels above 2 channel stereo.
 The AOIP technology + DDC handling is probably the biggest part of the package


----------



## PCWar

Ok guys. Looked over the web for weeks to find any report for some cheaper AOIP alternative but could not find anything. Finally I took the plunge on the Atterotech unDaes-o that is a cheaper solution than the Rednet. As Bob also mentioned a few times it's based on the Dante Ultimo chipset. Confirmed this also with Josh from Atterotech. By the way he seems a super friendly person that supported me with some additional info on the product. I red what was to read about the differences between the Brooklyn and the Ultimo. Apparently the second one is the more recent but still lower cost solution limited to 24/96. No problem for me still since 99% of my library is redbook quality and my Theta Gen V cannot support higher then 16/44. 
  
 To cut it short, coming from my Singxer F-1 I still cannot believe how much of an improvement this little device brought to my chain. Just incredible. Tonal accuracy is unreal. Notes are heavier, more defined without losing speed. Bass depth and reverb with the HD800 is unbelievable. Treble is smoother, extended, more present with zero glare. Usually when I get new gear due to the enthusiasm of the "improvement" I tend to skip tracks without listen them till the end. For the first time this has become somehow difficult. I'm drawn into the music and it's like every track has some new beauty in it.
  
 On each little tweak or even major upgrade I have found the HD800 to sound somehow not completely satisfying. The Auralic Taurus although being a solid state amp has been regarded as a warmish device. The Theta Gen V DAC for those who have had the pleasure to listen to is a R2R dac of the 90's and also falls in the warmer gear segment. Still I have never been satisfied with my HD800. Now and finally I can say everything changed and it seems the new Sony Z1R I was planning to purchase in the near future will be postponed for a good while. Cannot believe how much I was missing from my music although the Singxer was still such a great DDC.
  
  
 I changed house recently and my system is still a mess but just to render a bit the idea I'm posting a picture since I think I owe it to the community


----------



## mourip

pcwar said:


> Ok guys. Looked over the web for weeks to find any report for some cheaper AOIP alternative but could not find anything. Finally I took the plunge on the Atterotech unDaes-o that is a cheaper solution than the Rednet. As Bob also mentioned a few times it's based on the Dante Ultimo chipset. Confirmed this also with Josh from Atterotech. By the way he seems a super friendly person that supported me with some additional info on the product. I red what was to read about the differences between the Brooklyn and the Ultimo. Apparently the second one is the more recent but still lower cost solution limited to 24/96. No problem for me still since 99% of my library is redbook quality and my Theta Gen V cannot support higher then 16/44.


 
  
 Great news and a good start towards a more economical device. Thanks for taking one for The AOIP Team.


----------



## PCWar

Thank you mourip. I recall you've been one of the earlier "believers", too.


----------



## gefski

pcwar said:


> Ok guys. Looked over the web for weeks to find any report for some cheaper AOIP alternative but could not find anything. Finally I took the plunge on the Atterotech unDaes-o that is a cheaper solution than the Rednet. As Bob also mentioned a few times it's based on the Dante Ultimo chipset. Confirmed this also with Josh from Atterotech. By the way he seems a super friendly person that supported me with some additional info on the product. I red what was to read about the differences between the Brooklyn and the Ultimo. Apparently the second one is the more recent but still lower cost solution limited to 24/96. No problem for me still since 99% of my library is redbook quality and my Theta Gen V cannot support higher then 16/44.




So it looks like this can be found for $599, plus $100 for the 24v power supply from atterotech? And are you using Dante Virtual Soundcard?

Great to read your experience!


----------



## PCWar

Yes, if you add the DVS it's another 30 USD on top.


----------



## robi20064

I'm currently trying to find EU distributors for the Atterotech, seems to be just the right size/feature set I was looking for! Do you have to buy DVS separately?


----------



## jabbr

robi20064 said:


> I'm currently trying to find EU distributors for the Atterotech, seems to be just the right size/feature set I was looking for! Do you have to buy DVS separately?


 
 Just found this one quite easily in the Netherlands
  

Iemke Roos Audio b.v.020 697 21 21www.iemkeroos.nlsales@iemkeroos.nl
  
  
 Prices are in EUROs and exlcuding and including 21% VAT

unDAES-O4 channels Dante naar AES770,00 931,70


----------



## robi20064

Thanks, was looking at UK/DE/FR previously and only found this so far (still too high compared to $599):
  
 http://www.axente.fr/undaes-o.html


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> For instance the Dante transceiver board is ≈ $2-300 (perhaps a bit less in quantity) but that kinda shoots the cheap solution in the foot, and that is only the ethernet input portion of this flavor of a DDC, and the PS and output electronics won't be cheap, if the goal is to keep it at the same (or better) level of SQ as the RedNet boxes.


 
 You can buy a full Dante Brooklyn II card for $185 retail - so I don't know where you came up with $200-$300.


----------



## rb2013

pcwar said:


> Ok guys. Looked over the web for weeks to find any report for some cheaper AOIP alternative but could not find anything. Finally I took the plunge on the Atterotech unDaes-o that is a cheaper solution than the Rednet. As Bob also mentioned a few times it's based on the Dante Ultimo chipset. Confirmed this also with Josh from Atterotech. By the way he seems a super friendly person that supported me with some additional info on the product. I red what was to read about the differences between the Brooklyn and the Ultimo. Apparently the second one is the more recent but still lower cost solution limited to 24/96. No problem for me still since 99% of my library is redbook quality and my Theta Gen V cannot support higher then 16/44.
> 
> To cut it short, coming from my Singxer F-1 I still cannot believe how much of an improvement this little device brought to my chain. Just incredible. Tonal accuracy is unreal. Notes are heavier, more defined without losing speed. Bass depth and reverb with the HD800 is unbelievable. Treble is smoother, extended, more present with zero glare. Usually when I get new gear due to the enthusiasm of the "improvement" I tend to skip tracks without listen them till the end. For the first time this has become somehow difficult. I'm drawn into the music and it's like every track has some new beauty in it.
> 
> ...


 
 Nice! You are the first to post on a Dante Ultimo implementation.  Now there are greater differences then simply SR limits to the Ultimo vs the full Brooklyn I or II cards.  But maybe those are not as important as one would believe.
  
 If you could post a board photo that would be great.  Would love to see what kind of clocking they use.
  
 Another Dante Ultimo implementation would be the Rednet 2AM - $399  Unfortunately only analog and HP outputs.
 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RedNetAM2?adpos=1o1&creative=54989476081&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&product_id=RedNetAM2&gclid=CIzbwODmktACFUtNfgodtMAKSQ


----------



## PCWar

I'll try to shoot some photos by tomorrow. Here in Tirana is 1 AM so need some quality sleep now


----------



## rb2013

pcwar said:


> I'll try to shoot some photos by tomorrow. Here in Tirana is 1 AM so need some quality sleep now


 

 Great - thanks!


----------



## InsanityOne

Just in case anyone was curious, I was able to find the Atterotech unDAES-O  listed on FullCompass for $599. So, not cheap by any means, but still the lowest entry cost to AOIP so far. Now, if only we could get Focusrite to tweak their 2AM into an digital output device at $399, then AOIP would really start becoming the new "norm".
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## johnjen

rb2013 said:


> You can buy a full Dante Brooklyn II card for $185 retail - so I don't know where you came up with $200-$300.


 
 Ah, my bad, the last I saw it was in that range.
 Thanks for the correction and good to know its cheaper than what I originally saw.
  
 JJ


----------



## PCWar

Opening the device doesn't look so simple unfortunately and I'm not risking voiding the warranty. Sorry Bob.
  
 That image precision


----------



## Modified

cheaper AOIP alternative?
 http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/8430a-ip-sam-studio-monitor


----------



## mourip

modified said:


> cheaper AOIP alternative?
> http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/8430a-ip-sam-studio-monitor


 
  
 It costs almost $2200 for a pair ($1070 ea.) and would certainly need to sound very good as it locks you into it's built in DAC/amp/ and speaker.
  
 Might be nice for some applications and is a good start however.


----------



## rb2013

johnjen said:


> Ah, my bad, the last I saw it was in that range.
> Thanks for the correction and good to know its cheaper than what I originally saw.
> 
> JJ


 

 The list price for the BURL DANTE BK2 card is $250.  So with a normal markup I estimate the DANTE BK2 card costs them $125.
  
 Here is one discounted to $185
 http://vintageking.com/burl-audio-bkii-card-for-b2-dac
  
 Since the Dante BK2 card supports i2s - and has it's own built in XO clock.  All that is needed is a small board with a mini PCI slot.  One that can power the BK2 and convert the i2s to SPDIF/AES/BNC.  \
  
 The Audinate Dante Brooklyn II PDK comes with a robust development package  - but is not cheap.  $10K
  
 The package comes with a DANTE API - so a new dedicated one is not really needed. 
 also
  
*Dante Hardware*

Four Dante Brooklyn II modules with support for 64 x 64 audio channels
Two Brooklyn II Adaptor boards with breakout headers to access the rich set of Brooklyn II development interfaces
Two Audio baseboards allowing connection to audio equipment via a range of connectors  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-brooklyn-ii-pdk
  
 The board could be easily designed for only 2 channels - dc power input - i2s, SPDIF, AES digital output ad sold for under $400.
  
 Time to crowd source this development?  The big outlay would be the PDK package and the receiver board design and min order.   Probably $20K would do it.


----------



## rb2013

pcwar said:


> Opening the device doesn't look so simple unfortunately and I'm not risking voiding the warranty. Sorry Bob.
> 
> That image precision


 
 I understand - much can be gathered from reading the Ultimo PDK page:
 https://www.audinate.com/sites/default/files/datasheets/Dante_Ultimo_25-aug-2016_0.pdf

  
  


insanityone said:


> Just in case anyone was curious, I was able to find the Atterotech unDAES-O  listed on FullCompass for $599. So, not cheap by any means, but still the lowest entry cost to AOIP so far. Now, if only we could get Focusrite to tweak their 2AM into an digital output device at $399, then AOIP would really start becoming the new "norm".
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
 Yes - Focusrite - just add a SPDIF digital output.


----------



## rb2013

On the Ultimo:
  


> High-quality clocks: Low jitter audio clock synthesis with sample-accurate time alignment between networked devices


 
 Looks like the clocks are generated on the Ultimo ASIC chip - see page 2 of the PDF.
  
 Not good.


----------



## rb2013

There is the possibility of a very small AOIP Dante analog output device - the size of a pack of gum:  Maybe less then $200?  Now that would be interesting.  Add a HP opamp output  and you have a AOIP 'AQ Dragonfly' type of device.
  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-analog-output-module

  


> Specifications Physical
> 
> Input Connector: 1x RJ45 Ethernet
> Output: 1x or 2x balanced analog connectors
> ...


 
  
  
 PS - Here you go.
 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1266502&gclid=CLqdntS8lNACFcdbfgod0DkB4Q&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C52934714882%2C&Q=&A=details
  
 $199

 PSS Here is a $5 Ethttp://www.flyteccomputers.com/product/609/Tycon-Power-POE-INJ-LED-S-Shielded-POE-Inserter-w-Power-Current-LEDS&wre=1?gclid=COzVg9G9lNACFQ5xfgodPXAA9whernet power inject - so this could be ext LPS powered? Class 1 802.3af POE - 48VDC-never mind.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Did you not read my post?  You are confusing D-S vs R2R noise shaping by oversampling/upsampling with audio wave form interpolation upsampling like in HQ Player and Foobar/SoX.  Yes they are both 'upsampling' as a process - but the implementations are different.
> 
> Then you confuse DAC 'oversampling' with 'upsampling' filtering with a NOS implementation.


 

 Found this, may help to show another opinion:
 http://bitperfectsound.blogspot.com.es/2013/11/upsample.html


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Found this, may help to show another opinion:
> http://bitperfectsound.blogspot.com.es/2013/11/upsample.html


Give it up dude...we've moved on...


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Give it up dude...we've moved on...


 

 Ok. But last thing, it seems to be split the amount of difference it makes, depends on the DAC and the implementation (apparently).
  
 I tried the EQ filters by DMG audio this week. They were written by a guy who worked at Focusright. They seem to be very good, no apparent quality loss as long as the effects are subtle. Would recommend folks try them out.


----------



## Modified

mourip said:


> It costs almost $2200 for a pair ($1070 ea.) and would certainly need to sound very good as it locks you into it's built in DAC/amp/ and speaker.
> 
> Might be nice for some applications and is a good start however.


 

 Certainly, just good start, up to 96kHz sample rates. But shows the direction for active speakers to go. Hope standards (AES67 and RAVENNA in this case) will make combinations possible.


----------



## Golfnutz

Quote: 





peteallen said:


> Question... I want to try out the audio from my oppo bluray player through rednet. My d16 has a spdif input. How can i configure it to switch between my audio server pc/roon and the bluray audio signal.
> Also wondering if I can plug the spdif into my audio server and pump it through hqplayer? Any ideas?
> Is any of this worth trying?


 
 I have both HQPlayer and Oppo BDP-95 configured to my D16.
  
 I do think it's worth trying if you have any DVD or BluRay music discs. Just downmix to Stereo in your Oppo player.
  
 The only way I was able to use both, was to connect AES from D16 to my DAC AES, and SPDIF from D16 to SPDIF on my DAC. Then just select which input on your DAC.
  
 Computer channels 1&2 are routed to Rednet D16 1&2. Rednet channels 3&4 are routed to Rednet channels 3&4 in Dante Controller.
  
 I also made RCA Output Source = Channels 3-4 in Rednet Control options (tool bar icon).
  
 Edit: Added Screen Shot, and Oppo needs to be set to LPCM in Audio Format and choose your sample rate.


----------



## Iving

iving said:


> ... trial-and-error settings with emphasis on Network Adapters ... Without fiddling with Advanced Network Adapter Properties, I210-AT latency is some 10-20 μs lower than I219-LM - possibly because the latter is " Dual interconnect between MAC & PHY ". I thought perhaps the latter more "analogue" and the former more "refined". Latency swung it and I am using the I210-AT for the RedNet LAN and the I219-LM for the internet ... The final set of settings I thought generated noticeable mojo and, since that is everything to me, I left it there (for now).


 

 Update re I219-LM vs. I210-AT (dual LAN on ASUS Z170-WS):
 - I210-AT has lower average latency _circa_ 790μs vs. I219's _circa_ 804μs, but after a little experience of both, I think I219-LM sounds better - blacker, thicker, clearer.
 - PROWin64.exe integrates with Advanced Network Adapter Properties in Device Manager
 opening new tabs and a small number of extra settings. All power saving settings can be turned off etc.
 - I210-AT has a curious "Use Low Latency Interrupts" facility not otherwise visible. I experimented - ports have to be stipulated and I am not sure I achieved that successfully - but anyway could not achieve any enhancements of latency or SQ.
 - I219-LM has "Adaptive Inter-Frame Spacing" whereas I210-AT does not. I don't know whether this Enabled contributes to SQ.
 - I219-LM settings as below:

 Adaptive Inter-Frame Spacing
 Enabled​  ARP Offload
 N/A​  Enable PME
 Disabled​  Energy Efficient Ethernet
 Off​  Flow Control
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Gigabit Master Slave Mode
 Auto Detect​  Interrupt Moderation
 Disabled​  Interrupt Moderation Rate
 Off​  IPv4 Checksum Offload
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Jumbo Packet
 Disabled​  Large Send Offload V2 (IPv4)
 Enabled​  Large Send Offload V2 (IPv6)
 Enabled​  Legacy Switch Compatibility Mode
 Disabled​  Locally Administered Address
  Not Present​  Log Link State Event
 Disabled​  Maximum Number of RSS Queues
 2 Queues​  NS Offload
 N/A​  Packet Priority & VLAN
 Packet Priority Enabled​  Protocol ARP Offload
 Disabled​  Protocol NS Offload
 Disabled​  Receive Buffers
 2048​  Receive Side Scaling
 Enabled​  Reduce Speed On Power Down
 Disabled​  Speed & Duplex
 1.0 Gbps Full Duplex​  System Idle Power Saver
 Disabled​  TCP Checksum Offload (IPv4)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  TCP Checksum Offload (IPv6)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Transmit Buffers
 2048​  UDP Checksum Offload (IPv4)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  UDP Checksum Offload (IPv6)
 Rx & Tx Enabled​  Wait for Link
 Auto Detect​  Wait on Link Settings
 Disabled​  Wake on Magic Packet
 Disabled​  Wake on Pattern Match
 Disabled​ 
 All said and done - best SQ yet.


----------



## mourip

Boy. You can hear a pin drop here! Hopefully everyone is busy listening to great music courtesy of AOIP?
  
 Thanks for the ethernet settings. I employed them but to be honest I have some cables breaking in and new speakers so I probably cannot attribute changes properly. The system is sounding great though.
  
 Rob. How is the Burl progressing?


----------



## astrostar59

On the setting, they are for the Ethernet controller in Windows. Does anyone have any settings to try on a Mac?
  
 Right now I have it set as automatic configuration for Ethernet connection (to the RedNet).


----------



## Skogkatt

Focusrite posted on its software download page the new version of RedNet Control 2.0
  
 This version sports a new graphical interface where it is possible to place all the RedNet devices (if have more than one) on a grid.
  
 The good point is that, once properly set and after saving the configuration, it retains the automatic sample rate setting
 every time you start the software.
  
 For my convenience, I placed a shortcut in the Windows startup folder so that it starts automatically with the O.S.
  
 With this version of RedNet Control the application does not shutdown when opening a remote control instance like it did with 1.10.
  

  
 To set sample rate follow select the name of your PC in "Tab follow device"
  
 The only doubt is due the fact it requests to update a firmware (even if according to instructions I should
 have the latest one): pressing update it reports an not better specified error.
  
 In conclusion it is a nice upgrade.


----------



## mourip

skogkatt said:


> Focusrite posted on its software download page the new version of RedNet Control 2.0
> 
> This version sports a new graphical interface where it is possible to place all the RedNet devices (if have more than one) on a grid.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is great. I actually called Focusrite and reported those issues months ago when the last version came out.


----------



## mourip

So I upgraded my D16 based headphone system to Rednet Control v2 last night. It does stay open after exiting RDP and it does retain it's settings when closed and reopened. So far so good there.
  
 Sample Rate Follow works...mostly.
  
 I use JRMC 22 with SoX enabled. I also tend to jump between tracks on different albums a lot. Last night I found that SRF worked most of the time but occasionally JRMC would cough up an error saying that the chosen rate would not work. If I restarted RC v2 and then chose that same track again it would play fine at my chosen rate. I am playing 44.1k at 176.4k and 192k at 192k.
  
 I will test more and report back.


----------



## johnjen

Using RedNet Control v.2 SRF still doesn't work on Mac, at least while using jriver.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

As I'm out of town right now, I'm wondering whether I can install 2.0 remotely without requiring any local/manual steps.

Thanks in advance.

Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

Here's some useless information about the D16...
  
 After installing DVS, Rednet Controller, Dante Controller and routing a CD Player (SPDIF-In -> SPDIF-Out or AES).
  
 You can turn off your computer and it will still work (need the primary Ethernet connected to Lan). You should be able to unplug your Ethernet connection at this point if you wanted to, and music will still play.
  
 Added bonus - from cold start and w/o computer (D16 waking itself up): If you don't want to have any Ethernet connections. Disconnect cables from Primary and Secondary ports from D16. Take an Ethernet cable, plug one end into the primary port and the other end into the secondary port on your D16. You should see the lights flashing for both ports. Now remove the cable, and you should start hearing music after about 2-3 seconds. Not sure why I tried this because I didn't expect anything to happen.
  
 You are still using the JetPLL clocks when not connected via AOIP. Basically same sound.
  
 So, if your computer is down, and you have an external CD Player (or similar device with SPDIF-Out), you can still listen to music via your Rednet D16.


----------



## rb2013

golfnutz said:


> Here's some useless information about the D16...
> 
> After installing DVS, Rednet Controller, Dante Controller and routing a CD Player (SPDIF-In -> SPDIF-Out or AES).
> 
> ...


 

 That is interesting - how does the CD player sound vs the PC?


----------



## rb2013

Interesting review of the Merging Tech NADAC in the November issue of HiFi News.
  
 Not much said about AOIP AES67 or Ravenna- other then is was easy to set-up and they didn't know much about it.
  
 The reviewer seemed to comment that the SQ was the same from the Ravenna PC and SPDIF input.  And the SPDIF is limited to 96K!
  
 They very much did like the SQ - but really nothing exceptional there as a stand alone DAC:
 SMPS, ESS DAC chips:

  

  

  

 Worth $11000?


----------



## rb2013

Would love to see some Audiophile magazine reviews of the $2550 BURL B2 Bomber DAC with Dante AOIP.
  
 Bet it would crush that NADAC.  And it's SPDIF can handle 192K.


----------



## Cornan

I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
Sorry, but IMO there is not much else that could make me pull the plug. I am way to happy with my USB chain right now. Remember that the AC mains, ground, shield and USB power is all elements that needs to be improved to hear the full benefits of USB audio. I am sure AOIP can make a difference...but not neccessarily as a complete circle.


----------



## Golfnutz

rb2013 said:


> That is interesting - how does the CD player sound vs the PC?


 
 I liked the PC. Overall, it just sounded better to me. As I mentioned earlier, they do have very similar sound signatures. CD Transport was Teac VRDS 25 and Oppo BDP-95. I also liked using the Oppo for Blu-ray and DVD music. Sorry, SACD doesn't work.
  
 Whatever upsampling you have selected in Dante Controller is what your DAC will use regardless of the external device (ie. CD Player / Blu-ray player).
  
 After discovering all this, I sent an email to Focusrite and they confirmed the JetPLL technology was still active to minimize reduce jitter (not just a pass thru when Ethernet is not being used).
  
 I think now more than ever, I'm convinced none of these pro audio companies will develop something simpler for consumer audio. The ability of connecting all these devices together with Ethernet cables is really the selling feature (which consumer audio doesn't really need). From what I've read, there are limitations to JetPLL (DiceIII) that wouldn't sit well with the larger consumer audio base. No DSD, 192K max.


----------



## mhamel

cornan said:


> I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> Sorry, but IMO there is not much else that could make me pull the plug. I am way to happy with my USB chain right now. Remember that the AC mains, ground, shield and USB power is all elements that needs to be improved to hear the full benefits of USB audio. I am sure AOIP can make a difference...but not neccessarily as a complete circle.


 
  
 So, if you've never heard it, how do you know it wouldn't make you want to change or that it isn't as complete a "circle" as you're describing it?
  
 There is zero point to judging if you haven't actually heard it.


----------



## Cornan

mhamel said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> ...




True! But that truth goes both ways. Until you have'nt tried the ultimate USB chain you cannot say that AOIP is the better option. If you read my reply I never said that USB was superior...just that I wanted AOIP to be a part of USB audio. For the sake of AOIPs future I do hope they find a way to implement both.


----------



## mhamel

cornan said:


> True! But that truth goes both ways. Until you have'nt tried the ultimate USB chain you cannot say that AOIP is the better option. If you read my reply I never said that USB was superior...just that I wanted AOIP to be a part of USB audio. For the sake of AOIPs future I do hope they find a way to implement both.


 
  
 I've heard quite a few USB chains... "ultimate" is kind of subjective. I'm also not the only one by far in the thread who previously used USB and has since moved over to this after experiencing the differences. I'm not stating any of this with any ill intent or angry tone - just pointing out that to simply come in here and say you doubt it could change your mind without giving it a shot doesn't add anything to the discussion.
  
 Find a way to hear it... then compare. It's worth it.


----------



## Muziqboy

cornan said:


> I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> Sorry, but IMO there is not much else that could make me pull the plug. I am way to happy with my USB chain right now. Remember that the AC mains, ground, shield and USB power is all elements that needs to be improved to hear the full benefits of USB audio. I am sure AOIP can make a difference...but not neccessarily as a complete circle.


 
  
 For quite some time, I have been using USB as a digital audio path in my rig and was quite amazed at the SQ improvement after each addition of USB fixer-upper devices and told myself that nothing can sound better than this or so I thought.
  
 But after diving in blindly and implementing the RN3 AOIP in my set-up, my initial belief that nothing can be better than USB digital audio quickly dissolved. I mean the SQ improvement over USB was not subtle at all. The artist vocals and instruments sounded so real that it was outright spooky. So from here, I walked away from usb audio devices and never looked back.
  
 This is just my experience and if you read this whole thread, you will find quite a lot of folks who are doubtful at first but totally embraced it after giving it a shot.
  
 IMO, the thought of using different USB fixer devices to improve the digital audio signal is a clear indication that it is really compromised and not the best path for digital music. just my 2c!


----------



## Cornan

muziqboy said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> ...




I understand...and I do fully respect AOIP. However, I would also like to know what USB path you are comparing to? So for example what kind of USB "tweaks" did you end up with when you did the switch to AOIP?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

cornan said:


> I understand...and I do fully respect AOIP. However, I would also like to know what USB path you are comparing to? So for example what kind of USB "tweaks" did you end up with when you did the switch to AOIP?


 

 Just when you thought Muziqboy couldn't throw more moneys at his USB chain, he found other ways to tweak it. I would say what he was using was maxed at what you can do with USB (using a Singxer F1-U plus all kinds of add-ons).


----------



## astrostar59

cornan said:


> I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> Sorry, but IMO there is not much else that could make me pull the plug. I am way to happy with my USB chain right now. Remember that the AC mains, ground, shield and USB power is all elements that needs to be improved to hear the full benefits of USB audio. I am sure AOIP can make a difference...but not neccessarily as a complete circle.


 

 I have tried / had a very good USB chain with Offramp 5, LPS on the ext clock and Offramp. But Rednet still beats it IME. Wireless would I would say have more issues potentially than USB. For example I have way more hassles streaming high res movies via wifi than ethernet. So imagine wifi audio would be the same?
  
 I would say try AOIP before you say USB is as good / better.


----------



## astrostar59

Back onto Rednet and Dante. Has anyone using a Mac tried setting 24 or 32 bit depth in the controller for the Mac (preferred encoding). I set all my settings to 44.1. If I select 32 bit in Dante controller, then look in Audio Midi app it still says only 44.1 24 bit. It will play ok but I am not sure if it is better, or even making a difference i.e. sending data via Core Audio in 32 bit?
  
 Any ideas?
  
 Actually I think Audirvana+ controls the bit depth with the direct mode & Integer mode click boxes. When I had the offramp and M2 Tech EVO it showed up a red or green light to show it was pumping out 32 bit. Maybe Apples Audio Midi is bypassed? 
  
 On another subject, does anyone know if the Rednet Controller app for Mac version 2 works? I think I read it is buggy.


----------



## mourip

cornan said:


> I understand...and I do fully respect AOIP. However, I would also like to know what USB path you are comparing to? So for example what kind of USB "tweaks" did you end up with when you did the switch to AOIP?


 
  
 I hate it when folks ask this but have you read through this entire thread?
  
 Rob had the most tricked out USB chain ever and chronicled every minute step of his path to get there. Many of us have described our well conceived USB chains also.
  
 Give it a spin or better yet buy an RN3 from Sweetwater. You can always return it.
  
 I seriously believe that AOIP is the best kept "secret" in audio and is hiding in plain sight. It stuns me that it gets no attention on CA. I guess they are too busy jousting with each other?


----------



## rb2013

cornan said:


> I would love to see a wireless stand alone AOIP solution for any streamer of choise. That or perhaps a wired solution would make me choose the AOIP path.
> Sorry, but IMO there is not much else that could make me pull the plug. I am way to happy with my USB chain right now. Remember that the AC mains, ground, shield and USB power is all elements that needs to be improved to hear the full benefits of USB audio. I am sure AOIP can make a difference...but not neccessarily as a complete circle.


You are spot on. In fact my further experiments with the Startech GB LAN Ethernet USB extender and solid state storage on the same Startech, along with a pretty insane USB data and power chain has made me reconsider what USB can do. Believe it or not - This USB chain is my new reference!

Surpassing all the AOIP Dante chains I've had, including with the Mutec as reclocker and Antelope OCX.

Today with the arrival of the excellent MEIYAN 24 VDC LPS, replacing the Breeze LT1083/RCore LPS on the Startech REX, this chain has now surpassed the best I could get with the Rednet OR the modded BURL.

I'll start a new thread titled 'AOIP watch out - USB strikes back!'

A hint - the explosive dynamics and levels of detail are breathtaking.

Once the MEIYAN LPS gets a few hundred hours, the SQ should be even better. I have some mods to do on it, then I'll get the new thread up.

Got to love computer audio, best sound I have had yet. Just not an easy path, but then again anyone who has delved deeply into high end analog knows that's not easy either.

Cheers!


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Back onto Rednet and Dante. Has anyone using a Mac tried setting 24 or 32 bit depth in the controller for the Mac (preferred encoding). I set all my settings to 44.1. If I select 32 bit in Dante controller, then look in Audio Midi app it still says only 44.1 24 bit. It will play ok but I am not sure if it is better, or even making a difference i.e. sending data via Core Audio in 32 bit?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> ...


 
 I've installed it as well.
  
 And while I haven't run into any bugs yet, it still has a ways to go yet, ie. it's 'young'.
  
 And no I haven't worried about anything above 24bit, since there isn't any, at least in my possession.
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> I'll start a new thread titled 'AOIP watch out - USB strikes back!'


 
  
 lol
  
 nope


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> I'll start a new thread titled 'AOIP watch out - USB strikes back!'


 


 Hmm, interesting if that is true. Looking at the techs it doesn't make sense a series of format changing devices would sound better than Ethernet straight through. There must be something else going on here? I can't comment as not heard this chain myself. But I am very happy with the Rednet solution, it beats my previous Offramp 5 and EVO chains.
  
 There is something inherently wrong with USB audio, the noise in the connection, the power feed, the slowness of it, the packet sizes, the poor connection (loose USB ports are a pain), the shared USB bus on many Macs and PCs, it goes on. If there is a chain of wizard fixers that get it done, great. I think I will stay on AOIP. But I applaud the effort to max out any format or connection device.


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> I've installed it as well.
> 
> And while I haven't run into any bugs yet, it still has a ways to go yet, ie. it's 'young'.
> 
> ...


 

 Is that on a Mac 10.9.5+ ? Does it sound any different? Does it follow the sample rate change of a preferred player? Sorry a few questions.


----------



## Cornan

mourip said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > I understand...and I do fully respect AOIP. However, I would also like to know what USB path you are comparing to? So for example what kind of USB "tweaks" did you end up with when you did the switch to AOIP?
> ...




I am sorry if I upset you or anyone else on this thread. Not my intension! I have followed this thread a long time but still have'nt read about anyone using what I call a great USB chain with 2-wire unshielded USB cables (ie. 3-wire cables with GND lift). It takes a long time to perfect USB audio and I guess that applies to AOyIP as well since so many "tweaks" are posted here. There have been a lot of break though In the USB audio. Latest one is the sc. leakage loop which quickly described require battery supplies or Ultracap supply for devices together with isolated ICs, isolated ethernet, limited AC connected devices, Isolation transformer with floating secondary and no filtered powerstrip to completely remove. Sounds amazing! I guess the Isolation transformer w/floating secondary would make great improvements upon AOIP as well.
Anyway, I am all for AOIP...but just as a replacement for Ethernet IMO.


----------



## alubis

If you read the thread carefully, you will find many here have tried various usb transports, add ons, tweaks etc. I posted several usb transports that I have tried and I have tried many usb tweaks, including ground lift with usb cables. 

IMO, the problem with usb is not only power, but also the protocol itself. Usb protocol is generic for many purposes not just audio. AOIP is just for audio, hence you can't transmit video or anything else via AOIP. That's probably why it is sound superior compared to usb. Well, at least to my ears. 



cornan said:


> I am sorry if I upset you or anyone else on this thread. Not my intension! I have followed this thread a long time but still have'nt read about anyone using what I call a great USB chain with 2-wire unshielded USB cables (ie. 3-wire cables with GND lift). It takes a long time to perfect USB audio and I guess that applies to AOyIP as well since so many "tweaks" are posted here. There have been a lot of break though In the USB audio. Latest one is the sc. leakage loop which quickly described require battery supplies or Ultracap supply for devices together with isolated ICs, isolated ethernet, limited AC connected devices, Isolation transformer with floating secondary and no filtered powerstrip to completely remove. Sounds amazing! I guess the Isolation transformer w/floating secondary would make great improvements upon AOIP as well.
> Anyway, I am all for AOIP...but just as a replacement for Ethernet IMO.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> I'll start a new thread titled 'AOIP watch out - USB strikes back!'


 
  
 Thanks.
  
 It would make sense to start a new separate USB thread. Personally I would like to see the thread re-focus on AOIP prgress and not debate USB.
  
 I guess this answers my question about how it is going with the Burl.


----------



## robi20064

Is anyone using external clock in an AOIP chain? If so, what solution?


----------



## mourip

Several folks here use an external clock. I am using an Antelope LiveClock to clock both my D16 and Mutec +3 USB to good result. The only downside is that it limits you to one rate unless you change it manually. I believe that is an issue when trying to enable sample rate following(SRF) which is now working well in the latest release of Rednet Control v2.
  
 I would be interested in knowing if there is a reasonably priced clock that can be set to follow the rate set at the application level source. I have not worried too much about it however as I just set the rate to 192K all around and now I mainly obsess about what music to buy rather than the next tweak. I am probably fooling myself and am just catching my breath but at some point one needs to just enjoy the music even if one also finds the chase exciting.


----------



## astrostar59

cornan said:


> I am sorry if I upset you or anyone else on this thread. Not my intension! I have followed this thread a long time but still have'nt read about anyone using what I call a great USB chain with 2-wire unshielded USB cables (ie. 3-wire cables with GND lift). It takes a long time to perfect USB audio and I guess that applies to AOyIP as well since so many "tweaks" are posted here. There have been a lot of break though In the USB audio. Latest one is the sc. leakage loop which quickly described require battery supplies or Ultracap supply for devices together with isolated ICs, isolated ethernet, limited AC connected devices, Isolation transformer with floating secondary and no filtered powerstrip to completely remove. Sounds amazing! I guess the Isolation transformer w/floating secondary would make great improvements upon AOIP as well.
> Anyway, I am all for AOIP...but just as a replacement for Ethernet IMO.


 

 Listen to it, then decide. Techno babble means not much, ears mean everything IMO. I had a decent chain with LPS on everything inc additional mains regenerator to supply my whole system. Rednet still cleaner, fluid, better.
  
 IMO it isn't just the power / ground lift issue, USB data transfer has other (many) issues.


----------



## rb2013

iving said:


> lol
> 
> nope


 
 Have you visited my listening room?  Who started this thread?  Who started the XU208 USB thread? 
  


astrostar59 said:


> Hmm, interesting if that is true. Looking at the techs it doesn't make sense a series of format changing devices would sound better than Ethernet straight through. There must be something else going on here? I can't comment as not heard this chain myself. But I am very happy with the Rednet solution, it beats my previous Offramp 5 and EVO chains.
> 
> There is something inherently wrong with USB audio, the noise in the connection, the power feed, the slowness of it, the packet sizes, the poor connection (loose USB ports are a pain), the shared USB bus on many Macs and PCs, it goes on. If there is a chain of wizard fixers that get it done, great. I think I will stay on AOIP. But I applaud the effort to max out any format or connection device.


 
 I doubt there is anyone on this thread that has owned, lived with, tweeked both AOIP and USB chains to the degree I have.
  
 What makes sense is immaterial - what sounds best is what counts!  I didn't think this new development would be popular here - but I'm and equal opportunity audiophile.  No hidden biases - just meticulous attention  to various configurations.  And I know what sounds best to me, and this ain't my first rodeo - of course YMMV.
  
 I started this thread based on my perceived audio sound quality superiority of different forms of AOIP.  But as I stated many pages ago - the train does stop here - thank god!
  
 What I heard yesterday has truly floored me - as did the Rednet RN3 did when I first heard it, and the subsequent improvements by adding the Mutec MC-3+ as SPDIF (later AES) reclocker, later the Antelope OXCO as Wclock, multiple Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme power cables (another of my finds that became very popular), Oyaide BNC Wclock cables, etc...
  


mourip said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It would make sense to start a new separate USB thread. Personally I would like to see the thread re-focus on AOIP prgress and not debate USB.
> 
> I guess this answers my question about how it is going with the Burl.


 
 Yes I will start a new thread - especially since the XMOS XU208 F-1 was closed.
  
 To my ears the BURL B2B with the Dante board (and LPS power) as superior to feeding it the RN3/Mutec/OXCO by AES.  Now this new USB chain feeding the BURL by SPDIF has surpassed the Dante built in SQ.  Better still this USB chain feeding the heavily modded R2R PCM1704 tube DAC60 is even better.  The BURL is nice as DAC but has a bit of a sterile quality.  The tonal density and richness of DAC60 coupled with this Ultra USB chain adds incredibly explosive dynamics (but macro and micro), and as hard as it was for me to believe, a whole new layer of detail revealed.  Additonally, the very subtle lower level ambient clues being divulged produces a sound stage of truly life like realism, and the great sound field immersion yet.  Spooky real sounds emerging from behind me, deep into the rear corners of my listening room.
  
 The USB Ultra chain also has a delicacy and finesse that surpasses the best of AOIP.
  
 I give the RN3/Mutec/OXCO combo the slight edge in ultimate bass depth, but the tremendous air and transparency increase with this Ultra USB chain more then makes up for that.  In the end it's the break taking 'slam', 'jump', 'energy' that bowled me over.  In fact it took me by surprise and a little while to adjust to.
  
 But this exploration is not done yet...I believe more can be rung from this fruit...


----------



## rb2013

Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
 
Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
  
 Ultra USB chain (details to long to list)                                                                   320
 BURL B2B DAC with DANTE Brooklyn II/ modded w/LPS power                                     285
 REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)             270
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB/Audience au24 se digital cable                                 250
REDNET 3/Cerious/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF reclocker)/AS Sliver Statement dig cable          240
REDNET 3/Cerious Power Cord                                                                                220
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2/Startech GB LAN Iso USB               170
Mutec 3+ Smart Clock USB/Cerious Power Cord                                                         155
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/ iPur2                                                   145
PUC2 Lite TeraDak DC30W/Cerious/Regen                                                               135
Singxer F-1 DC30W/Cerious                                                                                   135
DXIO Silver/TeraDak DC-30W/Cerious                                                                      130
Singxer X-1 DC30W/Cerious/Recovery/DCiPur/iPur2                                                    125
PUC2 Lite - USB power                                                                                          110
Singxer F-1  Stock feed                                                                                          110
Breeze/Cerious Graph/WBT RCA Nexgen                                                                   109
Breeze DU-U8 with Cerious Graphene                                                                      108
  Breeze DU-U8 (Talema version)                                                                             100
Breeze DU-U8 (BingZi version)                                                                                95
Hydra Z with LPS                                                                                                   92
Melodious MX-U8 (upgraded caps)                                                                            85
Melodious MX-U8 (stock)                                                                                         81
Gustard U12 (upgraded caps)                                                                                   76
Gustard U12 stock                                                                                                  72
iDAC DAC2 (used as a DDC)                                                                                     65
Musiland USB3.0 US Dragon                                                                                     65
M2Tech EVO with LPS                                                                                              60
Audiophileo 2  USB Power                                                                                        50
M2Tech Hiface                                                                                                        40


----------



## PCWar

I managed to open the Atterotech unDaes-o and am posting some photos of the internals for the interested.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Here would be my current ratings and rankings (the numbers are just a relative number - they are not percentages).  The Breeze Audio (Talema) DU-U8 = 100
> 
> Obviously these are my subjective ratings YMMV - and yes I have owned (had a loaner) all these for an extended period of time:
> 
> ...


 

 I am wondering if there is some synergy or other thing going on? It would be good to try your 2 chains plugged into different DACs to know for sure IMO. No disrespect, but a higher end DAC  or different designed DAC may do different things or react differently. It may throw up a different presentation?
  
 For example I don't do up sampling s I am on R-2R Redbook, so any gains / losses using HQPlayer is taken of the menu, so in my case it may be simpler to know what is going on?
  
 In my DAC fed via SPDIF or AES I always noticed a 'slighty' lower level of detail in loosing my USB chain to AOIP. But on flicking back and forth it was a treble rasp or clinical edge that seemed like more detail. It was ultimately a false friend in my system. The AOIP has it all there, but it is smoother so a more cohesive part of the whole music, less hifi, more real. Maybe bit less impressive in a short demo but a keeper in the home, it just fits better and looses any fatigue or reminder it is digital.
  
 Fascinating subject.


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> I am wondering if there is some synergy or other thing going on? It would be good to try your 2 chains plugged into different DACs to know for sure IMO. No disrespect, but a higher end DAC  or different designed DAC may do different things or react differently. It may throw up a different presentation?
> 
> For example I don't do up sampling s I am on R-2R Redbook, so any gains / losses using HQPlayer is taken of the menu, so in my case it may be simpler to know what is going on?
> 
> ...


 
 Well I have tried it with the $6500 APL NWOjr DAC - six 32-bit AKM D-S DACs per channel, Lunduhl transformer coupling, E99CC class A tube output, specially designed discrete SPDIF receiver, LPS, etc...
 Note Srajan's direct comparison to the Zanden 5000 Mk II NOS (non-oversampling) DAC and preference for the APL http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/aplhifi/nwo30go.html
  
 And the amazing DAC60 using R2R PCM1704U-K top spec DAC's, independent Lite R-Core transformers (one for Digital and one for Analog), 6922 SRPP (similar your AN) true tube output stage (with the amazing Russian totl HG '75 silver NOS tubes), Mundorf Supreme Silver/Gold/Oil caps, Hammond choke PS filter, upgraded Mundorf M'Lytic PS caps, Elna Simlic II and Nichicon Fine Gold PS caps, Mundorf solid silver wiring/teflon etc...
  
 Beside the modded LPS BURL B2B DAC (which I have sold to my friend).
  
 Right now the Ultra USB chain and the heavily modded DAC60 are my reference.
  
  

 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
  
 I would put this DAC up against your Audio Note any day.  No disrespect - but I do remember debating you many pages ago about the superiority of the Rednet AOIP over your EVO stack.  See how that turned out...just sayn'
  
 Having owned and tweeked my EVO many years ago,  I had little doubt the AOIP RN would 'crush it' - I believe  that was what I posted back a few months ago.  And you have not heard the Rednet with the Mutec MC-3+ USB as reclocker or with a OXCO Wclock - both giving the RN a better SQ.
  
 This ultra USB is in a whole other orbit from the EVO US stack you had.  But it takes extreme measures to get there  - like three separate LPS's to start.  Not saying this path is for everyone - or anyone else for that matter.  Just reporting what I'm hearing, with the perspective of a very deep experience with both chains.
  
 Not to knock AOIP or the Rednet gear - it is great.  As I have said many times before in my 5706 posts on Headfi.  Just because something else comes along that someone else prefers, doesn't instantaneously make what you have sound worse.  The good news is the level of SQ achievable from computer audio has not hit it's limit.
  
 If I have one comment regarding this ProAudio gear (Rednet, Mutec, Antelope) is get rid of those awful SMPS's.


----------



## rb2013

One additional note - the RN3, Mutec and Antelope all were connected by expensive Cerious Tech Graphene Extreme power chords - as well as the DAC.  The three on the AOIP were sold.  I'm using three generic Silver/Niobium plug power chords on the three LPS's.  These excellent, but relatively expensive power cords would give the AOIP chain a leg up.
  
 BTW if anybody is looking for a killer great, low cost LPS - with enough current to power a music server.  Check out the MEIYAN LPS.
  
 More info over on my LPS thread - see my last few posts and the bottom of the 1st page:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/822160/audio-power-supplies-part3-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> I would put this DAC up against your Audio Note any day.  No disrespect - but I do remember debating you many pages ago about the superiority of the Rednet AOIP over your EVO stack.  See how that turned out...just sayn'


 
 Yes debating USB v AOIP, and I said I would cast my opinion when I heard it. You haven't heard the Audio Note DAC 5. Rather comparing 'similar' design topologies and saying it will sound the same. I haven't heard the Zanden model you quote, but have friends who have Zanden and they say it does sound different to most Audio Note units. I don't cast my vote on that until I hear one.
  
 Your DAC v AN DAC 5. Hmm, that is difficult to quantify. I can't find any reliable comparisons between the Zanden and my Audio Note DAC 5 Special. And your DAC obviously. The Audio Note has very expensive output transformers and a lot of work gone into the analogue filtering (no digital filter). That and Peter's I/V secrets, quality power supply with 2 x oversized mains transformers, big backgate caps, SHUNT power supply for the digital board. I am not saying your DAC project is no good. I am saying unless they are pitched together it is impossible to quantify.
  
 I have owned 4 AN DACs of various levels and some had mods applied.
  
 My DAC retails at over £25K, I bought used for a lot less. I also upgraded the output transformers to Signature level.
  
 My own comparisons with the AN DAC 5 were C1 CH Precision, MSB Platinum Stack, Meridian 808, Naim CD555, Esoteric K-01, Lampizator Big 6, AMR DP-777. It beat all of those squarely, more real sounding with zero fatigue. The Lampi was the best IMO of those comparison DACs, the AMR a close third.


----------



## Cornan

astrostar59 said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry if I upset you or anyone else on this thread. Not my intension! I have followed this thread a long time but still have'nt read about anyone using what I call a great USB chain with 2-wire unshielded USB cables (ie. 3-wire cables with GND lift). It takes a long time to perfect USB audio and I guess that applies to AOyIP as well since so many "tweaks" are posted here. There have been a lot of break though In the USB audio. Latest one is the sc. leakage loop which quickly described require battery supplies or Ultracap supply for devices together with isolated ICs, isolated ethernet, limited AC connected devices, Isolation transformer with floating secondary and no filtered powerstrip to completely remove. Sounds amazing! I guess the Isolation transformer w/floating secondary would make great improvements upon AOIP as well.
> ...




I agree that techno babble will not solve anything! IMO LPS is the wrong path since it will ensure leakage currents. You'll need to limit the leakage currents (which travels through neutral & live). Power the AOIP via battery supply or Ultracapacitors supply and you will enjoy further SQ improvements due to isolation to AC mains. Adding a IT w/ floating secondary downhill will ensure no backward noise into the AC mains. It will better both USB and AOIP!


----------



## jabbr

robi20064 said:


> Is anyone using external clock in an AOIP chain? If so, what solution?


 
 I use a Grimm CC1 clock which can follow sample rate of the input signal, though I use it at a fixed sample rate.


----------



## rb2013

cornan said:


> I agree that techno babble will not solve anything! IMO LPS is the wrong path since it will ensure leakage currents. You'll need to limit the leakage currents (which travels through neutral & live). Power the AOIP via battery supply or Ultracapacitors supply and you will enjoy further SQ improvements due to isolation to AC mains. Adding a IT w/ floating secondary downhill will ensure no backward noise into the AC mains. It will better both USB and AOIP!


 

 'Leakage Currents' Ha!  Isn't that 'techno' babble!
  
 Just kidding - well the leak of a LPS is orders of magnitude less then these SMPS's like the one in the RN stuff.  And much depends on the design of the LPS - R-cores are the best and have the highest PSRR - see my three part PS threads.
  
 Ultracapacitors are very good - but limited in current - and very expensive.  And the Uptone LPS-1 for example uses a SMPS to charge - so back to square one.  Of course  you can use a LPS to charge it as well - but that only adds to the $400 cost.
  
 My long experience with battery power of all kind is they seem to lack dynamics - and many have high DC noise.  Battery power supplies suffer from slow rise times and the ability to deliver high current on demand.
  
 Now another way to address the small leakage of a LPS is to use a AC line isolator and filter - which I do - a separate one for the DAC, DDC chain, PC server.  The Art Audio provide 40dB of attenuation and isolation - right up to 1Mhz levels.
  
 The reason LPS's can create AC leakage is the charging of their PS filter caps - that is usually large on initial power up and diminishes with warmup stability.  The reason low ESR caps are important.  The degree of further leakage will be determined by the current draw - for min draw situations that would be quite small.
  
 In any event with 40dB of isloation - then another 40dB of filtering on you have 80dB of AC line noise reduction.  To near immeasurable levels.  Now if your gear uses R-Core power supply transformers - they have very high PSRR in and of themselves.  Take the Rednet Ferex SMPS with 150,000uv of AC line noise injection - that is a problem.  The MEIYEN is approx 300uv after turn on.  On the DC side 13uv at 24VDC, 8uv at 5VDC.
  
 Let's see you power a Rednet with a LPS-1 - good luck friend.
  
 I have much more info here for anybody curious:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/821621/audio-power-supplies-part-1-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/821731/audio-power-supplies-part-2-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/822160/audio-power-supplies-part3-smps-lps-supercap-battery-diy-route-new-devices-opens-up-new-options
  
 The MEIYEN is a discrete designed based on the single version of the AMB σ11 regulation scheme.
 http://www.amb.org/audio/sigma11/


----------



## Cornan

A general rule is to limit the amounts of DC powered devices in the chain. Any "tweak" that is improving something needs to be passive...and if absolutely necessary it needs to be powered isolated from the AC mains. Keep that in mind for AOIP as well!


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Yes debating USB v AOIP, and I said I would cast my opinion when I heard it. You haven't heard the Audio Note DAC 5. Rather comparing 'similar' design topologies and saying it will sound the same. I haven't heard the Zanden model you quote, but have friends who have Zanden and they say it does sound different to most Audio Note units. I don't cast my vote on that until I hear one.
> 
> Your DAC v AN DAC 5. Hmm, that is difficult to quantify. I can't find any reliable comparisons between the Zanden and my Audio Note DAC 5 Special. And your DAC obviously. The Audio Note has very expensive output transformers and a lot of work gone into the analogue filtering (no digital filter). That and Peter's I/V secrets, quality power supply with 2 x oversized mains transformers, big backgate caps, SHUNT power supply for the digital board. I am not saying your DAC project is no good. I am saying unless they are pitched together it is impossible to quantify.
> 
> ...


 

 Well not to turn this into a DAC thread - the APL NWO uses the finest Lunduhl output transformers for coupling.  The history of Zanden and Audio Note are intertwined.  The Zanden using the TDA1541A and a proprietary analog filter.  http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-uk-vs-kondo-audio-note-japan-1
  
 I have compared the APL NWO GO 3.0 to the DCS stack and the Rossini - and much prefered the APL.  The DCS stuff is way to dry for my taste. 
 Srajan of 6Moons has a bit more experience then either of us:


> With today's digital source components, a clearly best CD player would have to beat AMR, Audio Aero, Burmester, dCS, EMM Labs, Esoteric, Orpheus Labs, Spectral and Zanden.
> 
> Now enter a generous benefactor. He gifted me with this NWO 3.0-GO to "have the best" - a true boon for any reviewer and most assuredly this one.* Like myself, my friend has owned Zanden's top quartet. Unlike myself, he's also owned the dCS triple stack, Meitner gear and continues to spin vinyl.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Now for me my reference is my old $30K analog rig - VPI Superscout Master Sig, Dynavecter XV1S, Benz Ebony LP, Bent Audio Silver step-up transformers, CJ tube 6922 tube phono pre, all Nordost Valhalla wiring - feeding a CJ ACT2 Pre.

  

 This new source has left this analog in the dust.


----------



## Cornan

rb2013 said:


> 'Leakage Currents' Ha!  Isn't that 'techno' babble!
> 
> Just kidding - well the leak of a LPS is orders of magnitude less then these SMPS's like the one in the RN stuff.  And much depends on the design of the LPS - R-cores are the best and have the highest PSRR - see my three part PS threads.
> 
> ...




I do not wish to start a debate about battery supply vs LPS. All I know is that if you make sure that the Li-ion BPS have a charged value that is the same as the maximum voltage of your powered device you will be fine! Also the output A is important for the final result!

Leakage loops are very important for SQ. If you have LPS it is crucial to connect the all the LPS to the same unfiltered powerstrip connected to a IT w/ floating secondary for best results!


----------



## rb2013

cornan said:


> A general rule is to limit the amounts of DC powered devices in the chain. Any "tweak" that is improving something needs to be passive...and if absolutely necessary it needs to be powered isolated from the AC mains. Keep that in mind for AOIP as well!


 

 Battery power is passive?  Anyway not my kind of sound - not when I'm getting these explosive dynamics.  So lifelike!
  
 For me all the theory is fine - but after doing this for 25+yrs I know what I like.
  
 Weren't you using a UpNP/DNLA USb chain?
  
 Cheers


----------



## rb2013

http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Is that on a Mac 10.9.5+ ? Does it sound any different? Does it follow the sample rate change of a preferred player? Sorry a few questions.


 
 Yes 10.9.5
 No, I can't hear any differences.
 No, the SR Follow still doesn't work for me using Jriver
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> Yes 10.9.5
> No, I can't hear any differences.
> No, the SR Follow still doesn't work for me using Jriver
> 
> JJ


 

 Ok, thanks for that. I will wait for another update then.
  
 I play 44.1 no up sampling as have an R-2R DAC NOS and use 95% 44.1 material.
  
*What are your settings in Rednet Controller as mine?*
 Mode: AES
 Word Clock Termination: Yes
 Input Devices Off
 Output Devices: Off
 Input Protocol: Off
 Output Protocol: Off
  
*In Dante Controller*
 I set Preferred bit depth as PCM32
 Unicast Delay Requests: Off
  
*On Mac *
 I can set 44.1 as 24bit Integer (no option for 32bit)
  
*In Audirvana+ *
 I set Direct Mode and Asyncronious as active.
 Max out hog mode.
  
 Thanks for your help


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Ok, thanks for that. I will wait for another update then.
> 
> I play 44.1 no up sampling as have an R-2R DAC NOS and use 95% 44.1 material.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes to all of those settings.
  
 I use Jriver which has a bit different setup to feed the data stream.
 But for me the latency settings inside Dante Controller are all set using the smallest window possible.
 I don't know if this is all that important but I would think the shorter the latency window that you can run, the better (based upon any occurrence of drop outs or 'hiccups').
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Battery power is passive?  Anyway not my kind of sound - not when I'm getting these explosive dynamics.  So lifelike!
> 
> For me all the theory is fine - but after doing this for 25+yrs I know what I like.
> 
> ...


 
 Not wanting to complicate things, but a power regenerator IMO gives huge gains in filtered and clean / stable power. Sonically made a big difference. Measured my gets 2.5%+ mains distortion in and 0.1% out. Put the LPS and the rest of the system on that and equates to cleaner power.


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> Yes to all of those settings.
> 
> I use Jriver which has a bit different setup to feed the data stream.
> But for me the latency settings inside Dante Controller are all set using the smallest window possible.
> ...


 
 Thanks that is good to know. Yes latency is the enemy of Audio and jitter. One of the failures in USB IMO. I do graphic work for various clients and move big high resolution files around. Saving any back out to a USB external is a disaster. Too slow and stop starts.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Well not to turn this into a DAC thread - the APL NWO uses the finest Lunduhl output transformers for coupling.  The history of Zanden and Audio Note are intertwined.  The Zanden using the TDA1541A and a proprietary analog filter.  http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-uk-vs-kondo-audio-note-japan-1


 
 Where has the history of Audio Note got anything in common with Zanden? Audio Note Japan and Audio UK split. Zanden has no link. Audio Note Japan doesn't have a DAC product right now.
  
 Think this ego battle of your DAC v mine is going nowhere. Listening is the only way. Best get back on subject......


----------



## Iving

rb2013 said:


> Have you visited my listening room?  Who started this thread?  Who started the XU208 USB thread?
> 
> I doubt there is anyone on this thread that has owned, lived with, tweeked both AOIP and USB chains to the degree I have.
> 
> ...


 
  
 There are a lot of "I" assertions in that!
 None of it speaks to my reluctance to re-contemplate USB.
 This AOIP thread has been great for me building my present system - for which many thanks.
 I am beginning to love what I have, and don't need to invite back in complex USB-hinged arrays in order to enjoy my music.
 That is what I mean by "nope".
 (Plus of course, "lol" means, "Look at how we so strenuously denied USB in the beginning!")
 Absolutely nothing against you pioneering boys pushing the envelope.
 But for me there is mojo where I'm at. I'll keep an eye on y'all tho' - even if I don't contribute


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> There are a lot of "I" assertions in that!
> None of it speaks to my reluctance to re-contemplate USB.
> This AOIP thread has been great for me building my present system - for which many thanks.
> I am beginning to love what I have, and don't need to invite back in complex USB-hinged arrays in order to enjoy my music.
> ...


 

 Mirrors where I am at as well. I want as simple and complete a solution as possible. I don't want to go back to costly and complex USB fixers and adapters, convertors and filter boxes, cable spagetti. They are expensive, complex, interact in inconsistent ways and can run into a dead end as regards firmware and my Mac / system updates. I am also convinced they can sound better or worse depending how they interact with the DAC input, i.e. the choice of DAC affects how effective they are.
  
 I am tempted to tap an LPS supply into my Rednet box however, but unless someone else does if first and it works out, I won't risk trashing the warranty.
  
 USB fixers is a big subject. I had 4 years of it and want to move on. I was never convinced by it or heard anyones USB fed DAC that sounded great IMO.
  
 But there are also huge gains looking at mains regeneration IMO. The mount of gains one can get depends to an extent how good your mains supply is i.e stability of voltage, noise and wave form. I live in an apartment though it is new and has a step-down transformer on the street level. I see 2.5% mains distortion average, sometimes 6% and volage can be 229v anywhere up to 259v.


----------



## Iving

> Originally Posted by *astrostar59* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I am tempted to tap an LPS supply into my Rednet box however, but unless someone else does if first and it works out


 
  
 Also interested ...


----------



## Iving

> But there are also huge gains looking at mains regeneration IMO. The mount of gains one can get depends to an extent how good your mains supply is i.e stability of voltage, noise and wave form


 
  
 Also interested in this ... although my local supply probably is pretty good


----------



## rb2013

astrostar59 said:


> Not wanting to complicate things, but a power regenerator IMO gives huge gains in filtered and clean / stable power. Sonically made a big difference. Measured my gets 2.5%+ mains distortion in and 0.1% out. Put the LPS and the rest of the system on that and equates to cleaner power.


 
 I have tried the PS Audio regenerators - and they were not to my taste - but really like the Audience aR AC line balancers and conditioners.  I use one in my main system.  Too bad they are so expensive.  Isotech makes some great conditioners as well.  But found that using separate AC common and differential mode conditioners and isolators helped in my systems.  Esp having my DAC's on a separate sole unit vs the DDC's and PC music servers.  To me the 'damage' done to the SQ is pretty obvious with SMPS.  Much experimenting with the iFi iPowers - always heard an improvement when they were removed.
  


iving said:


> There are a lot of "I" assertions in that!
> None of it speaks to my reluctance to re-contemplate USB.
> This AOIP thread has been great for me building my present system - for which many thanks.
> I am beginning to love what I have, and don't need to invite back in complex USB-hinged arrays in order to enjoy my music.
> ...


 
 Well I guess you miss the part where I said  - I'm not recommending anyone follow this path.  And that AOIP is great and the better SQ I've heard from this USB ultra chain, does not in any way detract or degrade the Rednet gear.  My only point is to report what I found - and to not dismiss USB (or the upcoming ThunderBolt 3) completely.  Some time back I was accused of being biased agianst USB - nothing can be further from the truth.  With my very popular 'Gustard U12' and 'XU208' experiments and threads - I feel I have done my part to push that game forward.  AOIP was s sea-change to me - but I kept my USB experiments going - so glad I did.  I won't go into this any more here - and will wait to post to the new thread.  There is to much to discuss and explain.
  


astrostar59 said:


> Mirrors where I am at as well. I want as simple and complete a solution as possible. I don't want to go back to costly and complex USB fixers and adapters, convertors and filter boxes, cable spagetti. They are expensive, complex, interact in inconsistent ways and can run into a dead end as regards firmware and my Mac / system updates. I am also convinced they can sound better or worse depending how they interact with the DAC input, i.e. the choice of DAC affects how effective they are.
> 
> I am tempted to tap an LPS supply into my Rednet box however, but unless someone else does if first and it works out, I won't risk trashing the warranty.
> 
> ...


 
 Your feeling on the USB complexity for top performance is totally understandable - I was there as well.  Then came the Mutec as SPDIF/AES reclocker (needing another high end power cord, another box), then the Antelope OCX (another high end power cord, Oyaide silver BNC cable, another box),  then the FMC fiber boxes (needing two more LPS's), and not to mention suggestions for a GISO Etherent isloator.  And AOIP was looking more and more like USB - that is for 'pushing the envelope' performance.  The cost for all this was getting crazy.
  
 Sold it all when the one box BURL Dante DAC mods produced better results. 
  
 I was so pleased to be down to just two boxes - the BURL and an ext LPS.  Not hard to see how removing these SMPS's and using a decent LPS can improve things (see the CA thread on the Mutec gear).  My hope is that new Dante interfaces come with a simple DC power port (as I have posted they already have).  I did miss my tube DACs - so that kept me pushing forward on the USB front in my office system.
  
 So now back to the USB alternative that has reset the bar to such a high level.  And at a much lower cost.  Yes it is complex needing many components, but actually takes much less space then the AOIP stack.  The Singxer F-1(stock) is very small - same for the Startech boxes - hidden behind my gear rack.  It's the three LPS's that take some room  - but still less then before.  *But for me all that's not what's ultimately important - the ONLY thing I'm concerned with is sound quality at a reasonable cost.*  As far as SQ it's the best yet - and costs far less then a D16.
  
 Signing off this thread unless some new AOIP gear appears that I may try - and a quick note to let anybody interested know the new threads up.
  
 Good luck to those on the Rednet path.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Iving

Quote: 





rb2013 said:


> Well I guess you miss the part where I said  - I'm not recommending anyone follow this path.  And that AOIP is great and the better SQ I've heard from this USB ultra chain, does not in any way detract or degrade the Rednet gear.  My only point is to report what I found - and to not dismiss USB (or the upcoming ThunderBolt 3) completely.  Some time back I was accused of being biased agianst USB - nothing can be further from the truth.  With my very popular 'Gustard U12' and 'XU208' experiments and threads - I feel I have done my part to push that game forward.  AOIP was s sea-change to me - but I kept my USB experiments going - so glad I did.  I won't go into this any more here - and will wait to post to the new thread.  There is to much to discuss and explain.


 
  
 No - didn't miss it


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Signing off this thread unless some new AOIP gear appears that I may try - and a quick note to let anybody interested know the new threads up.


 
  
 Hey Rob,
  
 Thanks for creating the new thread but I don't see it.
  
 Could you (or anyone else for that matter) please provide a link?
  
 Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> Hey Rob,
> 
> Thanks for creating the new thread but I don't see it.
> 
> ...



Hi Joel,
Well at least one person is interested! LOL! 

No it's not up yet, you know I like high information threads, so they take some time to create. I'll be a few weeks before I done with some final experimenting. The MEIYAN LPS is still burning in (on day three now and all I can say is wow!). It'll get modded with new Mundorf 10,000uf caps. The Breeze LPS is getting a new ultra low noise 0.8uv LT3042 board, replcing the 180uv LT1083 board. Tnis I'll try on the F-1, and on the LEX.

I'm finding how important high quality power supplies make. So I'll go through all the comparisons and SQ differences these different LPS's make. My goal is to keep the total chain cot below $1200. So no JS-2‘s, SR3's, or LPS-1‘s in the budget unfortunately.

Cheers


----------



## joelha

I'm definitely interested, Rob.
  
 I have two JS-2's as well as a variety of Sbooster power supplies.
  
 I'm completely open to buying the Singxer F-1 (or SU-1 as I use AES cables) as well as the Startech device. You're using the four output option?
  
 My DAC is the Berkelely Alpha Reference Series 2 (only very recently upgraded).
  
 So, given that and some other large investments I've made in my system, I'm very interested in knowing about the new USB option you've arrived at . . . even though it's still in development.
  
 If you're interested in feedback from a second pair of ears, I'm very open to getting more details from you.
  
 Thanks for the great pioneering work you're doing for the rest of us.
  
 Joel


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> snip I am tempted to tap an LPS supply into my Rednet box however, but unless someone else does if first and it works out, I won't risk trashing the warranty.
> 
> snip


 


iving said:


> Also interested ...


 
 I have a triple output LPS inbound, to mod my RN3.
 I probably won't see it till December.
  
 Then the real fun begins, as in, what will it take to couple it to the RN3…
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> I have a triple output LPS inbound, to mod my RN3.
> I probably won't see it till December.
> 
> Then the real fun begins, as in, what will it take to couple it to the RN3…
> ...


 

 That sounds VERY interesting. If not too much bitter could you PM me when you start? I would love to be in on the ground floor on this.
  
 Which LPS did you buy?


----------



## Iving

johnjen said:


> I have a triple output LPS inbound, to mod my RN3.
> I probably won't see it till December.
> 
> Then the real fun begins, as in, what will it take to couple it to the RN3…
> ...


 
  
  
 Interested!
  
 Have you thought of contacting UK Focusrite for info, advice even service?


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> Interested!
> 
> Have you thought of contacting UK Focusrite for info, advice even service?


 
 I think (am sure) they would not support that. It is an internal mod and would trash the warranty. Pity there is no power in ports at the back.
  
 Anyway, if unhooking some tracers and wires allows a DC supply to be hooked up that would be great. I would add a socket on the back so it was all secure.
  
 My LPS has 2 spare outputs for 12V DC and another for variable, so should work.


----------



## peteAllen

golfnutz said:


> I have both HQPlayer and Oppo BDP-95 configured to my D16.
> 
> I do think it's worth trying if you have any DVD or BluRay music discs. Just downmix to Stereo in your Oppo player.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks a lot Golfnutz!
  
 I tried this out, along with the new Rednet Control 2.0 and latest DVS. Audio from my Oppo 93 (with Audiocom mod) blu-ray player seemed much bigger and better (although voices were a little submerged by the sound effects). It is however a pain to have to switch over manually because I use 96khz for music and obviously 48khz. I ended up saving the config settings so I can switch over fairly quickly, and I use the same AES cable / output to my dac (mainly because I don't have great spdiff cables).


----------



## Golfnutz

peteallen said:


> Thanks a lot Golfnutz!
> 
> I tried this out, along with the new Rednet Control 2.0 and latest DVS. Audio from my Oppo 93 (with Audiocom mod) blu-ray player seemed much bigger and better (although voices were a little submerged by the sound effects). It is however a pain to have to switch over manually because I use 96khz for music and obviously 48khz. I ended up saving the config settings so I can switch over fairly quickly, and I use the same AES cable / output to my dac (mainly because I don't have great spdiff cables).


 

 No problem Pete.
  
 I don't have the D-Sub cable for the other channels, which is why I was using SPDIF for channels 3-4 out.
  
 I use my AES output cable for channels 1-2 (Primary from PC), and as you're probably aware, the output channels can only be routed one-to-one.
  
 I have routed SPDIF-IN (channels 3-4) to AES-Out (channels 1-2), but like you say it's a pain to manually switch, so I just use both (AES and SPDIF) and choose which one I want by using my DAC's remote.
  
 Not sure if you saw my other post, but you don't need a computer or router/switch if only using an external device like a CD Player.


----------



## mourip

There is a new Dante product that looks like a step in the right direction. It is a small two channel ethernet to analog converter board that talks to a Dante network. Just 96K though.
  
 https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-analog-output-module


----------



## InsanityOne

mourip said:


> There is a new Dante product that looks like a step in the right direction. It is a small two channel ethernet to analog converter board that talks to a Dante network. Just 96K though.
> 
> https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-analog-output-module


 
  
 Yes, we discussed this product awhile ago. Unfortunately Ethernet --->Analog is not what we need. We need Ethernet ---> S/PDIF (anything digital really) so that we can make connections to our DACs.
  
 See this post by Rob:
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



 


rb2013 said:


> There is the possibility of a very small AOIP Dante analog output device - the size of a pack of gum:  Maybe less then $200?  Now that would be interesting.  Add a HP opamp output  and you have a AOIP 'AQ Dragonfly' type of device.
> 
> https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-analog-output-module
> 
> ...


 
  


  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## mourip

insanityone said:


> Yes, we discussed this product awhile ago. Unfortunately Ethernet --->Analog is not what we need. We need Ethernet ---> S/PDIF (anything digital really) so that we can make connections to our DACs.
> 
> See this post by Rob:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yup. I have two D16s. I just posted it as an example of movement toward new products.
  
 Thanks. I must have missed that post. There has been a lot of wandering in this thread lately.


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> That sounds VERY interesting. If not too much bitter could you PM me when you start? I would love to be in on the ground floor on this.
> 
> Which LPS did you buy?


 
 I have ordered a PowerVolt triple output LPS.
 They stated a 4-6 week build time.
 Here is a link to more of the specifics.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2355#post_12965064
 I'll probably post my results in the DIY'rs Cookbook thread (see below).
  
  


iving said:


> Interested!
> 
> Have you thought of contacting UK Focusrite for info, advice even service?


 
 No, not for this.
 But previously I did ask them about what fuse they use and was told "There are no seviceable parts inside".
 Which translated means there is no reason to open up the unit and fuss with anything inside.
  
 Performing this bit of surgery will void any warranty and anyone who attempts this MUST take that into account.
  
 This is the beginning of a series of posts about this whole process…
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/690#post_12898661
  
 JJ


----------



## Cornan

rb2013 said:


> cornan said:
> 
> 
> > A general rule is to limit the amounts of DC powered devices in the chain. Any "tweak" that is improving something needs to be passive...and if absolutely necessary it needs to be powered isolated from the AC mains. Keep that in mind for AOIP as well!
> ...


 
  
 Batteries is isolated against the AC mains and that plus that the grounding is one of the true advantages with battery supplies. I have just turned 50 and have been an audiophile since I was 15 years old...but with a growing interest for each year.
  
 Yes, I am using a UPnP/DNA + USB chain with great results. I am even using wireless connections between from my Aries Mini to router and control point to wireless extender with great results. Better than wired ethernet in my own setup.
  
 Here is a simple spagetti image of my current system with Tidal as the only source. 
  

 What I would like to add somehow is a wireless or wired AOIP solution.


----------



## Cornan

rb2013 said:


> http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging


 
 Thanks for sharing. Just for notes. When using Li-ion in a non-mobile setup it is very important that the upper voltage is close to the maximum DC voltage for the powered device...plus that the mAh rating is high enough to power than device for many hours straight without dropping the voltage below the nominal voltage. For example my 14,8v/12000mAh/6A battery for my Aries Mini is roughly 16,8v when fully charged. If I listen to music for 7 hours straight in will be down to roughly 15,5v (ie. not even down to the the nominal 14,8 v). I always charge it after each use since it will prolong the battery life (ie. using less charging cycle compared to if I charge it when fully drained). My Aries mini can be powered from 14-18v and just requires a maximum of 1A load (but much less for me since it does´nt need to provide 5v USB power or need to power a SSD). My battery provides 15,5-16,8v and can provide a max current discharge of 6A. I have compared my battery to the Auralic LPS and in my setup the battery wins hands down.


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> I have ordered a PowerVolt triple output LPS.
> They stated a 4-6 week build time.
> Here is a link to more of the specifics.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2355#post_12965064
> ...


 

 Looks like someone has already done something similar. Was posted last year on ebay.
  
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&u=http://www.ebay.com/itm/Focusrite-Rednet-3-With-Upgraded-Linear-Power-Supply-/191681659904%3F_ul%3DBO%26nma%3Dtrue%26si%3D1wJwUZ%25252FFvQiyjpe5dTQ%25252BZ5vFaNI%25253D%26orig_cvip%3Dtrue%26rt%3Dnc%26_trksid%3Dp2047675.l2557&usg=ALkJrhiRw-a5ybzs1LkWoboyjlIJ6ChHaw


----------



## jabbr

golfnutz said:


> Looks like someone has already done something similar. Was posted last year on ebay.
> 
> https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&u=http://www.ebay.com/itm/Focusrite-Rednet-3-With-Upgraded-Linear-Power-Supply-/191681659904%3F_ul%3DBO%26nma%3Dtrue%26si%3D1wJwUZ%25252FFvQiyjpe5dTQ%25252BZ5vFaNI%25253D%26orig_cvip%3Dtrue%26rt%3Dnc%26_trksid%3Dp2047675.l2557&usg=ALkJrhiRw-a5ybzs1LkWoboyjlIJ6ChHaw


 
 Description says it is a 5 rail linear PSU : 


> *“* Unit has been modified with a 5-rail linear power supply. *”*


----------



## astrostar59

jabbr said:


> Description says it is a 5 rail linear PSU :


 

 Interesting. Looks like 4 wires powering the Rednet. Am guessing 5V DC and 12V DC? Wonder if it sounded different?


----------



## Golfnutz

Here's a link to who might be the person that did the modification. You'll have to do some other searches on the net to get additional information about this person/company.
  
 Without asking this person to do the upgrade, it may be worthwhile for someone (not me) to try and contact this person to get an opinion if upgrading to an ultra low noise/ripple lps/smps is actually worth it, and if there are any issues/challenges involved.
  
http://jplay.eu/forum/index.php?/topic/1420-is-it-worthwhile-to-go-the-ethernet-route-rednet-pcie-card-rednet3-instead-of-usb-audio-pcie-cards-usb-to-spdif-converters/


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> Here's a link to who might be the person that did the modification. You'll have to do some other searches on the net to get additional information about this person/company.
> 
> Without asking this person to do the upgrade, it may be worthwhile for someone (not me) to try and contact this person to get an opinion if upgrading to an ultra low noise/ripple lps/smps is actually worth it, and if there are any issues/challenges involved.
> 
> http://jplay.eu/forum/index.php?/topic/1420-is-it-worthwhile-to-go-the-ethernet-route-rednet-pcie-card-rednet3-instead-of-usb-audio-pcie-cards-usb-to-spdif-converters/


 

 Thanks for that. But not sure Core Audio did a mod to the Rednet. Is that who you mean? Core Audio are very expensive, they did the modded Mac Mini which retailed out as 2K+.
  
 But I am convinced that there will be gains doing the mod as I got big changes after doing this to my Mac Mini, converting it to 12V DC external supply from an LPS.
  
 It appears from previous posts the RedNet 3 has just 2 hook ups, one for 5V the other for 12V.


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Thanks for that. But not sure Core Audio did a mod to the Rednet. Is that who you mean? Core Audio are very expensive, they did the modded Mac Mini which retailed out as 2K+.
> 
> But I am convinced that there will be gains doing the mod as I got big changes after doing this to my Mac Mini, converting it to 12V DC external supply from an LPS.
> 
> It appears from previous posts the RedNet 3 has just 2 hook ups, one for 5V the other for 12V.


 
 Like I said, do some additional searches on the internet. Check out the user's name on the ebay link I posted, and then search for the company's owner name.
  
 Where are you getting 5v and 12v, it's actually 5v, 15v, and 51v (although there is question if the 51v would be needed for this change).
  
 Above all Astro, please try to keep this thread on track and don't start bringing other things (Mac Mini) into it.
  
 This is about upgrading the Rednet, nothing else....


----------



## peteAllen

Sorry if this question has already been answered, but has anyone tried out the (expensive) Rednet or Yamaha dante cards? Do they make any audible improvements over a normal network card?
Yamaha AIC128-D Dante Accelerator PCI-e card
Focusrite Rednet pcie soundcard


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> Like I said, do some additional searches on the internet. Check out the user's name on the ebay link I posted, and then search for the company's owner name.
> 
> Where are you getting 5v and 12v, it's actually 5v, 15v, and 51v (although there is question if the 51v would be needed for this change).
> 
> ...


 

 Hmm, there you go aggressive again. Are you the moderator?
  
 I AM talking about upgrading RedNet as sharing my experiences with using an LPS on the server, the anology is getting rid if the SMPS had benefits. Also that link you supplied, Core Audio are mega expensive, so a DIY may be better IMO.
  
 My mistake, 15V and 5V. Looks like 51v is not used.


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Hmm, there you go aggressive again. Are you the moderator?
> 
> I AM talking about upgrading RedNet as sharing my experiences with using an LPS on the server, the anology is getting rid if the SMPS had benefits. Also that link you supplied, Core Audio are mega expensive, so a DIY may be better IMO.
> 
> My mistake, 15V and 5V. Looks like 51v is not used.


 

 You must have missed this...
  
 "*Without asking this person to do the upgrade*, it may be worthwhile for someone (not me) to try and contact this person to *get an opinion *if upgrading to an ultra low noise/ripple lps/smps is actually worth it, and if there are any issues/challenges involved".


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> You must have missed this...
> 
> "*Without asking this person to do the upgrade*, it may be worthwhile for someone (not me) to try and contact this person to *get an opinion *if upgrading to an ultra low noise/ripple lps/smps is actually worth it, and if there are any issues/challenges involved".


 

 I believe Core Audio Technology has gone bust. The website is down for months and there are posts all over computer audiophile about failed orders and over priced work.
  
 I will wait to see how the posters on here get on with the upgrade. It has risks I realise, re warranty etc but if it sounds better.....


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> I believe Core Audio Technology has gone bust. The website is down for months and there are posts all over computer audiophile about failed orders and over priced work.
> 
> I will wait to see how the posters on here get on with the upgrade. It has risks I realise, re warranty etc but if it sounds better.....


 

 I could have posted that, but chose not to, which is why I said search the internet for company/person.
  
 There were a couple of reasons for making the initial post:
  
 1. Looks like someone actually did the modification already.
 2. With someone of this persons experience, why did he choose an external LPS vs something internal (could have reused the Rednet On/Off switch and IEC receptacle). This is something that JohnJen is taking into consideration for his project. Obviously, internal changes only would look much better aesthetically.
 3. Was the change (upgrade?) really worth it in his opinion. How good were the improvements (if any). If possible, contacting him could be helpful.


----------



## gldgate

peteallen said:


> Sorry if this question has already been answered, but has anyone tried out the (expensive) Rednet or Yamaha dante cards? Do they make any audible improvements over a normal network card?
> Yamaha AIC128-D Dante Accelerator PCI-e card
> Focusrite Rednet pcie soundcard


 
 I do not remember anyone who has posted on this thread who has used one. For what it is worth I called and asked Sweetwater about this (where I purchased my D16) a while ago. The Sweetwater Rep said that there was no need to get the Rednet PCI-e card if I had no drop-outs using the virtual sound card (which I don't). The dedicated PCI-e card is for improved latency for those that need it - likely the folks who are running up to 16 channels - probably overkill for the majority of us 2 channel guys. I found it refreshing that they essentially turned down a sale. Another reason why more and more I prefer Pro Audio to the Consumer side. No feeding off audio-nervosa.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> I do not remember anyone who has posted on this thread who has used one. For what it is worth I called and asked Sweetwater about this (where I purchased my D16) a while ago. The Sweetwater Rep said that there was no need to get the Rednet PCI-e card if I had no drop-outs using the virtual sound card (which I don't). The dedicated PCI-e card is for improved latency for those that need it - likely the folks who are running up to 16 channels - probably overkill for the majority of us 2 channel guys. I found it refreshing that they essentially turned down a sale. Another reason why more and more I prefer Pro Audio to the Consumer side. No feeding off audio-nervosa.


 
  
Cybershaft 10M OCXO clock Premium>Antelope Liveclock>RedNet D16> AES cable>Mutec MC-3+USB> AES cable>Schiit Yggy
  
 Noting your digital chain, have you tried sample rate following or do you have your chain set to a single rate?


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Cybershaft 10M OCXO clock Premium>Antelope Liveclock>RedNet D16> AES cable>Mutec MC-3+USB> AES cable>Schiit Yggy
> 
> Noting your digital chain, have you tried sample rate following or do you have your chain set to a single rate?


 
  
 I Sample rate follow. I've tried setting everything to 192 khz via JRMC but find I prefer sticking to whatever native resolution file is.


----------



## johnjen

Um, for the record the RN3 needs +5vdc, +15vdc, -15vdc and I assume that the +51vdc tap from the stock SMPS is unused.
 Thus my need to find a LPS with 3 output voltages and why the external PS in that picture has 4 wires.
  
 My order has been placed and my replacement PSU is "in production" as we speak.
 I hopefully will see it mid december as a sort of xmas present.
  
 And in the meanwhile I am figur'n on the parts I'm gunna need for 2 possible installation environments.
  
 JJ


----------



## wushuliu

My Oppo 103 LPS uses 5v and +/- 15vdc. It's designed by diyaudio member Coris. It uses supercaps and accommodates the high current loads. I bet it wouldn't be hard to use one of his or have it customized. Between my Oppo mods and my modded soekris dac, I don't even think about the RN3 anymore. Still, it would be far more convenient to have a cheaper, smaller RedNet unit. There's a niche there that someone needs to fill.


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> I Sample rate follow. I've tried setting everything to 192 khz via JRMC but find I prefer sticking to whatever native resolution file is.


 
  
 Thanks for the reply.
  
 How does that work using an external clock? Like you I am using an Antelope LiveClock which needs to be manually set to one frequency at a time. I have mine set to 192K. If I set Rednet Control to SRF will that not require that the LiveClock also be able to follow the current JRMC rate?


----------



## johnjen

wushuliu said:


> My Oppo 103 LPS uses 5v and +/- 15vdc. It's designed by diyaudio member Coris. It uses supercaps and accommodates the high current loads. I bet it wouldn't be hard to use one of his or have it customized. Between my Oppo mods and my modded soekris dac, I don't even think about the RN3 anymore. Still, it would be far more convenient to have a cheaper, smaller RedNet unit. There's a niche there that someone needs to fill.


 
 It would seem like that would be a viable possibility but only as an external solution to powering the RN3 etc.
  
 Ideally, I'm hoping that the PSU I've found will actually fit inside the existing RN3 case, so I can use the existing power input connection and on/off switch.
  
 JJ


----------



## vfrpoye




----------



## wushuliu

johnjen said:


> It would seem like that would be a viable possibility but only as an external solution to powering the RN3 etc.
> 
> Ideally, I'm hoping that the PSU I've found will actually fit inside the existing RN3 case, so I can use the existing power input connection and on/off switch.
> 
> JJ




Huh. IIRC there's a lot of room in the rn3...


----------



## jabbr

wushuliu said:


> Huh. IIRC there's a lot of room in the rn3...


 
 Any measurements, like ripple noise, known about this LPSU?


----------



## wushuliu

jabbr said:


> Any measurements, like ripple noise, known about this LPSU?




Yes. In the link I provided to the diyaudio.com thread.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> How does that work using an external clock? Like you I am using an Antelope LiveClock which needs to be manually set to one frequency at a time. I have mine set to 192K. If I set Rednet Control to SRF will that not require that the LiveClock also be able to follow the current JRMC rate?


 
  
 Changing sample rates while using external clock used to involve two manual operations. Changing sample rate in RedNet Control plus LiveClock SW. SRF solves the RedNet issue but I still need to manually change the SR for the LiveClock. If I don't change the sampe rate in the LiveClock SW with SRF the RedNet clock source changes from word clock input to internal RedNet clock.
  
 So, not a completely auto process but better than it was before. I don't find it to be a big deal as majority of my listening tends to be longer classical pieces or whole "albums".


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> Changing sample rates while using external clock used to involve two manual operations. Changing sample rate in RedNet Control plus LiveClock SW. SRF solves the RedNet issue but I still need to manually change the SR for the LiveClock. If I don't change the sampe rate in the LiveClock SW with SRF the RedNet clock source changes from word clock input to internal RedNet clock.
> 
> So, not a completely auto process but better than it was before. I don't find it to be a big deal as majority of my listening tends to be longer classical pieces or whole "albums".


 
  
 Thanks. Very helpful. Luckily I like 192K because I tend to skip between tracks on different albums  a lot!
  
 So if I understand you correctly If I turn on SRF but set my LiveClock to 192K the worst thing that will happen is that my D16 will really only be using it's internal clock unless the input file is coming in at 192K?
  
 I have my LiveClock timing both my D16 and my Mutec as well so I wonder what is happening to the Mutec with the external clock set to 192K but being sent a 44.1K sample? Will it also default to it's internal clock?


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Thanks. Very helpful. Luckily I like 192K because I tend to skip between tracks on different albums  a lot!
> 
> So if I understand you correctly If I turn on SRF but set my LiveClock to 192K the worst thing that will happen is that my D16 will really only be using it's internal clock unless the input file is coming in at 192K?
> 
> I have my LiveClock timing both my D16 and my Mutec as well so I wonder what is happening to the Mutec with the external clock set to 192K but being sent a 44.1K sample? Will it also default to it's internal clock?


 
  
 Yes - In my system when I set SRF but the file rate is mismatched with the LiveClock I usually see a flashing orange light on the D16 word clock LED which indicates it has reverted to internal clock. When I manually set the Liveclock  to the same sample rate the flashing light turns a solid orange color indicating the external word clock is locked. 
  
 Good question on the Mutec. Not 100% sure. I've never had a problem with the Mutec not reclocking whatever signal it receives. The LED's always change to the correct sample rate and the MODE and  STATUS indicators per the Mutec manual seem to indicate it is successfully receiving and using an external reference.


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> I have ordered a PowerVolt triple output LPS.
> They stated a 4-6 week build time.
> Here is a link to more of the specifics.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2355#post_12965064
> ...


 
 John
 I PM'd the guy who sold a RedNet 3 with an external LPS attached to it. He told me today it sounded better than stock but his LPS was DIY and cost more to build than the RedNet 3. I have asked some more questions too describe the sound change, and also to confirm how many hookups it needs i.e. 15v and 5V DC.
  
 I have a HDPlex LPS with 5V and 15V outputs, so maybe I can use that? Getting very interested in this. If I do do it, I would drill out the IEC socket area on the back of the Rednet case, and add a plate with the 2 voltage plug inputs. Keep it all neat.Would be nice to go via the on/off switch, though not sure it that is too fiddly. I have an on/off on the HDPlex mind.


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> John
> I PM'd the guy who sold a RedNet 3 with an external LPS attached to it. He told me today it sounded better than stock but his LPS was DIY and cost more to build than the RedNet 3. I have asked some more questions too describe the sound change, and also to confirm how many hookups it needs i.e. 15v and 5V DC.
> 
> I have a HDPlex LPS with 5V and 15V outputs, so maybe I can use that? Getting very interested in this. If I do do it, I would drill out the IEC socket area on the back of the Rednet case, and add a plate with the 2 voltage plug inputs. Keep it all neat.Would be nice to go via the on/off switch, though not sure it that is too fiddly. I have an on/off on the HDPlex mind.


 
 That sounds doable, but be sure that you have both +15 and -15 volts with a common ground between them, which would also be the same ground as the +5 volt source.
 IOW make sure that the LPS that is supplying these 3 voltages can share a common ground.
 AND that they can supply 'enough' current, but since there really isn't much power needed to run the RN3, shouldn't be a concern.
  
 And the 2mv rated triple output LPS that I'm starting with should be under $150.
 This makes for a relatively inexpensive experiment.
  
 Another thing I've noticed is, digital circuits are noisy, REALLY noisy, as in they tend to 'pollute' the ground plane and voltage rails with this noise.
  
 And further, that LPS's also tend to absorb/reduce this and all noise better than SMPS's do.
 The thing is, it's hard to know how much of a SQ improvement there will be by absorbing more of this noise via using a LPS, than not.
  
 That is what this experiment is aimed at, to start by using a 'simple' LPS to see if further sophistication and refinement in this area is warranted.
  
 In one sense this is a repeat of the experiment I performed previously on my FMC setup that I use to optically isolate my computer from my RN3.
  
 So I'm hoping I'll hear roughly the same (or perhaps even better) results.
  
 And if it were me in possession of that HDPlex, I'd use 3-pin XLR connectors to connect them because they are rated at well beyond the current you'll need, and because both male and female panel mount versions are available (to make it impossible to connect it up incorrectly).
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> That sounds doable, but be sure that you have both +15 and -15 volts with a common ground between them, which would also be the same ground as the +5 volt source.
> IOW make sure that the LPS that is supplying these 3 voltages can share a common ground.
> AND that they can supply 'enough' current, but since there really isn't much power needed to run the RN3, shouldn't be a concern.
> 
> ...


 

 Interesting. This is the reply today from the guy who did the external LPS ohm a Rednet 3:
  


> If I remember correctly it needs positive and negative 15V, positive and negative 5V, and something like 75V. So the hdplex wouldn't work. It needs balanced power for the negative rails.
> 
> The hdplex may not have the wattage either.
> 
> There's several places to connect inside and it needed an umbilical cord.


 
 I think the 75V is the 52V which isn't needed I believe. I am unsure if my HDPlex has balanced rails? I will email them and ask.


----------



## mourip

astrostar59 said:


> Interesting. This is the reply today from the guy who did the external LPS ohm a Rednet 3:
> 
> I think the 75V is the 52V which isn't needed I believe. I am unsure if my HDPlex has balanced rails? I will email them and ask.


 
  
 Have you tried opening it up and probing all of the connections from the PS?


----------



## astrostar59

mourip said:


> Have you tried opening it up and probing all of the connections from the PS?


 
 No not yet. I was hoping someone else would beat me to it.


----------



## johnjen

I have already opened up the box and measured the voltages, and they are marked on the motherboard as well.
 You need +5, +15, -15 and a center tap ground for the ±15vdc and a ground for the +5vdc.
  
 And as I noted these grounds are common to chassis ground.
  
 In my post about the SMPS noise I listed the pin numbers and their voltages.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> I have already opened up the box and measured the voltages, and they are marked on the motherboard as well.
> You need +5, +15, -15 and a center tap ground for the ±15vdc and a ground for the +5vdc.
> 
> And as I noted these grounds are common to chassis ground.
> ...


 

 Hi JJ
 Do you think my HDPlex 150W would work? It has 5V DC and 15V DC. Here is the page for it:
 http://www.hd-plex.com/HDPLEX-Fanless-Linear-Power-Supply-for-PC-Audio-and-CE-device.html


----------



## johnjen

In a word, no.
 Because it doesn't provide -15vdc, along with +15vdc that is center tapped to ground.
 This particular configuration is needed for the balanced portion of the RN3 design.
  
 The +5 and its ground is easy enough to find, but having the ±15vdc AND the +5vdc (triple output) is rare.
  
 JJ


----------



## Clemmaster

Would it work without the +-15 in a digital only application?


----------



## johnjen

My guess is probably not because there is much of the circuit that is running balanced, and if both legs of that portion of the circuit were effectively 'dead', I figure the rest of the circuit would suffer.
 Not to mention that if you use the AES output, which is a balanced transmission line configuration of the digital information flow, that ±15vdc is mandatory.
  
 Also it needs to be mentioned again, that the +15 and -15 legs need to be center tapped with a single (common) ground.
 Put another way, you need one ground smack dab in the middle between +15 and -15 for this to work, so 2 different power supplies (a + and a - LPS) that don't or can't share a common ground won't work either.
  
 IOW, I'd not advise it.
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

Rednet 3 / D16 power supply specs:
  
Brand: FEREX
 Model: FP07M063
 Applicable Products: DVB digital TV set - top box
 Input voltage range: 100V-240V
 The output voltage: + 5, + 15V, -15V, + 51V
 Output Power: 10W

 Input characteristics
       Input voltage range: 100V-240V AC
       Input voltage frequency: 47Hz-63Hz
  Output characteristics
      Output combinations: + 5V, 2A; + 15V, 0.7A; -15V, 0.7A; +51 V, 80mA
       Ripple: 50mV
       Efficiency: 70% Min. (220V AC / Max Output Current)
 Dielectric strength: AC 3000V, 10mA, 60Sec
  Insulation resistance: 30M Min DC 500V
  Mean time between failures: working time 50000H

 Protective function:
  Output Overvoltage Protection (OVP)
  Output Short Circuit Protection (SCP)
  Output Overcurrent Protection (OCP)


----------



## wushuliu

golfnutz said:


> Rednet 3 / D16 power supply specs:
> 
> Brand: FEREX
> Model: FP07M063
> ...


 
  
 Oh that's not too bad at all. I thought there'd be higher current draw. Could probably roll your own with any number of small power supplies on ebay. And that 51v barely pulls anything. Would be great if it could be eliminated though.


----------



## mourip

wushuliu said:


> ... And that 51v barely pulls anything. Would be great if it could be eliminated though.


 
  
 I wonder if it is used at all. Perhaps it just comes with that OEM PS which is described as used for other devices also.
  
 I cannot imagine what would use 51v in a device like the RN3.


----------



## Clemmaster

Isn't the 51V used for mic phantom power?


----------



## mourip

clemmaster said:


> Isn't the 51V used for mic phantom power?


 
  
 I think that phantom power is 48v but I see no function of the RN3 that could use it. It is all digital in and out. No microphone inputs.


----------



## johnjen

clemmaster said:


> Isn't the 51V used for mic phantom power?


 
 Yes.
 It is then further filtered and regulated down to 48vdc with very carefully controlled current delivery.
  
 And we figured that this SMPS is a one size fits all solution for all of the RedNet boxes, some of which do contain mic preamps and the related phantom power supply.
  
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

golfnutz said:


> Rednet 3 / D16 power supply specs:
> 
> Brand: FEREX
> Model: FP07M063
> ...


 
 EXCELLENT!
  
 Thanks for that, it answers a whole mess of questions, and all in the positive at that!
  
 Those current numbers match really well, and the rated ripple is 25 times greater than the PSU I have on order.
  
 And that +51V was probably originally meant to drive the display on the set top box.
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> EXCELLENT!
> 
> Thanks for that, it answers a whole mess of questions, and all in the positive at that!
> 
> ...


 

 I was curious about the current myself to see if there was anything suitable for the D16. Doesn't really look like it, at least I couldn't find anything (internal replacement of the FP07M063). Not sure I'm keen to do something externally (have to wait and see how your make out).
  
 Might not hurt for someone to reach out to Focusrite and ask them what the voltages are used for. Someone on some other website posted their FP07M63 from a 6 year old piece of Focusrite equipment had recently failed. He emailed Focusrite (UK) and they're sending him a replacement for 24 British Pounds. I would imagine if the guy asked them what each of the voltages were for, they would have told him.
  
 Spec's for your PowerVolt are showing as 10.25" (depth), while the Rednet 3 is only 9.75 (depth)".  You may have a hard time doing something internal, unless you're planning on removing all/part of the casing?


----------



## wushuliu

More adventurous, but even cleaner power: Get one of these and one of these (or equivalent, lots of choices). Add two small antek transformers with appropriate voltage and should be good to go, with plenty of space left over.


----------



## mhamel

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Assembled-Special-Linear-Power-supply-board-for-update-OPPO-103-103D-PSU-/322268439445
  
 Found these on eBay - they have the +/- 15v and +5v output... might be worth checking out and it looks like it might fit in the case.


----------



## wushuliu

Huh an oppo linear power supply. Well how about that...


----------



## wushuliu

As an additional FYI regarding the Oppomod PSU above, here is a post from Coris at diyaudio who designed the Oppo PS I have now:
  


> We have the original Oppo SMPS used in all their models, which exhibit (measured under the same approach(conditions) a very large HF spectre of noise, which it goes up to 200mVpp levels. This SMPS do not dissipate heat.
> *Alternative to this SMPS (as a serial approach) was/is the Oppomod PSU. This one exhibit a much reduced frequency spectre of noise, and the levels it goes up to few teens mVpp*. Huge improvement over the original SMPS.
> My LPM it exhibit noise only on the very low frequency spectre (25, 50, 100, 200, and 430Hz) of a level in µV range.


 
  
 Note that Coris' LPS has about ~2uV (not mV) or a little higher  of noise. However his costs several times more than the Oppomod (upon which that specific Ebay LPS is based I believe)...


----------



## Golfnutz

mhamel said:


> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Assembled-Special-Linear-Power-supply-board-for-update-OPPO-103-103D-PSU-/322268439445
> 
> Found these on eBay - they have the +/- 15v and +5v output... might be worth checking out and it looks like it might fit in the case.


 
 Looks to big for the space. You have about 160mm x 75mm x 35mm (guessing it's higher for rednet 3 - maybe around 60 - 70 mm) in the space where the power supply is now. Doesn't look like enough current for the +15/-15 voltage either (needs 7.A). It's showing .4A for each side in the picture.
  
  In the D16 there's a fairly large empty space at the front, but it has a thin strip of PCB across the width. No idea if it could be cut out or not. It might be there for a reason (not going to take the bottom cover off to have a look). If the space is available (by cutting out that strip), it might be possible to have 2 of the ultra low noise/ripple smps (ie. Diatron or Sanken) power supplies (1 dual output, and 1 single output). The issue there is it would be very tight, and the current is only .5A on the -15 side for the Diatron (HFD30).
  
 Probably best to wait for JohnJen to see how he makes out. I can see him having issues with depth and width, using the PowerVolt. I really hope not, but I think it's going to be very tight if he does manage it.
  
 I just can't see something happening internally that would make it worth it (D16). The only way would be to do something custom like Wushuliu suggested, but that's way above my grade point. And even at that, I'm not sure any benefits to improving the sound would be worth the effort. I think an external solution would be the only way to make is worthwhile.


----------



## wushuliu

With all the DIY I have done over the years, a linear power supply always improves upon an smps. Always. Especially digital circuits. It will be absolutely worth it, even if you have to pay someone. When it comes to digital circuits the first areas I look to are power supplies and clocks when it comes to improvements. If I'd have known the RedNet supply could be modded this easily I might have kept mine.


----------



## Golfnutz

wushuliu said:


> With all the DIY I have done over the years, a linear power supply always improves upon an smps. Always. Especially digital circuits. It will be absolutely worth it, even if you have to pay someone. When it comes to digital circuits the first areas I look to are power supplies and clocks when it comes to improvements. If I'd have known the RedNet supply could be modded this easily I might have kept mine.


 

 Fair enough, but there are other factors as well. Mainly the space available, especially for the D16.
  
 Would a custom internal modification (somewhat limited) be as good as an external solution could provide (unlimited)?
  
 Would a somewhat limited internal LPS be better than a well designed low noise/ripple smps (internal)?
  
 Like I said previously, "I think an external solution would be the only way to make is worthwhile". Of course this would be using LPS.


----------



## wushuliu

Sure external. Whatever works.


----------



## Clemmaster

Do we even need the +-15 and +51 in the Rednet 3? Would it work with just the +5V?


----------



## johnjen

golfnutz said:


> I was curious about the current myself to see if there was anything suitable for the D16. Doesn't really look like it, at least I couldn't find anything (internal replacement of the FP07M063). Not sure I'm keen to do something externally (have to wait and see how your make out).
> 
> _*This PowerVolt model was the ONLY PSU I could find that really even came close to meeting the specs needed.*_
> _*And I too am not looking forward to having to externalize it.  That would be an additional PIA I'd like to avoid, if at all possible.*_
> ...


 
_*I was kinda figur'n on turning the PSU sideways across the 'front' if it'll fit, but equally as worrying is that 4" dimension, because if it has to be mounted that way, well I'm not sure it'll fit that way either…*_
  
_*And the task of finding a suitable external enclosure is equally as daunting, especially if I want to keep it fairly small.*_
  
_*And the thing is the smaller PowerVolt triple output PSU seems like it would be small enough but it only has ≈ 1/2 the current output, which may (or not may not) be enough to actually run the RN3.*_
  
_*But sadly even that PSU might be to big to fit the D16 since it's a 1U height and it has that same 4" dimension. *_
  
_*JJ*_


----------



## johnjen

clemmaster said:


> Do we even need the +-15 and +51 in the Rednet 3? Would it work with just the +5V?


 
 The ±15vdc is needed for the balanced circuits and I'm figur'n that the +51 is not needed.
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> The ±15vdc is needed for the balanced circuits and I'm figur'n that the *+51 is not needed*.
> 
> JJ


 
 Confirmed via email from tech support ("does not make use of the +51v power rail on the supply").


----------



## johnjen

golfnutz said:


> Confirmed via email from tech support ("does not make use of the +51v power rail on the supply").


 
 Excellent!
  
 Thanks for that!
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> Excellent!
> 
> Thanks for that!
> 
> JJ


 
 No problem.
  
 I do hope though, that when you get your LPS, you'll hook it up externally first to get an idea if making the changes are worth continuing or not.


----------



## johnjen

Oh yeah…!
 The old proof of performance before figuring out how to make it all fit is definitely the order to follow…
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

Well, I've upgraded to Rednet Controller v. 2 and while I can output sound, I can't get automatic sample rate change and my device (D16 AES) isn't showing in the device list in the left column.
  
 What incredibly obvious setting(s) or action(s) am I missing?
  
 The instruction manual isn't helping me out.
  
 Thanks in advance for your help.
  
 Joel


----------



## johnjen

joelha said:


> Well, I've upgraded to Rednet Controller v. 2 and while I can output sound, I can't get automatic sample rate change and my device (D16 AES) isn't showing in the device list in the left column.
> 
> What incredibly obvious setting(s) or action(s) am I missing?
> 
> ...


 
 I don't have an answer for you.
 I'd suggest calling Focusrite.
  
 And I'm not sure I like v.2 yet, either.
  
 I just tried to use it to effect a simple SR change and it wouldn't.
 So I used 1.10 instead.
  
 And v.2 is confusing for me to use.
 I can see where if you had a complex system it might be easier to control lots of boxes, but for us audiophools, using v.2 seems more cumbersome and confusing.
  
 I'm hoping it will mature with subsequent updates.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Well, I've upgraded to Rednet Controller v. 2 and while I can output sound, I can't get automatic sample rate change and my device (D16 AES) isn't showing in the device list in the left column.
> 
> What incredibly obvious setting(s) or action(s) am I missing?
> 
> ...


 
  
 What is showing in the left column? You should see your PC and the D16. You might have to use the drop down list on the top of the screen to choose your PC as the Tab Follow Device.
  
 Were you prompted for a firmware upgrade? Mine was when I updated RC. Have you tried rebooting your PC and the D16?
  
 Once you get the D16 to show up you drag it from the list over to the right and it will show the virtual interface that you are used to.


----------



## johnjen

clemmaster said:


> Do we even need the +-15 and +51 in the Rednet 3? Would it work with just the +5V?


 
 I may have been wrong in my previous post about needing the ±15vdc.
 I'm getting some indications that the RN3 may work on only +5vdc, which would be great in terms of finding an internal LPS that will fit.
  
 But it would mean that the aes output uses a split 5vdc (or they use a dc to dc converter) for the differential output used for the aes data stream.
  
 But I'll know when I get my PowerVolt triple output PSU and can then disconnect the ±15 and see if it will work.
  
 But finding a decent PSU to fit the RN3 will be much easier than for the D16 due to it being 1U in height.
  
 And the search continues…
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

Me to Focusrite:
 I wonder - would you be kind enough ...
 Some of us audiophiles are interested in bypassing the SMPS so as to provide cleaner power supply to our RedNet boxes.
 We know of course that any modification by ourselves of these units affects the warranty - please take that as read.
 Could you consult the designer and/or in-house engineers, soliciting their views about how this could be achieved in the simplest way possible.
 Could Focusrite, at some reasonable cost, provide an ex-warranty service in which the SMPS is bypassed - perhaps fitting a DC [?] port at the rear of the unit in its place?
 Thanks
  
 Reply:
 I have spoken to our engineering team and they do not believe that you would be able to improve the performance on the D16 by changing the power supply. However if you did wish to you would need to make a PSU that had the following output voltages on it:
 1 +5V 2A
 2 +5V 2A
 3 - GND
 4 +15V 700mA
 5 - GND
 6 -15V 700mA
 7 - GND
 8 +51V 80mA
 The numbers correspond to the board pin. Unfortunately we do not have the facility to be able to make a custom PSU for you.


----------



## Iving

Additional observation wrt "The PC *does* make a difference" ...
 On my "silent" (= no moving parts) PC,
 whereas I have had the o/s on a Samsung SM951 128Gb *M.2* SSD
 and music files (*.flac) on a Samsung 850 EVO 1Tb SSD,
 as an experiment I tried music files on the *M.2* with the o/s.
 Whatever the explanation (same drive or just faster drive),
 there is a definite and worthwhile elevation in SQ:
 any digital edge I didn't know was there has gone,
 more detail,
 any comparison with analogue rendered much more redundant because the music is - well - just the music.
 What's more and as a direct result, latency has dropped by 5-10 μs average and is undoubtedly more stable.
 And so I have filled spare capacity on the *M.2* with my favourite music and will use the EVO SSD for storage instead of playback.
 I am interested in a *U.2* drive as a possible future upgrade.


----------



## Golfnutz

iving said:


> Additional observation wrt "The PC *does* make a difference" ...
> On my "silent" (= no moving parts) PC,
> whereas I have had the o/s on a Samsung SM951 128Gb *M.2* SSD
> and music files (*.flac) on a Samsung 850 EVO 1Tb SSD,
> ...


 
 I have my O/S and Apps on 256gb M.2, and my music on 512gb M.2. I don't use my PC for anything else. If/when my 512gb gets full, I'll start putting music on the 256gb.


----------



## jabbr

Some form of LAN isolation towards downstream of the playback PC has always been beneficial IME.
First I used Giso GB isolation on the CAT-cable, nowadays a fibre optic connection.


----------



## Iving

golfnutz said:


> I have my O/S and Apps on 256gb M.2, and my music on 512gb M.2. I don't use my PC for anything else. If/when my 512gb gets full, I'll start putting music on the 256gb.


 
  

 If you are able, please say whether there any SQ difference between playing music on the *same* M2 (as the o/s) vs playing music on a *different* M2 (wrt to the o/s).
 If different drive makes no diff and it's just (M2) speed that counts I could consider a separate M2 for the music library. If same drive is key then probably a U2 would be my next upgrade.
 Thanks


----------



## joelha

mourip and johnjen,
  
 Thanks for your posts.
  
 I was able to finally, with the help of Focusrite support and a little with my own tinkering, to make this upgrade work.
  
 "Intuitive" is not the word that jumps to mind when using this upgrade.
  
 In any event, getting the software to track the sample rate change of the server was key in terms of automatic sample rate changes.
  
 And learning how to open the options in the left column helped me to find my D16 in the list.
  
 Obviously, this software is tremendous overkill for us home users. But then that's what we get when we use a commercial product.
  
 Regardless, thanks again to both of you for your suggestions.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

iving said:


> If you are able, please say whether there any SQ difference between playing music on the *same* M2 (as the o/s) vs playing music on a *different* M2 (wrt to the o/s).
> If different drive makes no diff and it's just (M2) speed that counts I could consider a separate M2 for the music library. If same drive is key then probably a U2 would be my next upgrade.
> Thanks


 
 No difference at all.


----------



## thisisvv

Long time lurker, then went off the grid. Now got some funds to put on AOIP. Does any final verdict is there that Rednet3 or D16 is better? are there any cheaper solutions?


----------



## gefski

Atterotech unDAES-O w/power supply $643 from Full Compass. DVS download $30. BJC ethernet and XLR cables. Put me at $700ish complete. unDAES-O has (cheaper?) Ultimo chipset, 4 channels max, 24/96 max.
  
 I'm doing a (happy) review of it. Compared to the several USB interfaces in house, two or 3 panes of glass are removed, Windex used on the rest. The essence of "master of Redbook" Yggy remains. Touch, timbre, texture, more transparent yet more relaxed!
  
 Thanks to Seattle Head-Fiers rb2013, muziqboy, soundsgoodtome, johnjen, atomicbob, grizzlybeast for enthusiastic AOIP info, listening at meets, and PCWar for pointing out the unDAES-O.
  
 IMO
 YMWV
  
 (Response to thisisvv question on previous page, quote didn't grab it)


----------



## mourip

thisisvv said:


> Long time lurker, then went off the grid. Now got some funds to put on AOIP. Does any final verdict is there that Rednet3 or D16 is better? are there any cheaper solutions?


 
  
 Assuming that you already have a DAC that you like the RN3 is probably your best bet. If you want to use AES you will need to add an adapter cable.
  
 I have not heard of any commercial products below this price level that will do 192K and have the same level of sound quality.
  
 Pretty much everything that is known about AOIP for audiophile use has been at least mentioned in this thread. If you find any other forums with informed posts please let us know...


----------



## gldgate

The only differences that I am aware of between the two units are:
  
 1) D16 can do 176Khz sample rate (Brooklyn 2 card)
 2) D16 has 2 Ethernet ports
 3) D16 has Smaller footprint
 4) RedNet 3 needs a DB25 snake cable
  
 I have not heard any claims from Dante or Focusrite regarding better SQ between units so my assumption is that they  equivalent.  
  
 Agree with Mourip above. RedNet 3 is likely better buy for majority of folks looking for 192Khz.
  
 For those who are fine with 96Khz limit the Atterotech unit mentioned above looks like an interesting alternative.


----------



## Adosero

Long time lurker as well, I was also wondering if we also should invest in a fancy audio server pc for a superior SQ or a cheap fanless win10 or win 2012 R2 based pc would give the same or similar results (both will be fed by a LPS).
  
 Thanks a lot..


----------



## Iving

adosero said:


> Long time lurker as well, I was also wondering if we also should invest in a fancy audio server pc for a superior SQ or a cheap fanless win10 or win 2012 R2 based pc would give the same or similar results (both will be fed by a LPS).
> 
> Thanks a lot..


 
  
 If you would care to review my posts (under the theme "The PC *does* make a difference") you may find much of what you're looking for. One can remark reliably only on what one has experienced - but there is a fair resource there - both direct, and from which to extrapolate (on to your own experience).


----------



## mourip

adosero said:


> Long time lurker as well, I was also wondering if we also should invest in a fancy audio server pc for a superior SQ or a cheap fanless win10 or win 2012 R2 based pc would give the same or similar results (both will be fed by a LPS).
> 
> Thanks a lot..


 
  
 There seems to be some consensus that with AOIP the PC/server tweaks make less of a difference. I will not say "none". I have an Intel based fanless PC with two SSD's, one for OS and one for music, all running off of an HDPlex LPS. I use JRMC and Windows 2012R2 with Audiophile Optimizer running. I feel this is the middle ground between a budget fanless PC and an expensive "audiophile" server. I am very happy with the sound in my system and feel that improvements downstream now only unveil better sound quality....so far


----------



## belgiangenius

Is there any requirement that the computer connect directly to the rednet device with an ethernet cable, or can you simply have your computer (i.e., mac mini) and rednet 3 sitting on the same network?
  
 Is a rednet 5 suitable as an endpoint to receive AOIP and provide AES to a DAC?


----------



## Golfnutz

belgiangenius said:


> Is there any requirement that the computer connect directly to the rednet device with an ethernet cable, or can you simply have your computer (i.e., mac mini) and rednet 3 sitting on the same network?
> 
> Is a rednet 5 suitable as an endpoint to receive AOIP and provide AES to a DAC?


 

 No, Yes, No


----------



## blitz1856

Hi.  New to posting but have been reading for quite a while.  I've read large parts of this thread but not all 174 pages so I apologize if I missed this question being answered.  I saw it asked early on but did not see a definitive reply.  My listening room is a finished third car garage stall that does not have an Ethernet run (I had it wired while the house was built but it must have been severed by a screw somewhere).  I do have a dedicated wireless bridge to the room.  I believe that Dante (or AES67 in general) will not work with wireless anywhere in the chain due to the PTP protocol being used?  Anyone know for sure based on specs or having tried it?  Thanks.


----------



## gefski

blitz1856 said:


> Hi.  New to posting but have been reading for quite a while.  I've read large parts of this thread but not all 174 pages so I apologize if I missed this question being answered.  I saw it asked early on but did not see a definitive reply.  My listening room is a finished third car garage stall that does not have an Ethernet run (I had it wired while the house was built but it must have been severed by a screw somewhere).  I do have a dedicated wireless bridge to the room.  I believe that Dante (or AES67 in general) will not work with wireless anywhere in the chain due to the PTP protocol being used?  Anyone know for sure based on specs or having tried it?  Thanks.




Dante is very specific that it won't work wireless. They have a great series of videos "Getting Started With Dante". Here is one mentioning wireless:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrWU41Q2F7I
By the way, you don't have to connect to the existing switch or router in your home. The Dante LAN can just stand alone in your listening room, no switch needed for two devices, or buy a switch for more.


----------



## blitz1856

Thanks for the video.  That is the information I've been looking for and confirms that I don't have an EASY path to implementing AOIP.  I would love to go straight to AOIP and bypass a USB chain as I move from LMS and Logitech devices for streaming to something more versatile.  Unfortunately I don't have a music server in my listening room so can't do a direct connection.  So I need to figure out how to get new wire out there or forget about AOIP.  I wish I knew where the break was in the Cat5 so I could patch it but I don't even know what route the electrician ran it and I'm dealing with insulated walls...


----------



## Golfnutz

blitz1856 said:


> Thanks for the video.  That is the information I've been looking for and confirms that I don't have an EASY path to implementing AOIP.  I would love to go straight to AOIP and bypass a USB chain as I move from LMS and Logitech devices for streaming to something more versatile.  Unfortunately I don't have a music server in my listening room so can't do a direct connection.  So I need to figure out how to get new wire out there or forget about AOIP.  I wish I knew where the break was in the Cat5 so I could patch it but I don't even know what route the electrician ran it and I'm dealing with insulated walls...


 
 Doesn't your dedicated wireless bridge have an Ethernet port? Can't see why this wouldn't work. Google Dante WiFi, as there were changes in July, 2016 to support WiFi.


----------



## Tboooe

golfnutz said:


> Doesn't your dedicated wireless bridge have an Ethernet port? Can't see why this wouldn't work. Google Dante WiFi, as there were changes in July, 2016 to support WiFi.


 
 I was about to post the same reply.  Get a wireless bridge.  Most will come with at least 2 ethernet ports.  I have been using the Dlink dap 1650 wireless AC for over a year now to get music from my NAS upstairs.  I have had zero issues getting high res or DSD to my room which is downstairs and in the back corner of my house while my wireless router is upstairs in the front corner of my house.


----------



## Golfnutz

tboooe said:


> I was about to post the same reply.  Get a wireless bridge.  Most will come with at least 2 ethernet ports.  I have been using the Dlink dap 1650 wireless AC for over a year now to get music from my NAS upstairs.  I have had zero issues getting high res or DSD to my room which is downstairs and in the back corner of my house while my wireless router is upstairs in the front corner of my house.


 
 His first post mentioned he has a wireless bridge.
  
 Even shows in network config within Dante Controller.


----------



## jabbr

Dante WiFi support is only for controling the devices, not for 'streaming' the audio.


----------



## blitz1856

golfnutz said:


> His first post mentioned he has a wireless bridge.
> 
> Even shows in network config within Dante Controller.


 

 ​Yes, sorry for not being more clear in my original post.  I understand Rednet doesn't have a built in wireless radio and know I need to plug an Ethernet cable into it.  But I had the impression that Dante didn't work with wireless ANYWHERE in the chain due to the Precision Time Protocal (PTP) not being supported through an 802.11ac bridge.  If that is incorrect it would be great news and I'll do some additional research.  I had searched for dante and wireless and ptp/wireless, aes67/wireless, etc... but didn't try dante/wifi combination.  Thanks for the tips.


----------



## gefski

Me too, thanks for the additional info!


----------



## Golfnutz

blitz1856 said:


> ​Yes, sorry for not being more clear in my original post.  I understand Rednet doesn't have a built in wireless radio and know I need to plug an Ethernet cable into it.  But I had the impression that Dante didn't work with wireless ANYWHERE in the chain due to the Precision Time Protocal (PTP) not being supported through an 802.11ac bridge.  If that is incorrect it would be great news and I'll do some additional research.  I had searched for dante and wireless and ptp/wireless, aes67/wireless, etc... but didn't try dante/wifi combination.  Thanks for the tips.


 

 Assuming you would only have 1 Rednet device, it would be the Master anyway (regarding PTP).
  
 As Jabbr mentioned earlier, I don't think you can do audio transmission from your PC to Rednet device.
  
 However, I still don't think it would be an issue if your bridge has an Ethernet port. If it has more than one, you should be able to use cables to both PC and Rednet. If it only has one port, you could probably get the D16 and use the secondary port to your computer to do the data transmission (I initially connected this way w/o any problems).
  
 Also, as mentioned earlier, if you don't need access to the internet from your PC while listening to music, you could use a simple switch/router (could be in addition to the one you have - not sure what your requirements are since you never really stated).
  
 Bottom line is, I think you have some options that should work.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> Assuming you would only have 1 Rednet device, it would be the Master anyway (regarding PTP).
> 
> As Jabbr mentioned earlier, I don't think you can do audio transmission from your PC to Rednet device.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Here is my 2 cents...
  
 I think that the "gotcha" is data stream timing. There will still be a wireless leg in the music stream since his server is in another part of the house. He still would need a PC in the same room. That PC could use something like JRiver Media Center to get the music over the wireless link and then communicate with the RN3 via Dante Virtual Soundcard.
  
 He needs either a long wire to the existing server or another PC to serve music via ethernet locally.


----------



## blitz1856

mourip said:


> Here is my 2 cents...
> 
> I think that the "gotcha" is data stream timing. There will still be a wireless leg in the music stream since his server is in another part of the house. He still would need a PC in the same room. That PC could use something like JRiver Media Center to get the music over the wireless link and then communicate with the RN3 via Dante Virtual Soundcard.
> 
> He needs either a long wire to the existing server or another PC to serve music via ethernet locally.


 

 ​That is what I conclude as well.  If I want to use a Rednet device I either figure out how to run a long cable or buy another PC.  As Jabbr said you can control from a wireless device like a laptop, but you can't have a wireless leg anywhere in the path to stream from DVS to Rednet.  Wireless doesn't seem to support the timing protocol for the data stream, and it is the timing that seems to make AOIP semi-immune to the sort of reclocker/isolation/decrapifier tweaking I hope to avoid in the first place (with something like a microRendu or Aries in the chain).  With my computer area in a loft that sits above the garage, to avoid having to tear up an awful lot of wall, I'll probably just drill a hole through the floor and run a cable across the garage ceiling to the far room.  Shouldn't be too bad and don't care what it looks like in the garage.  Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## Golfnutz

blitz1856 said:


> ​That is what I conclude as well.  If I want to use a Rednet device I either figure out how to run a long cable or buy another PC.  As Jabbr said you can control from a wireless device like a laptop, but you can't have a wireless leg anywhere in the path to stream from DVS to Rednet.  Wireless doesn't seem to support the timing protocol for the data stream, and it is the timing that seems to make AOIP semi-immune to the sort of reclocker/isolation/decrapifier tweaking I hope to avoid in the first place (with something like a microRendu or Aries in the chain).  With my computer area in a loft that sits above the garage, to avoid having to tear up an awful lot of wall, I'll probably just drill a hole through the floor and run a cable across the garage ceiling to the far room.  Shouldn't be too bad and don't care what it looks like in the garage.  Thanks for the feedback!


 
 This is why I said you never fully explained what your requirements were.
  
 If you're going to drill a hole in the floor, you also might want to consider only running an AES cable (Mogami) to your DAC and keeping the Rednet in the loft (assuming your DAC has AES, and you control your source remotely). Just a suggestion (not knowing your setup).


----------



## Adosero

Please forgive if this is a stupid question: is internet connection still required for an aoip setup if the pc is connected directly to rednet via lan port? Thanks...


----------



## jabbr

adosero said:


> Please forgive if this is a stupid question: is internet connection still required for an aoip setup if the pc is connected directly to rednet via lan port? Thanks...


 
 Internet connection is not required for RedNet playback. The RedNet is 'just' an interface between your PC and DAC and doesn't use or require an internet connection for normal playback usage.
  
 The only time a an internet connection is required is when doing an update of RedNet software and firmware from the PC.
 The Control Software on the PC will download these from the internet, but this download can also be done manualy from another machine and then you can update the RedNet manualy from the connected PC.


----------



## peteAllen

You could use gigabit ethernet over powerline? It will introduce noise into your mains however, so perhaps not great unless you have a power regenerator


----------



## InsanityOne

peteallen said:


> You could use *gigabit* ethernet over powerline? It will introduce noise into your mains however, so perhaps not great unless you have a power regenerator


 
  
 As someone who uses Powerline Ethernet Adapters, the current limit with the newest adapters (due to technological limitations and the nature of how powerlines are used / constructed) is around ~440 mb/s. This is the highest connection speed that can be transferred via. powerline. Also a lot of other factors play into the relative "noise" of using ethernet over powerline. The biggest factor being the quality of powerline cabling used and the construction date of your home. The second biggest factor being how many devices you have sucking power on that particular line.
  
 My apartment was built in 2015 and I have relatively few devices attached to the powerline that my Ethernet adapters are on, so I am able to get my full connection speed of 40 mb/s over the line and there is relatively little noise. I haven't tried an AOIP device yet, but my desktop PC has two RJ45 jacks so one accepts my Ethernet connection and the other will be used to go straight to a AOIP device.
  
 Personally I think that the amount of noise that could be passed over an CAT5 / CAT7 cable will be relatively low priority in terms of other factors that could be introducing noise into your chain, especially when it comes to things like power supply, etc.
  
 P.S. - If anyone is interested, the best Powerline Ethernet Adapters on the market right now are the Extollo LANSocket 1500. (Amazon Link)
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## blitz1856

Do the newer powerline adapters such as the LANsocket 1500 still have issues if the two power outlets are on circuits that fall on opposite sides of the breaker box?  It would certainly be a convenient solution, but I wonder if the technology adds any latency that would disrupt the timing protocols used by Dante (similar to Wifi).  Either way it would be a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive thing to try once I have a Rednet.


----------



## InsanityOne

blitz1856 said:


> *Do the newer powerline adapters such as the LANsocket 1500 still have issues if the two power outlets are on circuits that fall on opposite sides of the breaker box? * It would certainly be a convenient solution, *but I wonder if the technology adds any latency* that would disrupt the timing protocols used by Dante (similar to Wifi).  Either way it would be a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive thing to try once I have a Rednet.


 
  
 #1 Here is a direct quote from an Extollo rep. on their product page:
  


> Yes, the powerline signal will cross from electrical phase 1 to phase 2. HomePlug AV2 uses much higher signaling frequencies, 2-86 MHz. At these frequencies, the Bus Bars in the electrical service panel start to look like a capacitor. The Bus Bars are two large copper bars that run down the center of the electrical service panel to which the circuit breakers physically attach. The electrical panel acts as a cross-phase coupler,the result is that powerline signals couple, or "radiate" across the electrical service panel's circuit breaker Bus Bars. Extollo has a white paper on this subject - see: extollocom.com/support and look for "Home Electrical Wiring & Cross Phase coupling".


 
  
 #2 On my own personal system I have not noticed a "significant" uptick in latency while using my powerline ethernet adapters. I still get better latency than when I'm on my 2.4 Ghz or my 5.0 Ghz WiFi connection. For me, on my particular setup, I would say that the latency is within ~1-3 ms of a normal "direct" ethernet connection to the wall / modem / etc. YMMV though.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## somestranger26

blitz1856 said:


> Do the newer powerline adapters such as the LANsocket 1500 still have issues if the two power outlets are on circuits that fall on opposite sides of the breaker box?  It would certainly be a convenient solution, but I wonder if the technology adds any latency that would disrupt the timing protocols used by Dante (similar to Wifi).  Either way it would be a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive thing to try once I have a Rednet.


 
 If that's an issue, you could try moving breakers around so they're on the same phase.
  


insanityone said:


> #1 Here is a direct quote from an Extollo rep. on their product page:
> 
> 
> #2 On my own personal system I have not noticed a "significant" uptick in latency while using my powerline ethernet adapters. I still get better latency than when I'm on my 2.4 Ghz or my 5.0 Ghz WiFi connection. For me, on my particular setup, I would say that the latency is within ~1-3 ms of a normal "direct" ethernet connection to the wall / modem / etc. YMMV though.
> ...


 

 Most of the latency is due to the computer, not the network.


----------



## InsanityOne

somestranger26 said:


> Most of the latency is due to the computer, not the network.


 
  
 Yes, I agree. Hardware is a huge factor in determining your connection latency, I was just stating that the latency while using the Powerline Ethernet Adapters is still better than using the exact same connection over WiFi, no matter what type of WiFi connection you are using.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## gldgate

Some pertinent info from another thread:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/784471/what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been-robert-hunter/1410#post_13075230


----------



## InsanityOne

gldgate said:


> Some pertinent info from another thread:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/784471/what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been-robert-hunter/1410#post_13075230


 
  
 So basically, to make a long story short: All else the same, in a blind A-B test, it was nearly impossible to tell the difference between a $1600 RedNet Dante device and a $599 Attero Tech unDAES-O? That's definitely good to know. No we just need someone to A-B an Attero Tech unDAES-O + Yggy (or other high-end DAC) and a Dante DAC like the Burl B2 Bomber.
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## gldgate

insanityone said:


> So basically, to make a long story short: All else the same, in a blind A-B test, it was nearly impossible to tell the difference between a $1600 RedNet Dante device and a $599 Attero Tech unDAES-O? That's definitely good to know. No we just need someone to A-B an Attero Tech unDAES-O + Yggy (or other high-end DAC) and a Dante DAC like the Burl B2 Bomber.
> 
> - InsanityOne


 
  
 Yes, very nice news for those looking for more inexpensive Dante solutions that don't need the additional features of the RedNet boxes. Step in the right direction for further consumer audio adoption.


----------



## rb2013

Things are progressing nicley here - the new thread should be up over the Holidays.
 I posted this on my LPS thread - but thought some who read this one would find it of interest.
 Cheers!
  


> yviena said:
> 
> 
> > Last time you listed your USB chain you where using a USB/SPDIF reclocker are you still using a Singxer or are you only using USB decrapifiers now?
> ...


----------



## Albrecht

> I find that USB does this better.  Hard to explain - maybe it's a greater tonal density or richness?  Definitely the higher degree of dynamics makes for a more realistic effect.  The other biggest difference is the greater amount of detail being presented over the best I could get from AOIP.


 
  
 Fascinating. I am waiting with great interest for your new thread.
  
 Most surprised that you've gone back to USB....
  
 Cheers,


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Fascinating. I am waiting with great interest for your new thread.
> 
> Most surprised that you've gone back to USB....
> 
> Cheers,


 

 I'm as surprised as you are.  I had the USB chain in my office and it sounded very good.  But someone asked if I tried USB sticks in the Startech?  And that got me curious, used an old 8GB as a trial - and it sounded very good.  Bought some new PNY 256GB - three in fact - they were much better. 
  
 So then upgraded the power supply on the REX (MEIYAN 24VDC discrete LPS/Teddy Pardo silver DC power cable)(four port Ethernet receiver end), even better, that just got me thinking about trying it in my main system - well it floored me at how good it sounded.  The USB sticks needed a 100 hours to settle in.  Added JB's (modded to a VBUS blocker) to the REX before the 2G data leg to the Recovery and another at the PC before feeding the data leg of the LEX.  Upgraded the LEX PS to a LPS.  All this just kept improving the SQ. 
  
 Swapped the HD spinner running the OS to a SSD (128GB PNY for $39) - now the system has no moving parts(still using SATA filter on the SSD) - even better.  Last upgrade was Fidelizer Pro running as Purist.
  
 I still can not believe how much the SQ improved over every thing before - not easy but more then well worth it.  This new ultra USB chain is as big, maybe bigger step up over the best I could get from AOIP, as AOIP was over the Uber USB chain I had before.  At a fraction of the cost.  In fact I would have to say the SQ improvement from this source is one of the greatest audio advancements in terms of SQ I have yet heard in 30yrs of audio.
  
 Still have one last experiment to try (replacing the Recovery fed by a TeraDak/Dc iPur) with a LT3042 R-Core 5VDC LPS - directly to the iPur2>F-1.
  
 Oh and had a long interesting conversation with someone in the industry I respect - and they have a killer USB gizmo coming - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, as well as a audiophile AOIP implementation in the works.  Fun times!
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

Someone over on this CA thread mentioned that USB sticks sound better then SSD or HDD:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/does-solid-state-drive-sound-better-hard-disk-1650/index4.html


> *sandyk*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Now imagine taking those USB sticks and running them outside the PC - on a galvanically isolated - low noise LPS powered unit - power separate from the PC.  But there maybe an additional benefit from the USB>Ethernet>USB packet translation going on.  The files all run fine, even 352K PCM Wave and DSD128 files - no hiccups, super stable.  Running my system 24/7 for weeks nows - with no hangups.  Latency is fine as well.  The three 256GB PNY sticks cost $125 total from Bestbuy and give me approx 740GB of music storage.
  
 When the prices drop on the 512GB sticks I can swap them in.  That'll double my storage capacity to 1.4TB.
  
 One thing I would like to try is different brands of USB flash drives.  Down the road.


----------



## wushuliu

This is why it would be more interesting if audiophile outfits focused more on power supplies based around lifepo4 and similar. Even with charger active and the lifepo being used more like a cap the sound quality improvement remains. It is relatively inexpensive and it sounds amazing. I got lifepo4 on every clock and digital component i can make work. But not everyone wants to diy, even me sometimes. This should be easy peasy for uptone and ps audio etc. 5v and 3.3v no problem. Higher would be tricker but then thats what the higher tier prices are for right?

Even better there are ssd that run off 3.3v. So lifepo4 strAight to ssd, no 5v to 3.3 regulator. Hmmm... wonder what superdad has to say about all that.


----------



## Albrecht

> Now imagine taking those USB sticks and running them outside the PC


 
  
  
 Very interesting.....
  
 I don't want to ask you too many questions en lieu of your upcoming thread. But, am curious if you're plugging those right into the StarTech extenders, - or into your PC?
  
 IF you're using the extenders, then it would be adding even more value to those guys. In any case, - (if the USB sticks are plugged into the PC), the Startechs are likely still in play for isolation purposes: I would guess....
  
 Cheers RB, - can't wait till your thread is out.


----------



## wushuliu

"AOIP had a clinical quality to it - I would find myself losing interest in the music quickly - it sounded great - but just lacked some emotional connection. I find that USB does this better. "

That was one reason why i moved away from the rednet and took a different path. I agree about usb and although i feel i have found another way to get similar attributes, I'm curious what you've done rb.


----------



## kazsud

rb2013 said:


> I'm as surprised as you are.  I had the USB chain in my office and it sounded very good.  But someone asked if I tried USB sticks in the Startech?  And that got me curious, used an old 8GB as a trial - and it sounded very good.  Bought some new PNY 256GB - three in fact - they were much better.
> 
> So then upgraded the power supply on the REX (MEIYAN 24VDC discrete LPS/Teddy Pardo silver DC power cable)(four port Ethernet receiver end), even better, that just got me thinking about trying it in my main system - well it floored me at how good it sounded.  The USB sticks needed a 100 hours to settle in.  Added JB's (modded to a VBUS blocker) to the REX before the 2G data leg to the Recovery and another at the PC before feeding the data leg of the LEX.  Upgraded the LEX PS to a LPS.  All this just kept improving the SQ.
> 
> ...




I guess the Apple Music and Tidal people would be better off with Aoip.

Btw I put my SU-1 up for sale.


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> This is why it would be more interesting if audiophile outfits focused more on power supplies based around lifepo4 and similar. Even with charger active and the lifepo being used more like a cap the sound quality improvement remains. It is relatively inexpensive and it sounds amazing. I got lifepo4 on every clock and digital component i can make work. But not everyone wants to diy, even me sometimes. This should be easy peasy for uptone and ps audio etc. 5v and 3.3v no problem. Higher would be tricker but then thats what the higher tier prices are for right?
> 
> Even better there are ssd that run off 3.3v. So lifepo4 strAight to ssd, no 5v to 3.3 regulator. Hmmm... wonder what superdad has to say about all that.


 

 The new totl $16,000 Aurender W20 uses LFP batteries, a SSD drive to cache the music and OXCO clocking...
  
 http://www.aurender.com/page/w20


----------



## rb2013

albrecht said:


> Very interesting.....
> 
> I don't want to ask you too many questions en lieu of your upcoming thread. But, am curious if you're plugging those right into the StarTech extenders, - or into your PC?
> 
> ...


 

 Right into the empty Startech REX USB ports...one reason not to buy the PS Audio LANRover - you only get one port.
  


 I think it's kind of ironic - that the initial SQ leap using the Startech led me to the Rednet gear and AOIP - then now full round trip back.
  
 My question on using the USB sticks in the Startech (much better SQ then plugged into the PC), is it powering them with clean LPS power or the USB>Ethernet>USB conversion cleaning up the GI issues and SI improvement - or maybe both?


----------



## rb2013

wushuliu said:


> "AOIP had a clinical quality to it - I would find myself losing interest in the music quickly - it sounded great - but just lacked some emotional connection. I find that USB does this better. "
> 
> That was one reason why i moved away from the rednet and took a different path. I agree about usb and although i feel i have found another way to get similar attributes, I'm curious what you've done rb.


 

 I love your appoarch  - using the Oppo.  Have you tried playing from a USB stick in it's USB port.
  
 I find there is just a 'rightness' to the music now that AOIP lacked.


----------



## rb2013

kazsud said:


> I guess the Apple Music and Tidal people would be better off with Aoip.
> 
> Btw I put my SU-1 up for sale.


 

 The SU-1 is great unit - but limited to it's built in power supply.  The F-1 has much more flexibility.  I have to say until I really tweeked this USB chain the F-1 (LPS powered/ iPur2/etc...)was crushed by my Rednet chain.  So relegated to the office system.  I even tried to sell the Startech and turned down a few low ball offered.  Serendipity!  So happy I returned to playing around with it. 
  
 And my many thanks to the chap who PM'd me with the USB stick suggestion - otherwise it would have never occurred to me to even try it.


----------



## rb2013

dup


----------



## gefski

For those that have been looking at AOIP, I just posted my review of the Atterotech unDAES-O.


----------



## Golfnutz

gefski said:


> For those that have been looking at AOIP, I just posted my review of the Atterotech unDAES-O.


 
 Just finished reading your review. Well put together and enjoyed reading it. Easy to tell your excitement about AOIP.
  
 I also read your comments in the other thread when you compared the unDAES-O with the D16 and couldn't hear any noticeable differences.
  
 I've always felt by not using USB, and additionally, including JETPLL clocks to help manage jitter is what makes the D16 what it is.
  
 It's interesting that the unDAES doesn't use any clocks to manage jitter (at least nothing I could find written about it).
  
 Not to be taken the wrong way. This is just a thought. I'm wondering now, if using a speaker system would have highlighted any difference (ie. soundstage, imaging).


----------



## gefski

golfnutz said:


> This is just a thought. I'm wondering now, if using a speaker system would have highlighted any difference (ie. soundstage, imaging).




Thanks, comments appreciated.

Won't be hearing it with speakers in the immediate future, that system is disassembled for a while.


----------



## PCWar

Great review gefski


----------



## rb2013

New thread is up:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/829639/usb-strikes-back-watch-out-aoip-usb-ethernet-chain-beats-all-at-least-for-me


----------



## feline

Interesting thing Lyrebird APP ETH Network Audio
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cR100Hs-Xw
  
 I think you need another dante piece of hardware for it to work


----------



## jabbr

feline said:


> Interesting thing Lyrebird APP ETH Network Audio
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cR100Hs-Xw
> 
> I think you need another dante piece of hardware for it to work




It is a listener just like a RN3 or D16 from Focusrite. You need somerhing to play Dante into the network like the Virtual Soundcard from Audinate on a PC.

This piece of kit does not use Audinate Brooklyn or Via hardware, I wonder if they are free to use/interpret the Dante protocol or whether that is protected intellectual property.
The business model of Audinate is based on using Audinate hardware when working with the Dante protocol.


----------



## feline

I think VSC will not stream unless it detects another dante device and that is why there is am2 in the video. Once there is a stream Lyrebird can listen. I hope I am wrong , because then we have $200 Dante to AES or spdif converter.


----------



## joelha

I have what I'm sure will turn out to be a stupid question.

But, between better audio and self-esteem, I'll sacrifice the latter.

Since I have to use the Dante Virtual Soundcard to output to my D16, should I assume that using a JCAT or SOtM USB card is not possible as it requires its own driver?

And if it is possible, where would I enable the driver to make it possible to use the card?

Bracing for the answer.

Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Since I have to use the Dante Virtual Soundcard to output to my D16, should I assume that using a JCAT or SOtM USB card is not possible as it requires its own driver?
> 
> And if it is possible, where would I enable the driver to make it possible to use the card?


 
  
 If you are asking if you can use both the ethernet output for the D16 and also a USB output on the same machine the answer is probably yes, but probably only one at a time.
  
 If you are asking if you can set them both up to switch between two different chains without an issue or conflict the answer is probably yes also.
  
 Try it using a normal USB port and then if that works try with one of the other add-on cards.
  
 I had a PPA card in my server when I first moved to AOIP using a D16 but soon just removed and sold it.
  
 Perhaps you are pondering trying out Robs newest USB path without risking what you already have set up


----------



## joelha

You're a smart man, mourip.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do.

But it seems I may have to use a generic USB card that won't require a special driver.

In that way I'm hoping I can get both Ethernet output and have my drive read at the same time.

Any other thoughts about that?

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> If you are asking if you can use both the ethernet output for the D16 and also a USB output on the same machine the answer is probably yes, but probably only one at a time.
> 
> If you are asking if you can set them both up to switch between two different chains without an issue or conflict the answer is probably yes also.
> 
> ...


 

 Easy - both are completely compatible.  I use Foobar and would just change source from the DVS ASIO to the USB KS or ASIO under 'Devices'.  In fact still have DVS ASIO showing up in my devices list, even though running USB.
  
 But you can't do both at the same time - your music player needs to 'know' where to direct the audio music data stream down a Ethernet or USB pipe


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Easy - both are completely compatible.  I use Foobar and would just change source from the DVS ASIO to the USB KS or ASIO under 'Devices'.  In fact still have DVS ASIO showing up in my devices list, even though running USB.
> 
> But you can't do both at the same time - your music player needs to 'know' where to direct the audio music data stream down a Ethernet or USB pipe


 
  
 It's that "same time" thing that's forcing me to buy the Startech device, Rob.
  
 Thanks for the information.
  
 I'll let you know what I find out in terms of what I get with that and the D16.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

Has anyone else been using their D16 without a router/switch/modem (Ethernet cable directly from PC to D16, and no Ethernet cable from D16 to router/switch/modem)? I'm sure it would work with RN3, but would have to connect to router first (wake-up port), then unplug and plug Ethernet cable from PC to RN3. For D16, just have an Ethernet cable on hand and plug one end into Primary, and other end into Secondary ports. Remove cable when D16 ports start flashing and then plug PC cable into D16 Primary or Secondary port. Without router/switch/modem - no FMC, optical cable, LPS needed for this connection anymore. Latency in my system dropped a bit more as well.
  
 Obviously, you won't have an internet connection without a link to your modem. But, if you don't need the internet while listening to music, it might be something to consider.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> Has anyone else been using their D16 without a router/switch/modem (Ethernet cable directly from PC to D16, and no Ethernet cable from D16 to router/switch/modem)? I'm sure it would work with RN3, but would have to connect to router first (wake-up port), then unplug and plug Ethernet cable from PC to RN3. For D16, just have an Ethernet cable on hand and plug one end into Primary, and other end into Secondary ports. Remove cable when D16 ports start flashing and then plug PC cable into D16 Primary or Secondary port. Without router/switch/modem - no FMC, optical cable, LPS needed for this connection anymore. Latency in my system dropped a bit more as well.
> 
> Obviously, you won't have an internet connection without a link to your modem. But, if you don't need the internet while listening to music, it might be something to consider.


 
  
 I added a second ethernet card to my PC so I have one link to the D16 and the other to my switch for Internet and copying music. One of the D16 ethernet ports goes unused.
  
 If you do not have a PC card slot to use you can get a USB to ethernet dongle. 
  
 BTW. The D16 will work with a self-assigned IP address 169.x.x.x so you do not need to worry about it getting an address from your router.


----------



## Tand2016

I use a Mac mini 2012 with the native ethernet connected directly to my Rednet 16 (with FMCs) and I use a Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter on the same mini  connected to my TimeCapsul so I can stream Tidal. I do not use the second ethernet input on the Rednet. Works perfectly.
  
 Tommy


----------



## astrostar59

*Rednet 3 with LPS mod anyone?*
  
 I was wondering if anyone has managed to do this yet. There was some posts a couple of months back about an interested in feeding DC from an LPS and bypass the SMTP in the Rednet 3.
  
 I have outputs spare on my LPS so if it is possible would be interested in a method to do this.


----------



## johnjen

I have received my triple output LPS and am in the process of configuring and preparing to wire them together.
 And one of the tests will be to determine if all 3 voltages or just the +5vdc will be necessary to power the RN3.
  
 And now that the silly season is over I'll have more time to fuss with wires and such.
  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> If you do not have a PC card slot to use you can get a USB to ethernet dongle.




Hey mourip,

Have you ever used the USB to Ethernet solution?

If so, do you believe you paid a sonic penalty by using that option?

Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Hey mourip,
> 
> Have you ever used the USB to Ethernet solution?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes. I actually have two rigs. One for speakers and one for headphones, each using a D16. My speaker rig has the extra ethernet card while my HP rig uses an additional USB to ethernet dongle. Both rigs use internal SSD's for music so I am not going over the LAN to play music files. Both setups have a direct connection to the D16 to play music. The HP rig uses the ethernet dongle just for network/Internet access and remote control so it should not affect music playback.
  
 Hope this helps.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I added a second ethernet card to my PC so I have one link to the D16 and the other to my switch for Internet and copying music. One of the D16 ethernet ports goes unused.
> 
> If you do not have a PC card slot to use you can get a USB to ethernet dongle.
> 
> BTW. The D16 will work with a self-assigned IP address 169.x.x.x so you do not need to worry about it getting an address from your router.


 
 Your right, no need to wake-up the ports as the 169.x.x.x address is assigned automatically.
  
 It's nice that a router doesn't need to be attached (if internet is not required).
  
 I think I will add a NIC to my PC so it gives me Remote access from my laptop, but as you mentioned later, this has no impact on sound quality.


----------



## joelha

Thanks a lot for your reply, mourip.
  
 Do you believe the sound is as good as a standard Ethernet direct connection?
  
 Joel


----------



## rb2013

joelha said:


> It's that "same time" thing that's forcing me to buy the Startech device, Rob.
> 
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> ...


 

 Hi Joel,
  
 I ordered a mircoSD SLC and a SLC USB drive from Digikey to compare to the USB PNY 256GB's
  
 Thanks for your suggestion - I only ordered the small capacity to test.
  
 I'm still following this thread - interested to see what some try as far as external music storage with AOIP.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## rb2013

Also has anyone tried to run the Dante DVS from a RAM disk?
  
 https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/create-10-gbs-ram-disk-windows/


----------



## joelha

rb2013 said:


> Hi Joel,
> 
> I ordered a mircoSD SLC and a SLC USB drive from Digikey to compare to the USB PNY 256GB's
> 
> ...


 
 You're a good man, Rob.
  
 We're all interested in the same thing . . . better sound.
  
 Looking forward to hearing what you think.
  
 Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Thanks a lot for your reply, mourip.
> 
> Do you believe the sound is as good as a standard Ethernet direct connection?
> 
> Joel


 
  
 To be honest I did it mainly based upon theory. It just made sense. Also I am a terrible audiophile when it comes to only doing one thing at once. I believe that I added the fiber link at the same time.
  
 Bottom line is that my system is sounding great. Very black background with a lot of depth and detail. Add on ethernet cards are cheap


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> To be honest I did it mainly based upon theory. It just made sense. Also I am a terrible audiophile when it comes to only doing one thing at once. I believe that I added the fiber link at the same time.
> 
> Bottom line is that my system is sounding great. Very black background with a lot of depth and detail. Add on ethernet cards are cheap


 
 Added NIC to my PC. This is the perfect setup. Thanks.


----------



## Miracle1980

Probably a stupid question... Using a network digital streamer like for example SoundAware D100 (or even the Hegel h160, capable of dlna) will not bring the same results/improvements as "audio over ip"?


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> To be honest I did it mainly based upon theory. It just made sense. Also I am a terrible audiophile when it comes to only doing one thing at once. I believe that I added the fiber link at the same time.
> 
> Bottom line is that my system is sounding great. Very black background with a lot of depth and detail. Add on ethernet cards are cheap


 
  
 For a "terrible audiphile" I've been getting some good information from you, mourip.
  
 Thanks for the information.
  
 Joel


----------



## jabbr

miracle1980 said:


> Probably a stupid question... Using a network digital streamer like for example SoundAware D100 (or even the Hegel h160, capable of dlna) will not bring the same results/improvements as "audio over ip"?




No, completely different technology.
AOIP is a realtime protocol. Regular streamers are a kind of file transfer protocol.
Its main difference is in what the receiving end still has to do to create an audio signal.


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> For a "terrible audiphile" I've been getting some good information from you, mourip.
> 
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Joel


 
  
 Thanks. Like most of us I am just trailing behind Rob enjoying the trail of bread crumbs he has left us to mark the misty path to audio bliss


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Thanks. Like most of us I am just trailing behind Rob enjoying the trail of bread crumbs he has left us to mark the misty path to audio bliss


 
  
 Oh but what joyous path - really still trying to wrap my mind around what a difference each step makes...who would have thought from the 'simple' transference of the audio stream from storage to DAC would be so critical.  A few years ago - certainly not me.
  
 Album after album just a revelation...2017 is going to be a great year


----------



## InsanityOne

Hello Everyone,
  
 Just a quick question here, but is it possible to use the Attero Tech unDAES-O with my Schiit Gungnir DAC? It doesn't have an AES (XLR) input, but would using a cable like THIS (75-ohm XLR to Coax) get the job done? It would be quite the bummer if the unDAES-O was limited to working only with DACs that have an AES input.
  
 Thanks!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## PCWar

99% it should work. I personally use a 110 to 75 ohm impedance converter and then a standard rca cable into my Theta Gen V.


----------



## gefski

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Just a quick question here, but is it possible to use the Attero Tech unDAES-O with my Schiit Gungnir DAC? It doesn't have an AES (XLR) input, but would using a cable like THIS (75-ohm XLR to Coax) get the job done? It would be quite the bummer if the unDAES-O was limited to working only with DACs that have an AES input.
> 
> ...




No, that's a good cable, but you need a FEMALE XLR on the uDO end. 

I think the uDO/Gungnir combination should be excellent despite the slight impedance mismatch.

IMO


----------



## InsanityOne

pcwar said:


> 99% it should work. I personally use a 110 to 75 ohm impedance converter and then a standard rca cable into my Theta Gen V.


 
  


gefski said:


> No, that's a good cable, but you need a FEMALE XLR on the uDO end.
> 
> I think the uDO/Gungnir combination should be excellent despite the slight impedance mismatch.
> 
> IMO


 
  
 Perfect! Yeah I am thinking about just grabbing a Neutrik NADITBNC-FX Impedance Transformer and then a standard BNC cable. That way the impedance is properly matched. It should work out great!
  
 - InsanityOne


----------



## rb2013

insanityone said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Just a quick question here, but is it possible to use the Attero Tech unDAES-O with my Schiit Gungnir DAC? It doesn't have an AES (XLR) input, but would using a cable like THIS (75-ohm XLR to Coax) get the job done? It would be quite the bummer if the unDAES-O was limited to working only with DACs that have an AES input.
> 
> ...


 

 Going from AES to SPDIF requires signal attenuation (at least 10dB), as well as impedance conversion.   This reference may help:http://www.rane.com/note149.html
  
  
 I have used this Canare to good effect - with BNC signal attentuators, and a BNC to RCA adapter:
 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/406162-REG/Canare_BCJ_XJ_TRB_BCJ_XJ_TRB_110_Ohm_to.html
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/BNC-Attenuator-Set-3dB-6dB-10dB-20dB-50-Ohm-ONE-OF-EACH-VALUE-/142218908787?hash=item211ce85473
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-Pack-Lot-BNC-Male-Plug-to-RCA-Female-Jack-Coax-Cable-Video-Adapter-Connector-/282309232039?has
  
 This allows trying different attenuation levels - or you can go with the Canare with 10dB built in:
 https://www.adorama.com/cabcja10trc.html


----------



## rb2013

Interesting thread on CA:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/
  


> Many of you are aware of the claims many are making on several threads here on​ CA but also on HeadFi of how RedNet and Dante provides this "you are there" clarity. I had a ReNet 3 in my home for evaluation for nearly a month and I agree, it provides this beguiling sense of clarity that has to be heard to be appreciated although the problem with RedNet, I believe, is its inferior switching​PSU. These units sound flat and dimensionless compared to my described setup above and so this clarity that RedNet brings almost sounds sterile and lifeless in comparison.​


 
 This mirrors my comments on the somewhat 'sterile' quality of Rednet.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## PCWar

It looks interesting for the Atterotech unDaes which is externally powered. Since the performance of the unDaes is basically the same to the Rednet as early reported maybe the unDaes has margin of improvements using an external PSU.


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> I have received my triple output LPS and am in the process of configuring and preparing to wire them together.
> And one of the tests will be to determine if all 3 voltages or just the +5vdc will be necessary to power the RN3.
> 
> And now that the silly season is over I'll have more time to fuss with wires and such.
> ...


 

 Oh my, I am getting might excited! I think we could have something here. Keep us posted.


----------



## astrostar59

rb2013 said:


> Interesting thread on CA:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/
> 
> ...


 

 Interesting all this. I wonder addition to the SMPS issue in the Rednet if running it on an power regenerator is helping to reduce said negatives. It is certainly having a big effect on my other gear in the system. I have all of it powered by a PS Audio P10. If i revert back to straight into the mains it sounds flat and lifeless. Quite possibly the better the power supply in it's raw AC state to the integrity of the power supplies in the Rednet all affect the SQ. TBH I don't hear a sterile quality in my system. I am comparing to my old USB chain and also a CEC CDP spinning discs. 
  
 I am up for trying the LPS power supply once someone else (with more tech knowledge than me) has managed to get that to work.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Interesting thread on CA:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/
> 
> ...


 
  
 Odd. Rednet in my system is anything bit sterile. It is very natural, non-fatiguing, and involving.
  
 It seems to me that our hobby will always be somewhat subjective and very few systems are exactly alike. We all have different downstream components and cables to add to the mix.This makes comparisons somewhat like "apples to oranges". Sometimes I think audio is more like cooking than science. 
  
 Glad he found something that works for him in his system. Hopefully there are some "golden nuggets" in there that can translate well for other systems also.


----------



## astrostar59

mourip said:


> rb2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting thread on CA:
> ...


 

 Totally agree. Yes cooking, I was thinking that very thing last week after a month of tube rolling in my system and (I think) finding the prefect mix (ingredient?). Swopping rectifiers and driver tubes affects the gain stages I found in my DAC. I have 5 tubes in total to quite a few combinations to go at before I tried them all.
  
 Back on topic, my thinking (personal theory) on AOIP and the USB fight back threads. Quite possibly the added items in the chain are doing some extra re-clocking and in a certain system may benefit that set of component, but may not in another (source and DAC). So in other words lead to a conclusion that that product in any source and DAC combo improves the sound. It may not have the same positive effect in another source and DAC combo. This hobby is so complicated!
  
 I am however not being negative about this, the research is superb and most useful. If I had the time and spare cash I would probably have a go at some testing myself.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

astrostar59 said:


> I am however not being negative about this, the research is superb and most useful. If I had the time and spare cash I would probably have a go at some testing myself.


 
 I think with audio gear, you can get to a certain point where things seems to be side grades or a little bump in sq here and there but further tinkering can lose sq-gains to make way for others... it is at this point (to me) that you stop buying gear for swapping/testing/upping and just start enjoying the music. Otherwise you're just a chef and never the guy that relaxes to eat.


----------



## gefski

soundsgoodtome said:


> I think with audio gear, you can get to a certain point where things seems to be side grades or a little bump in sq here and there but further tinkering can lose sq-gains to make way for others... it is at this point (to me) that you stop buying gear for swapping/testing/upping and just start enjoying the music. Otherwise you're just a chef and never the guy that relaxes to eat.




+1 

Having Hi Fi hobby for 40ish years, I have purchased more "side grades" than most HeadFiers. Some of that is purchases not well thought out, some a result of "latest and greatest" carelessness, but as you suggest, a lot is likely due to synergy (or lack of) with the rest of the system and taking the time to achieve that.

My purchase of Yggy in 2015 and feeding it via Dante Ethernet in 2016 are rare "without a doubt" upgrades in my rig - clarity and "touch" in spades.

IMO
YMWV


----------



## gldgate

Agree with many of above. Lot of gear changes over past year on my end and am very happy with current sq. If power supply turns out to be a weakness to the RedNet boxes than I am happy to wait out and investigate the inevitable Dante based solution which allows for external power supply option. 
  
 For what it is worth, all the "hype" over MQA got me curious so I sprung for a $200 Explorer 2. Not a game changer IMO. Some of the new masters are very nice but I do not see this as a hi-fi "revolution" as some of the audio press pontificates. It likely raises sq for the streaming masses but probably not for the serious hobbyists. If the MQA  catalog (Warner Music) really appeals to you, then by all means check it out. I did find that while the absolute sq did not blow my socks off that hw mqa decoding>sw decoding> unencoded.


----------



## rb2013

mourip said:


> Odd. Rednet in my system is anything bit sterile. It is very natural, non-fatiguing, and involving.
> 
> It seems to me that our hobby will always be somewhat subjective and very few systems are exactly alike. We all have different downstream components and cables to add to the mix.This makes comparisons somewhat like "apples to oranges". Sometimes I think audio is more like cooking than science.
> 
> Glad he found something that works for him in his system. Hopefully there are some "golden nuggets" in there that can translate well for other systems also.


Well said! 'More like cooking then science'. His system is even more extreme then my ' ultra USB' chain. $3000 in LPS's alone! Worth a read.

I have moved to another level using industrial SLC USB flash drive in the Startech for music storage and playback.

The level of resolution and detail on whole other level.

Not just incremental, but a sea change in SQ improvement.


----------



## rb2013

gldgate said:


> Agree with many of above. Lot of gear changes over past year on my end and am very happy with current sq. If power supply turns out to be a weakness to the RedNet boxes than I am happy to wait out and investigate the inevitable Dante based solution which allows for external power supply option.
> 
> For what it is worth, all the "hype" over MQA got me curious so I sprung for a $200 Explorer 2. Not a game changer IMO. Some of the new masters are very nice but I do not see this as a hi-fi "revolution" as some of the audio press pontificates. It likely raises sq for the streaming masses but probably not for the serious hobbyists. If the MQA  catalog (Warner Music) really appeals to you, then by all means check it out. I did find that while the absolute sq did not blow my socks off that hw mqa decoding>sw decoding> unencoded.


Really don't think MQA, DSD, or HiRes PCM is really necessary. I'm getting a breathtaking level of audio from just plain Redbook Wav files.

Better then what my old $30k analog rig could produce on 200gm virgin vinyl.


----------



## rb2013

The shocker for me is what is contained in normal CD levels of music files. The tricky part is getting it out. I can resoundly say it's there! Even my Rednet/Muted/Antelope AOIP was just scratching the surface.


----------



## mourip

rb2013 said:


> Really don't think MQA, DSD, or HiRes PCM is really necessary. I'm getting a breathtaking level of audio from just plain Redbook Wav files.
> 
> Better then what my old $30k analog rig could produce on 200gm virgin vinyl.


 
 +1
  
 DSD is way over rated. In a good system Redbook can be stunning. I went through two DSD DAC's then bought an Yggy. Never looked back.


----------



## astrostar59

gefski said:


> soundsgoodtome said:
> 
> 
> > I think with audio gear, you can get to a certain point where things seems to be side grades or a little bump in sq here and there but further tinkering can lose sq-gains to make way for others... it is at this point (to me) that you stop buying gear for swapping/testing/upping and just start enjoying the music. Otherwise you're just a chef and never the guy that relaxes to eat.
> ...


 

 I agree, the AOIP had the same bonus for me. AND I could ditch the hideous spaghetti behind my Mac Mini!. I dig the neatness of it and the one box solution.
  
 I wonder if Rednet would make at some point, a all out home audio version? I am thinking the digital out in the Rednet routers is a 'monitoring' facility for a studio? i.e. damb good but could be improved maybe? And the power supply for it upgraded. Realistically it will probably be a non pro use audio manufacturer that makes such a product. I am not complaining mind (only wondering) it sounds so good and clearly beats my USB chains and CDP.


----------



## Peachcore

Sorry to cut in...
  
 Has anyone here compared the Rednet 3/D16 to any of those well-regarded USB interfaces? Such as Berkeley Audio Alpha USB, Hydra Z and Weiss int204...not of those selling at a much cheaper level..
  
 It would be more persuasive if u did it.
  
 Thx.


----------



## astrostar59

peachcore said:


> Sorry to cut in...
> 
> Has anyone here compared the Rednet 3/D16 to any of those well-regarded USB interfaces? Such as Berkeley Audio Alpha USB, Hydra Z and Weiss int204...not of those selling at a much cheaper level..
> 
> ...


 

 I believe there ARE comparisons buried in the thread. I have tried the OffRamp 5 and had the M2Tech EVO full stack and sold them for the RedNet3. My observations were more fluid and smoother, same detail but less harshness and cold / digital sound I had accepted with USB.
  
 It may be system dependant how big a difference mind. The server you use, the DAC, and the SQ level you have right now i.e. the better systems IMO will show more difference between the two. Expect a similar sound signature you have with your USB chain BUT crucially more smoothness, fluidity and real sounding. Zero fatigue in fact. Very undigital and more analogue.
  
 Also, IMO some of the current testing on the USB fights back thread (no disrespect for that threads content) may be due to the extra reclocking in a chain, and that can be DAC dependant as well.
  
 I would say try and get to hear the RedNet3 in your system somehow, so you know for sure. I bought without a demo and am very happy I did.
  
 Lastly, if you need to upsample beyond 192 then it might not be right for you as Rednet is limited to 192, even thought Ethernet can go way beyond USB as it is faster. It may be the software limiting that, I am not sure. I have an R-2R DAC with Redbook so not an issue for me.


----------



## rb2013

peachcore said:


> Sorry to cut in...
> 
> Has anyone here compared the Rednet 3/D16 to any of those well-regarded USB interfaces? Such as Berkeley Audio Alpha USB, Hydra Z and Weiss int204...not of those selling at a much cheaper level..
> 
> ...


 

 I compare the Hydra Z and the Mutec MC-3+ USB - as well as a dozen others.  On my old XU208 thread and over on CA some folks who had the Berkeley preferred the F-1 and the Rednet


----------



## joelha

peachcore said:


> Sorry to cut in...
> 
> Has anyone here compared the Rednet 3/D16 to any of those well-regarded USB interfaces? Such as Berkeley Audio Alpha USB, Hydra Z and Weiss int204...not of those selling at a much cheaper level..
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have owned a Berkeley Alpha USB and definitely prefer my D16. I've since sold my Alpha USB.
  
 Joel


----------



## Tand2016

joelha said:


> I have owned a Berkeley Alpha USB and definitely prefer my D16. I've since sold my Alpha USB.
> 
> Joel


 
  
  
 Same here, sold my Berkeley Alpha USB and still very happy with my Rednet 16R.
  
 Tommy


----------



## Peachcore

Thx..Just got my D16 yesterday but still cant get it working right. I only have an AES cable, but it seems that the AES in-out (DARS) is not for digital signal output?.. Do I need to buy a DB25 breakout..?


----------



## Golfnutz

peachcore said:


> Thx..Just got my D16 yesterday but still cant get it working right. I only have an AES cable, but it seems that the AES in-out (DARS) is not for digital signal output?.. Do I need to buy a DB25 breakout..?


 

 Ethernet-in, AES-out, that's all you need (nothing else).
  
 Have you loaded DVS, Dante Controller, and Rednet Control?
  
 Did you set-up Rednet Controller?
 Did you set-up the routing in Dante Controller?


----------



## Peachcore

Well, not precisely. I will try it later.


----------



## thisisvv

Have a question....i plan to get into AOIP and using the cheap Odante right now...I have an NUC (win 10 optimized for audio nothing else)  which is connected to Yggy...i have another PC (desktp[ , lot of other software not optimized at all for audio)..... If i can get dante , can i use my other PC without loss of quality??? Or how much does the pc config and optimization matter for AOIP


----------



## johnjen

Ok so status report on using a LPS instead of the stock SMPS.
  
 The good news is my RN3 will run on only the +5 volt supply.
 So a triple rail power supply is not needed.
 Which means finding a +5 vdc board that will fit in the available space will be MUCH easier.
  
 I can also feed ac to the board with an external transformer which can reduce the foot print as well.
  
 I'll take some measurements tomorrow and compare them to the stock SMPS.
  
 As for hearing any SQ changes that will have to wait until I get more time on this setup.
 Thus far it isn't a night/day difference but when I change back to the SMPS it might be easier to hear any what if any differences there might be.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> Ok so status report on using a LPS instead of the stock SMPS.
> 
> The good news is my RN3 will run on only the +5 volt supply.
> So a triple rail power supply is not needed.
> ...


 

*Yo johnjen good work!*
 I am getting excited thinking about this. I have the Rednet 3 and a HDPlex Linear supply. The HDPlex has various dedicated outputs, one being 5V DC Ha! I have my Mac Mini using the 12v DC so plenty of capacity spare.
  
 So you going to fit a 5V DC PCB inside the case, sounds like a neat idea. I would for a connector on the back and possibly wire via the switch on the Rednet to the PCB inputs on the Rednet. I thought there was 3 take up points on the PCB/ Is that still correct?
  
 I imagine it uses very low wattage, maybe blip on switch on then tiny draw.


----------



## johnjen

So I couldn't resist and went ahead and changed back to the SMPS, just because.
  
 So far the differences are, the LPS has more bass impact and articulation.
 Not by a huge amount but it is noticeable.
 But what is even more noticeable is an increase in instantaneous dynamics for the entire soundstage.
  
 All voices have more dynamic impact.
 It's like this LPS can deliver more current, faster, (slew rate increase) which allows the music greater dynamic impacts.
 Which doesn't make much sense since this is dealing entirely in the digital domain and there aren't any analog signals anywhere in sight.
  
 It could be that reducing the noise on ground is a major factor in this, but those measurements will be made tomorrow.
 Along with current draw on the +5vdc, which I suspect will be fairly small.
  
 JJ


----------



## jelt2359

johnjen said:


> Ok so status report on using a LPS instead of the stock SMPS.
> 
> The good news is my RN3 will run on only the +5 volt supply.
> So a triple rail power supply is not needed.
> ...




With this can you output AES? Or only coaxial?


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> *Yo johnjen good work!*
> I am getting excited thinking about this. I have the Rednet 3 and a HDPlex Linear supply. The HDPlex has various dedicated outputs, one being 5V DC Ha! I have my Mac Mini using the 12v DC so plenty of capacity spare.
> 
> So you going to fit a 5V DC PCB inside the case, sounds like a neat idea. I would for a connector on the back and possibly wire via the switch on the Rednet to the PCB inputs on the Rednet. I thought there was 3 take up points on the PCB/ Is that still correct?
> ...


 
 I'm thinking of hardwiring an over capacity 'wall wart' transformer only (ac feed) direct to the 5vdc regulator board.
 But that plan is subject to change based upon what will fit.
 And I'd still like to use the existing IEC connector and front panel switch if I can, as well.
  
 The connection to the pcb requires pulling wires from the pcb for both the +5vdc and the ground.
 The way it's wired is, the ground for the 5vdc comes from the SMPS board and is not tied to ground on the main pcb.
 Which means a 'local' ground needs to be made, because the SMPS ground is disconnected.
  
 I'll add some pictures when I delve into this in more detail.
  
 Lastly one thing to find out about is, does your HDPlex LPS have independent voltage rails, (as in make sure the grounds are NOT tied together inside the LPS).
 This will help keep the noise from the computer from 'contaminating' the RN3 supply (and visa versa).
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

jelt2359 said:


> With this can you output AES? Or only coaxial?


 
 Short answer is either or both.
  
 This mod does not change any of the RN3's functionality, only the SQ.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

johnjen said:


> I'm thinking of hardwiring an over capacity 'wall wart' transformer only (ac feed) direct to the 5vdc regulator board.
> But that plan is subject to change based upon what will fit.
> And I'd still like to use the existing IEC connector and front panel switch if I can, as well.
> 
> ...


 
 Could you show a picture of how you made the connection to the RN3 internally?
 I have a few LPS-rails available (dedicated or part of a multi-rail) and am curious of what the connection actually consists of.
  
 Cheers


----------



## johnjen

jabbr said:


> Could you show a picture of how you made the connection to the RN3 internally?
> I have a few LPS-rails available (dedicated or part of a multi-rail) and am curious of what the connection entails.
> 
> Cheers


 
 Yeah I'll post pics so it will be clearer when I write this all up.
  
 But note, adding these wires is not for the novice, as it takes skill and experience and delicate soldering experience.
 Because the last thing you want to do is to screw up the main board.
  
 JJ


----------



## Clemmaster

Awesome news!
  
 Do you have means to measure the current draw as well?


----------



## thisisvv

thisisvv said:


> Have a question....i plan to get into AOIP and using the cheap Odante right now...I have an NUC (win 10 optimized for audio nothing else)  which is connected to Yggy...i have another PC (desktp[ , lot of other software not optimized at all for audio)..... If i can get dante , can i use my other PC without loss of quality??? Or how much does the pc config and optimization matter for AOIP


 
 Bump


----------



## mhamel

thisisvv said:


> Have a question....i plan to get into AOIP and using the cheap Odante right now...I have an NUC (win 10 optimized for audio nothing else)  which is connected to Yggy...i have another PC (desktp[ , lot of other software not optimized at all for audio)..... If i can get dante , can i use my other PC without loss of quality??? Or how much does the pc config and optimization matter for AOIP


 
  
  
 This is kind of a loaded question - you will get as many varying opinions as you will when asking about things like cables.... so ymmv, and this is my own personal $0.02 based on my experiences in my system.
  
 The processing power in even low end modern PCs far exceeds what is required to move around a stereo digital audio stream. I believe that you can in fact set up a computer as a multi-purpose box that includes top-notch audio transport while still being used for other things. I think that your other PC will be fine as a transport to use in a Dante network.
  
 Dante is designed to excel even in an environment with many simultaneous full resolution audio streams... we are not even scratching the surface of it's capacity to transport data when using it for two stereo channels. 
  
 There are whole other levels of argument on things like noise, power supplies, etc... but from what I have experienced the isolation that both ethernet and AES provide are excellent in terms of that. 
  
 Short answer, I think you'll be just fine using your other PC.


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Bump


 

 Try this link - https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/208360865-Troubleshooting-DPC-latency
  
 Download and run the Latency Mon they have linked and see how your computer responds.
  
 These types of questions have been covered in this forum already, which is why you're not getting too many replies.


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> Try this link - https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/208360865-Troubleshooting-DPC-latency
> 
> Download and run the Latency Mon they have linked and see how your computer responds.
> 
> These types of questions have been covered in this forum already, which is why you're not getting too many replies.


 
 latency etc i am not  worried about. I just wanted an opinion do a well optimzed pc transmitting Audio over ethernet is better then not so optimized...thats al...i think i got my answer....


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> latency etc i am not  worried about. I just wanted an opinion do a well optimzed pc transmitting Audio over ethernet is better then not so optimized...thats al...i think i got my answer....


 
 No, you don't need a dedicated audio PC, or audio optimization software (AO, Fidelizer, etc) for good sound using AOIP.


----------



## artur9

Anyone compared an SMS-200 or MicroRendu vs the UnDAES-O?  I imagine a full RedNet box would crush the UnDAES-O.
  
 Wondering because I could repurpose a Mac laptop to be the Dante source and then I wouldn't need a Linux Dante Driver anymore.  Then I could sell my Wyrd, LANRover and SMS-200 to pay for the UnDAES-O.


----------



## robi20064

I would be also very interested in such a comparison.


----------



## gldgate

Have not done a comparison of MicroRendu vs the UnDAES-O but have done one between MicroRendu vs RedNet D16 and preferred the AOIP solution. A couple of points, however:
  
 1) Even though I preferred the RedNet, I thought the MicroRendu was very good. In fact I thought it was better than CAPS dual PC setup with JPLAY.
  
 2) The uRendu used fairly pedestrian power supply ($50 IfI iPower). I have an Uptone LPS-1 coming and will repeat the experiment to see what kind of difference (if any) the LPS-1 makes.


----------



## Peachcore

peachcore said:


> Thx..Just got my D16 yesterday but still cant get it working right. I only have an AES cable, but it seems that the AES in-out (DARS) is not for digital signal output?.. Do I need to buy a DB25 breakout..?


 
  
  I didn't set the Dante Routing right.. 
  
 Well, the D16 is quite good, at least much better than the built-in USB interface of Brooklyn. The sound is more natural and less harsh, with deeper and powerful bass.
  
 I will campare it to some other DDCs. Report later.


----------



## mourip

clemmaster said:


> Awesome news!
> 
> Do you have means to measure the current draw as well?


 
  
 I have a Kill-a-Watt and a D16. when I get a chance I will measure it's current draw.
  
 Not sure if it draws the same as the RN3 but it is another data point...


----------



## johnjen

clemmaster said:


> Awesome news!
> 
> Do you have means to measure the current draw as well?


 
 Yes indeed!
  
 It draws ≈ 0.9amps when playing and less when starting up.
 I'll include these details in my write up along with pics of my final wiring setup.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> Yes indeed!
> 
> It draws ≈ 0.9amps when playing and less when starting up.
> I'll include these details in my write up along with pics of my final wiring setup.
> ...


 
  
 Using my Kill-a-Watt on my D16 I measure 6.2 watts @121 VAC when idle or playing music. At turn-on it ramps up slowly to that so no turn-on inrush.
  
 I am not an EE but I calculate ~1.24 amps DC supply output of 5v and given the line voltage of 121v.


----------



## kazsud

gldgate said:


> Have not done a comparison of MicroRendu vs the UnDAES-O but have done one between MicroRendu vs RedNet D16 and preferred the AOIP solution. A couple of points, however:
> 
> 1) Even though I preferred the RedNet, I thought the MicroRendu was very good. In fact I thought it was better than CAPS dual PC setup with JPLAY.
> 
> 2) The uRendu used fairly pedestrian power supply ($50 IfI iPower). I have an Uptone LPS-1 coming and will repeat the experiment to see what kind of difference (if any) the LPS-1 makes.




A UnDAES-O powered by a LPS-1 would be interesting.


----------



## gefski

kazsud said:


> A UnDAES-O powered by a LPS-1 would be interesting.




I'll be looking at a power supply upgrade for my uDO. It requires 24v though.


----------



## kazsud

gefski said:


> I'll be looking at a power supply upgrade for my uDO. It requires 24v though.




I could of swore i read 5v somewhere. Oh well.......


----------



## Clemmaster

mourip said:


> Using my Kill-a-Watt on my D16 I measure 6.2 watts @121 VAC when idle or playing music. At turn-on it ramps up slowly to that so no turn-on inrush.
> 
> I am not an EE but I calculate ~1.24 amps DC supply output of 5v and given the line voltage of 121v.




Accounting for the power supply efficiency, it's in the ballpark of JJ's findings. That's awesome news.


----------



## gldgate

Yes. What I am really hoping to see some time this year is a 2/4 channel  AOIP box with Brooklyn 2 Dante card (192Khz) with ability to use third party LPS. In the meantime I have no complaints using the D16.


----------



## Golfnutz

gldgate said:


> Yes. What I am really hoping to see some time this year is a 2/4 channel  AOIP box with Brooklyn 2 Dante card (192Khz) with ability to use third party LPS. In the meantime I have no complaints using the D16.


 

 But, you basically already have it now....
  
 Same time JJ posted about his LPS, I dropped my unit off at an Electronic Repair shop (specializes in vintage studio equipment and of course current pro audio as well).
  
 Looking to connect a couple of wires to the 5v connector on the main board and replace the IEC receptacle with plate to hold a male DC plug.
  
 Problem is, he's very busy and it's going to be awhile before I can expect anything back.
  
 I think a real simple approach would be the following (D16):
  
 Replace the IEC receptacle with this (remove the prongs and drill a hole through the middle for a DC cable)

  
  
  
  
 Purchase one of these LPS (.13 uV) and cut the DC plug off the end and attach the wires to the 5v connector on the main board. Maybe tie the cable in a  knot on the inside of the D16 after inserting it through the hole in the IEC plate above so you can't accidently pull the cable through the hole later on.

  
  
  
 You just need to get the correct pin connector to solder the wires to so you can plug it into the main board.  I'm assuming it's the first two wires on the left that are the important ones (5v).  Just replace this connector with similar connector using the wires from the DC cable after cutting off the DC plug. This solution would be totally reversible.


----------



## gldgate

I understand and appreciate the DIY enthusiasm. Am interested in sq of those that have a RedNet and decide to experiment with this type of mod.  If reports are good I may indeed go this route. At the same time I also think it would be great if we could also get an inexpensive off the shelf solution without needing to dust off the soldering gun.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> You just need to get the correct pin connector to solder the wires to so you can plug it into the main board.  I'm assuming it's the first two wires on the left that are the important ones (5v).  Just replace this connector with similar connector using the wires from the DC cable after cutting off the DC plug. This solution would be totally reversible.


 
  
 I like the reversible idea. How did you decide which wires were the +5 and ground? Did you pull off the connector, power it up and then measure?


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I like the reversible idea. How did you decide which wires were the +5 and ground? Did you pull off the connector, power it up and then measure?


 
 Probably better for JJ to provide the exact info (that's why I said I assume it's the first two wires on the left - if you follow the wires from the SMPS the 5V are the two on the left).
  
 When mine is done, I will be sure to provide photos for anyone that wants to do the same. My assumption is the person who is doing the changes isn't going to have any issues, at least he didn't think he would. I told him I wanted to be able to plug something into the connector on the main board (not direct solder).
  
 The advantage of replacing the IEC with a plate and a male DC plug is that you could try different power supplies. Cannot order the LPS I mention until Feb. 5, due to Chinese holidays. I gave him a 5v/2.1A power pack that could be used for now. It may not even get to that because I have a feeling I'll be ordering the LPS I posted even before he starts making any changes (he's just too backed up with work right now).


----------



## brillo

gldgate said:


> Have not done a comparison of MicroRendu vs the UnDAES-O but have done one between MicroRendu vs RedNet D16 and preferred the AOIP solution. A couple of points, however:
> 
> 1) Even though I preferred the RedNet, I thought the MicroRendu was very good. In fact I thought it was better than CAPS dual PC setup with JPLAY.
> 
> 2) The uRendu used fairly pedestrian power supply ($50 IfI iPower). I have an Uptone LPS-1 coming and will repeat the experiment to see what kind of difference (if any) the LPS-1 makes.


 

 You will love the LPS-1 with the microRendu.  Makes a real significant difference...
  
 One more suggestion that will provide another very significant benefit: go with 2 network adapters and bridge them.  Connect one NIC to your network (as usual) and the other directly to the microRendu.  In other words, have a direct connection between your computer and microRendu (with no routers, switches, or anything else in the chain). See the thread at CA for more details (A novel way to massively improve the SQ of the sMS-200 and microRendu).  
  
 This step is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.  I can't emphasize enough what a difference it has made...


----------



## johnjen

I have only one more set of measurements to take before I post my results.
 I'll also have pictures of the install and how I connected to both the +5vdc and the grounds.
  
 As for SQ it's to early to tell what the full impact will be, but thus far it is a WONDERFUL tweak.
 I mentioned that the instantaneous dynamic impact of everything took a decided step up, and this is continuing to become more refined and focused.
  
 I'm now also looking for a 5vdc board I can mount inside the RN3.
  
 There are 3 shapes for a board to fit.
 8” wide and 3.5” deep to the main board.
 Or option #2, if I want to use the 7.5” depth, I’ll be limited to 3.25 width,
 or a third option is about 4.5” length with a 4.5” width.
 All with a maximal height of 3.25”.
  
 And since the draw (as measured at the terminal block I added) is under 1 amp, a low current supply will suffice quite nicely, and I see no need for a super duper low noise supply for reasons I'll cover in my write up.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

brillo said:


> One more suggestion that will provide another very significant benefit: go with 2 network adapters and bridge them.  Connect one NIC to your network (as usual) and the other directly to the microRendu.  In other words, have a direct connection between your computer and microRendu (with no routers, switches, or anything else in the chain). See the thread at CA for more details (A novel way to massively improve the SQ of the sMS-200 and microRendu).
> 
> This step is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.  I can't emphasize enough what a difference it has made...


 
  
 You can do this with a a Rednet AOIP device also if your server has two ethernet ports or you add a USB ethernet dongle. I have been doing it with my D16 for a while and use fiber for the server to D16 audio link with an LPS powering the fiber converter closest to the D16.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> You can do this with a a Rednet AOIP device also if your server has two ethernet ports or you add a USB ethernet dongle. I have been doing it with my D16 for a while and use fiber for the server to D16 audio link with an LPS powering the fiber converter closest to the D16.


 
 Based on JJ's comments, you might even be able to use an LPS-1 (5v/1.1A max, shuts down at 1.2A), with the DC plug modification. Although, he did make an interesting remark about ultra low noise power supply not being required. For the D16, I really don't see doing something to replace the SMPS due to internal space size limitations (unless you really know what you're doing). For me personally, having someone doing the DC plug mod, and trying different power supply sources is probably as good as it's going to get.
  
@mourip, are you actually bridging the connections with windows?


----------



## jelt2359

golfnutz said:


> Based on JJ's comments, you might even be able to use an LPS-1 (5v/1.1A max, shuts down at 1.2A), with the DC plug modification. Although, he did make an interesting remark about ultra low noise power supply not being required. For the D16, I really don't see doing something to replace the SMPS due to internal space size limitations (unless you really know what you're doing). For me personally, having someone doing the DC plug mod, and trying different power supply sources is probably as good as it's going to get.
> 
> @mourip
> , are you actually bridging the connections with windows?




The rednet does not work with bridging. When you bridge you have to define a static ip for all devices to connect through, and the IPs are then set by the router. With the rednet the IPs need to be set by the Dante controller, so no bridging, but then this also means it's always been possible to connect directly from computer to rednet- which is superior to going through a router.


----------



## Golfnutz

jelt2359 said:


> The rednet does not work with bridging. When you bridge you have to define a static ip for all devices to connect through, and the IPs are then set by the router. With the rednet the IPs need to be set by the Dante controller, so no bridging, but then this also means it's always been possible to connect directly from computer to rednet- which is superior to going through a router.


 

 Exactly, which is why I asked the question.
  
 I think there was a misunderstanding with Brillo's term of 'direct connection'. He was using that in context of bridging.


----------



## artur9

brillo said:


> One more suggestion that will provide another very significant benefit: go with 2 network adapters and bridge them.  Connect one NIC to your network (as usual) and the other directly to the microRendu.


 
 IIRC that's what Linn says to do with their network streamers.  To put them on their on subnet.  Seemed a bit farfetched.  
  
 Have you also done the limiting bandwidth to 100Mb ethernet instead of 1Gb?


----------



## mourip

jelt2359 said:


> The rednet does not work with bridging. When you bridge you have to define a static ip for all devices to connect through, and the IPs are then set by the router. With the rednet the IPs need to be set by the Dante controller, so no bridging, but then this also means it's always been possible to connect directly from computer to rednet- which is superior to going through a router.


 
  
 Yes. The way I have it set up the D16 communicates with the PC using a 169.xxx.xxx.xxx IP address which is the range that Windows self-assigns when no DHCP server is seen. My NIC card also uses a 169 address since it only has the D16 to talk to. AFAIK in this scenario only audio and Dante Control traffic passes from the PC to the D16 which was my goal. My other NIC is connected to my router for Internet, LAN, and remote access for the server.


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> Yes. The way I have it set up the D16 communicates with the PC using a 169.xxx.xxx.xxx IP address which is the range that Windows self-assigns when no DHCP server is seen. My NIC card also uses a 169 address since it only has the D16 to talk to. AFAIK in this scenario only audio and Dante Control traffic passes from the PC to the D16 which was my goal. My other NIC is connected to my router for Internet, LAN, and remote access for the server.


 
 Is your PC getting ethernet traffic via the second port on the D16, or a second port on the PC? If the former, might want to try the latter, so that the RN16 is isolated from internet traffic non-related to audio.


----------



## johnjen

So I posted my write up in the CookBook thread since this is a DIY project.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/780#post_13218514
  
 I tried to keep it short but it's still fairly long.
  
 I also have other pics etc., if there are any further questions.
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> So I posted my write up in the CookBook thread since this is a DIY project.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/780#post_13218514
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you for the write-up and photos JJ. After going through your post, I realized I had downloaded a wrong picture in one of my previous posts.
  
 So why 2 ground wires underneath? Wouldn't one ground for the 5v be sufficient?
  
 I thought the 2nd ground wire was for the +15v connection (5th pin down in my photo, 4th pin down on your photo). Am I interpreting this incorrectly?


----------



## johnjen

Say there Golfnutz.
  
 Doubling the gauge for both the +5 and ground just means both sides are treated equally.
 And if I can 'improve' the signal pathway, and do so easily, I'll always pick that path.
  
 And yes the 2nd ground is 'assigned' to the ±15vdc balanced voltage input.
 But they are tied together so this connection works well.
 And even the 'G' pin next to the 51vdc could be used as well, if you REALLY wanted to go crazy…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 That picture of the pin out assignment you re-posted is on the SMPS board and is quite handy for figur'n which pins to use etc.
 And it'll probably come in handy for those scratching their chin on this.  :thumb
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

jelt2359 said:


> Is your PC getting ethernet traffic via the second port on the D16, or a second port on the PC? If the former, might want to try the latter, so that the RN16 is isolated from internet traffic non-related to audio.


 
  
 I use one port on my PC for LAN traffic and the other to talk to the D16. I only use one port on the D16 in order to isolate it as you described.


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> Say there Golfnutz.
> 
> Doubling the gauge for both the +5 and ground just means both sides are treated equally.
> And if I can 'improve' the signal pathway, and do so easily, I'll always pick that path.
> ...


 
 Thank you for the reply JJ.
  
 Just to make sure I understand this correctly, and for the sake of simplicity due to internal restrictions of D16.
  
 Either pin 1 (5v) or pin 2 (5v), and pin 3 (G) are needed. It's not absolutely necessary to use both pins 1 and 2 together. They are internally connected where you soldered the 5v wires in your photo on the other thread (in theory you could have used just 1 wire).
  
 If replacing the IEC with a DC barrel plug, someone could use both pins 1 and 2 and connect them together at the plug. However, you could still use either pin 1 or pin 2 instead of both. It would be necessary to run a ground wire (pin 3) to the plug, and another ground from there to the existing ground screw used by the IEC receptacle.
  
 If you wanted to run the DC cable directly to the connector (only 2 wires). You need to use either pin 1 or pin 2 (doesn't matter which one). The ground from the DC cable would go to pin 3. Since there is no ground to the unit itself, you could run a ground wire from pin 5 to the existing IEC receptacle ground screw. The other choice would be to splice another ground wire to the DC ground wire so you have 2 grounds, one going to pin 3, the other to the existing IEC receptacle ground screw (or some ground screw on the unit itself).
  
 A connector something like this would be needed (I have not confirmed if this is the right size) - http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-7S-8-Pin-JST-XH-Align-Replacement-Male-LiPo-Balance-Connectors-w-Pins-/231148178858?hash=item35d1814daamrAZyaxtJjkJzqIWpyrfhDw
  

  
 I wouldn't advise anyone trying to do these mods without taking there own measurements first, and knowing exactly what they're doing.
  
 I have no experience with these sort of modifications, so I've sent my unit to someone who is a professional. When it's complete I can post the results (could be up to 6-8 weeks), but ultimately, anyone doing this on their own is doing so at their own risk.


----------



## johnjen

golfnutz said:


> Thank you for the reply JJ.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand this correctly, and for the sake of simplicity due to internal restrictions of D16.
> 
> ...


 
*One of the mod 'rulz' I use is to be able to return the device under surgery back to stock condition, if need be.*
*That is why I soldered directly to the underside of the board to the pins that protrude thru the board.*
  
*And I deliberately used 2 wires each for the +5vdc and the ground connection and kept the wires very short.*
*This more closely follows the existing wiring where there are 2 wires for the power and 3 wires for ground (yes all 3 ground wires are tied to ground at the SMPS).*
  
*And I suppose you could use just one +5vdc and 1 for ground, but as I stated, when I can beef up the wiring in key locations, I will do so.*
  
*So if you can make your own header to replace the existing ribbon cable used by the SMPS and tie that into a barrel connector that should work just fine as well.*
*In fact you could just use that stock ribbon cable and re-terminate it as well.*
  
*But using only 1 wire for ground is less than the stock configuration and I don't know if that would be 'better' or not, since that isn't the approach I am using.*
  
*JJ*


----------



## mourip

I usually hate polls so that means that I need to start one 
  
 I am interested in knowing what OS folks are using for their AOIP server. Windows 10, Windows 2012 Server, OSX, Linux, other?
  
 I should mention that I feel that the OS and normal PC tweaks have less of an effect on SQ when using AOIP but I am open to subjective opinions here.
  
 I will start...
  
 I am using Windows Server 2012R2.
  
 I also still use Audiophile Optimizer but mostly out of inertia. I have to use it in GUI mode due to the Dante software so it's impact is probably minimal anyway even if it was capable of helping AOIP.


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> *One of the mod 'rulz' I use is to be able to return the device under surgery back to stock condition, if need be.*
> *That is why I soldered directly to the underside of the board to the pins that protrude thru the board.*
> 
> *And I deliberately used 2 wires each for the +5vdc and the ground connection and kept the wires very short.*
> ...


 

 Thanks for the feedback JJ.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I usually hate polls so that means that I need to start one
> 
> I am interested in knowing what OS folks are using for their AOIP server. Windows 10, Windows 2012 Server, OSX, Linux, other?
> 
> ...


 
 I'm using Windows 10 pro. I have a feeling AO is more likely to have a bigger impact on a USB port, than an Ethernet port. I can't say the sound is any worse for sure, but I do think there is a very slight improvement overall. Express install doesn't work very well (latency went up, with intermittent drop-outs), it needs to be installed using Ultimate (latency didn't change compared to without AO, and no drop-outs). I didn't spend any time on the filter settings either. When I get my D16 back, I will probably spend more time with those settings.  I would say it's slightly cleaner sounding, but that's about it. AO is supposed to reduce jitter and since the Rednet's have the JetPLL clocks for jitter reduction, I suspect the impact isn't going to be that great. What I do like about it, is that it does optimize Windows 10 (less chance for interruptions, which could lead to drop-outs). I haven't used HQP shell replacement either, something else I will try when the D16 comes back.


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> I am using Windows Server 2012R2.




Me too, just plain GUI modus a no optimisation software.
I did otimise some NIC settings though, to improve stability and latency to the D16


----------



## Golfnutz

jabbr said:


> Me too, just plain GUI modus a no optimisation software.
> I did otimise some NIC settings though, to improve stability and latency to the D16


 

 For my direct connection to D16, under Properties, the only thing I have checked off is "Internet Protocol Version 4 (TCP/IPv4)".


----------



## johnjen

I am running OSX 10.9.5.
 It is my primary computer, the one I am writing this post from while playing music and all my other normal functions running as well (email, background apps, utilities etc.)
  
 Right now as I type this, the system is running at ≈ 9%
 And as I monitor the data stream to the Dante network it tells me I'm sending at 1.1MB/s and receiving at 1.7KB/s on this dedicated ethernet port.
  
 JJ


----------



## gldgate

Running Windows 10 Pro on two PC's (Puget Systems Serenity Pro and CAPS Pipeline). I have hooked up the RedNet D16 to both PC's and the CAPS with and without AO. I have not noticed a difference in sq when using AOIP between any of these configs. This is with Yggy connected via AES. 
  
 When I run Yggy via USB sans RedNet than every config sounds a bit different -  not sure I can say any is "better". Just slightly different sonic flavors. Burden of USB I guess - everything matters and tweaking knows no end.


----------



## brillo

artur9 said:


> IIRC that's what Linn says to do with their network streamers.  To put them on their on subnet.  Seemed a bit farfetched.
> 
> Have you also done the limiting bandwidth to 100Mb ethernet instead of 1Gb?


 

 I have tried this (setting my NICs to 100 Mbps), but it doesn't work for me because HQPlayer stutters (with NICs to 100).
  
 Roon works fine for me with NICs set to 100, but I like the sound of Roon outputting to HQPlayer.


----------



## yuhengtiger

Hi guys,
  
 I just bought a rednet3 for my pc hifi setup but I am not sure how to set it up.. I am using an iMac as transport. 
 So can I use ethernet cable to connect the rednet3 directly to my iMac? Then use rednet3's coax output to connect it to my dac?
  
 Also, do I only need to download the Rednet Control software and then it is all good?
  
 Thanks for help if there is any instructions!
  
 Yuheng


----------



## Golfnutz

yuhengtiger said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I just bought a rednet3 for my pc hifi setup but I am not sure how to set it up.. I am using an iMac as transport.
> So can I use ethernet cable to connect the rednet3 directly to my iMac? Then use rednet3's coax output to connect it to my dac?
> ...


 
  
 Dante Controller - requires routing setup (review this thread for tips)
 Dante Virtual Sound Card (DVS)
 Rednet Control - requires setup as well, straight forward
  
 I would image you can just connect direct from imac to Rednet 3 (no router required). Uses APIPA address (169.254.x.x range).


----------



## johnjen

If your iMac has 2 ethernet ports then a direct connection from that 2nd (unused) port can plug directly into the RN3.
 This is what I am running, albeit with a FMC (Fiber Media Converter) setup in the middle.
  
 If there is only one port, then plug the RN3 into a 'decent' router/switch.
  
 But Dante will create it's own separate network protocol regardless, of the number of ethernet ports available (it will give you a choice during install).
 Which means there will be at least 2 network s/w protocols running over the same ethhernet h/w, if there is a need for the router/switch.
  
 This shouldn't be much of a problem as long as you aren't using the internet connection for continual HD downloading like streaming or game playing etc.
  
 And even then because the demand for bandwidth is so small for our uses, (1-2.5MB/s) it still could be 'error free'.
  
 JJ


----------



## yuhengtiger

golfnutz said:


> Dante Controller - requires routing setup (review this thread for tips)
> Dante Virtual Sound Card (DVS)
> Rednet Control - requires setup as well, straight forward
> 
> I would image you can just connect direct from imac to Rednet 3 (no router required). Uses APIPA address (169.254.x.x range).


 
 Thank you! The Dante Virtual Sound Card is mandatory right?


----------



## yuhengtiger

johnjen said:


> If your iMac has 2 ethernet ports then a direct connection from that 2nd (unused) port can plug directly into the RN3.
> This is what I am running, albeit with a FMC (Fiber Media Converter) setup in the middle.
> 
> If there is only one port, then plug the RN3 into a 'decent' router/switch.
> ...


 
 Thank you. My imac has only one ethernet port. But I am using wifi on it so I can use the only ethernet port exclusively for rednet3. Do I still need a router in this case? Do we have a instruction or photo about the setup somewhere in this thread? 
  
 I don't use a lot of download bandwidth on my imac either. I keep this setup in my office. Thanks!
  
 Yuheng


----------



## Golfnutz

yuhengtiger said:


> Thank you! The Dante Virtual Sound Card is mandatory right?


 

 Yes - https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard


----------



## astrostar59

yuhengtiger said:


> johnjen said:
> 
> 
> > If your iMac has 2 ethernet ports then a direct connection from that 2nd (unused) port can plug directly into the RN3.
> ...


 

 The setup is in the Rednet PDF on their website.
  
 Yes, plug the single Ethernet one of the ports in the Rednet 3. You need to get it to see the network, and on boot, if it asks to update firmware, say yes.
  
 You need Dante Sound Card (buy for a Mac OS). 
  
 Setting up the DSC to view in your preferred player is done by going into Audio Midi inside Utilities, select the DNS. Setting in that are basic, so leave as is.
  
 You need Dante Controlled software as well for the Mac, check the version suitable for your OS version.
  
 And install the RedNet software off the Rednet site.
  
 Settings in the Dante Controlller software are fiddly. I got Sweetwater to set mine remotely. I can send you a screen capture if you like of mine.
  
 Basically you need it to see the stereo ports input then stereo ports output through the Rednet.
  
 Good luck, it is worth the hassles of setting up.


----------



## yuhengtiger

astrostar59 said:


> The setup is in the Rednet PDF on their website.
> 
> Yes, plug the single Ethernet one of the ports in the Rednet 3. You need to get it to see the network, and on boot, if it asks to update firmware, say yes.
> 
> ...


 
 Thank you!! Can you PM me the screen capture of the Dante Controller? Appreciate it! Can I use the DSC with my Jriver v20?


----------



## gefski

yuhengtiger said:


> Thank you!! Can you PM me the screen capture of the Dante Controller? Appreciate it! Can I use the DSC with my Jriver v20?




Audinate has excellent short videos covering Dante setup. Just google "youtube getting started with dante". One subject at a time, screenshots.


----------



## johnjen

yuhengtiger said:


> Thank you. My imac has only one ethernet port. But I am using wifi on it so I can use the only ethernet port exclusively for rednet3. Do I still need a router in this case?
> Do we have a instruction or photo about the setup somewhere in this thread?
> 
> I don't use a lot of download bandwidth on my imac either. I keep this setup in my office. Thanks!
> ...


 
  
 No router is needed if the RN3 is the only connected device.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

Rednet swopping out the SMPS, anyone done it yet? As in external LPS 5V DC supply. I am very interested in this.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

astrostar59 said:


> Rednet swopping out the SMPS, anyone done it yet? As in external LPS 5V DC supply. I am very interested in this.


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/780#post_13221988 Yes, it's being done as we speak.


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Rednet swopping out the SMPS, anyone done it yet? As in external LPS 5V DC supply. I am very interested in this.


 

 Working on an external DC solution, but it's going to take time.
  
 Slight change to what I posted before due to my lack of electronics knowledge.
  
 Don't want to say anything more until my repair guy has actually done something.


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Rednet swopping out the SMPS, anyone done it yet? As in external LPS 5V DC supply. I am very interested in this.


 
 I posted this earlier in the cookbook thread
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/780#post_13218514
  
 And have since ordered all the parts I'll need to install a complete LPS inside the RN3.
  
 It should be a 'clean' internal install including the xfrmr so that I can use the existing IEC power connector and front panel switch.
 Which means that from the outside you wouldn't be able to tell any difference.
  
 JJ


----------



## Iving

golfnutz said:


> Working on an external DC solution, but it's going to take time.
> 
> Slight change to what I posted before due to my lack of electronics knowledge.
> 
> Don't want to say anything more until my repair guy has actually done something.


 
  


johnjen said:


> I posted this earlier in the cookbook thread
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/780#post_13218514
> 
> And have since ordered all the parts I'll need to install a complete LPS inside the RN3.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks both - watching with interest


----------



## Peachcore

Excuse me guys, got a question about my D16.
  
 Is the "Clock Source" on "Clock Status"  tab of Dante Controller same as the "RedNet  Clock Source" of "RedNet Control 2"?
  


  
  
 BTW, I can't tick the box of "Enable Sync To External" on the "Clock Status" tab.


----------



## astrostar59

Here are my settings on the Rednet 3 and a Mac Mini. I have no extra router connected via Ethernet, so Mac Mini - 1000bT ethernet port - Rednet 3 - SPDIF - DAC (R-2R NOS).
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
 Note I have set 44.1 as the max sample, as I don't do up sampling to my DAC as it is an NOS DAC. You can set auto upsample I believe in Rednet, but to get it working I would try 44.1 first.
  
*The process was:*
 1. Go on web and buy Dante Virtual Sound Card. May get this free depending on who you bought your Rednet box from.
 2. Install on your PC / Mac.
 3. Go to Rednet website and download Dante Controller and Rednet Controller.
 4. Install both those programs.
 5. Go to Audio Midi (Mac) and set the DVS as your output for audio. Set 44.1 here as well.
 6. Connect up the Rednet 3/12 to your Mac or PC Ethernet port. I assume you have internet access via WiFi.
 7. Boot up the Rednet box. It may update the firmware now so leave it running of a while. 
 8. Restart the Rednet box.
 9 Go into Dante Controller and set up the 2 ports in  and 2 ports out. Bit fiddly but you grab the points in the table and move to enable them.
 10. Go into Rednet Controller and set the SPDIF out as the output. Set internal (Rednet) clock. I left all other options as OFF.
 11. Go into your audio player software and in setup select the DVS.
 12. Play a file and see if you have music!
  
 Later try the rest of the settings (if you like).
  
 It seems best on my Mac Mini to NOT use any other Ethernet ports, only use Wifi for web access. TBH my Mac Mini is purely a music server so don't surf on it.
 I use Audirvana+ standalone for a player (Version 2).
  
 Sounds bloody marvellous, well happy. Bye bye USB.
  
 Good luck


----------



## Golfnutz

Wonder why they routed your Rednet to the Mac Mini? Are you running any DAW software?
  

  
 It doesn't hurt anything to have it like that, but certainly isn't necessary if you don't need it (won't ever be used).


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> Wonder why they routed your Rednet to the Mac Mini? Are you running any DAW software?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt anything to have it like that, but certainly isn't necessary if you don't need it (won't ever be used).


 

 My Mac is the server, with Firewire 2GIG ext attached. I run Audirvna+ as stated, then wire my DAC via the Rednet. No other router or devices on this very simple network.


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> golfnutz said:
> 
> 
> > Working on an external DC solution, but it's going to take time.
> ...


 

 Hey Iving, you going to do the internal mod? That is the one I fancy, even though I have an LPS I can use, I like the idea of not disrupting the Redcase casework and using the on/off button.


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Hey Iving, you going to do the internal mod? That is the one I fancy, even though I have an LPS I can use, I like the idea of not disrupting the Redcase casework and using the on/off button.


 
  
 I'll do it if I can see from pioneers that I can complete it within my competence - and if and when I get the time.
 I'll do it even if it means opening the box - as long as the sq dividend is sig.
 My (incorrect?) impression from the salad days of this thread (lol) is that you can't gainfully use an LPS without an internal bypass?


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> My Mac is the server, with Firewire 2GIG ext attached. I run Audirvna+ as stated, then wire my DAC via the Rednet. No other router or devices on this very simple network.


 

 Sorry, that has nothing to do with routing your Mac Mini as a Receiver from you Rednet.
  
 The only routing you need is the RedNet3-021218.
  

  
 In your case, the MAC-MINI isn't doing anything (first one on your list). You would only do that if you have DAW software so it can talk with the Rednet 3. DAW doesn't have a physical connection, that's why you would route the Mac Mini as a Receiver from the Rednet 3. If you remove the MAC-MINI routing, you'll see everything still works.
  
 As I said before, it doesn't make any difference if you have it or not, but you should understand what you are configuring.


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> astrostar59 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Iving, you going to do the internal mod? That is the one I fancy, even though I have an LPS I can use, I like the idea of not disrupting the Redcase casework and using the on/off button.
> ...


 

 Yes, you can feed the 5V DC into the chassis BUT it would need the SMPS disconnecting and the wires for the new feed attaching to the PCBs. I am avoiding that solution, much better to go for the internal LPS. It sounds like the SQ gains are worth it. I have experienced similar gains in all my hifi gear feeding better mains (regenerated) on the DAC, amps and Server. And feeding my Mac with an LPS that is also fed by the regenerated mains. If it costs 140USD it would be well worth it IMO. Granted the warranty will be blown, but my Rednet 3 is from Sweetwater anyway, so back to base if an issue occurs.


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Yes, you can feed the 5V DC into the chassis BUT it would need the SMPS disconnecting and the wires for the new feed attaching to the PCBs. I am avoiding that solution, much better to go for the internal LPS. It sounds like the SQ gains are worth it. I have experienced similar gains in all my hifi gear feeding better mains (regenerated) on the DAC, amps and Server. And feeding my Mac with an LPS that is also fed by the regenerated mains. If it costs 140USD it would be well worth it IMO. Granted the warranty will be blown, but my Rednet 3 is from Sweetwater anyway, so back to base if an issue occurs.


 
 In JohnJen's opinion, you can only get the noise down to a certain level - there is no benefit after that. If both an internal LPS and external LPS noise are below that number it won't matter what the supply is. I'm not sure what the impact is going to be since this is a completely digital interface. My understanding is less than it would if it was analog (amps, dacs).
  
 I think it comes down to choice (depending on the level of the LPS, both will probably sound the same).
  
 The internal solution has more benefits. Basically, nothing changes except the warranty. Assuming you can make the modifications, or have someone do them for you.
  
 An external LPS, means the power on/off switch is disconnected. You'll have another LPS taking up room on the shelf.  However, you'll be able to reverse the changes within 5 minutes or so. You only need to solder a few wires, so it doesn't require a high level of knowledge. The other issue with the D16 is the limited amount of space inside - the Talema won't fit.


----------



## gldgate

Before I purchased my RedNet D16 I had a Sonore Microrendu. My opinion of the uRendu was very positive - best USB connection I've had but not up to AOIP.  Since then the Uptone LPS-1 has become very popular and many have said that the uRendu needs higher end LPS to bring out its best. So I ordered one and it arrived earlier this week. Been listening to Yggy - uRendu - LPS  combo and doing some comparison to Yggy-D16.  My opinion is that the uRendu - LPS combo is an improvement over what I used before ( used iFi iPower) but  ultimately I still prefer the Yggy- D16 combo. To my ears, the AOIP solution seems to have an overall better flow and ease about it while the uRendu/LPS presents the music with a bit more edge/splash. Ultimately, it's the same verdict I had before but the inclusion of the LPS-1 does close the gap. I did pick up a Meridian Explorer 2 about a month ago (to hear what the fuss was about MQA) and the LPS-1 is now paired up with that. 
  
 One thing did surprise me. Many moons ago I picked up a PS Audio Perfectwave Transport and it's been sitting in my system completely unused for about a year (Since I started moving more and more  to  PC  based Audio) . I realized when I was doing the above comparison that I have never hooked up the Yggy directly to the PWT. So I hooked the Yggy up and listened to some CD's and wow, it sounded great. That led me to do some comparisons with  Yggy/PWT/CD's and Yggy/Dante/Computer Rips and Roon Streaming. Both sounded great and nearly identical. I doubt I would be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. However, If forced to choose I would probably pick the PWT/CD combo by the slimmest of margins. The biggest take aways on this was how good CD sounded with Yggy/Transport and how AOIP sounds much closer to the transport than it does top rung USB.  The flexibility of Computer Audio will keep me from going back to dedicated transport but I will no doubt be using it more often and not letting it collect as much dust - that "old" technology still has life in it.


----------



## Golfnutz

gldgate said:


> Before I purchased my RedNet D16 I had a Sonore Microrendu. My opinion of the uRendu was very positive - best USB connection I've had but not up to AOIP.  Since then the Uptone LPS-1 has become very popular and many have said that the uRendu needs higher end LPS to bring out its best. So I ordered one and it arrived earlier this week. Been listening to Yggy - uRendu - LPS  combo and doing some comparison to Yggy-D16.  My opinion is that the uRendu - LPS combo is an improvement over what I used before ( used iFi iPower) but  ultimately I still prefer the Yggy- D16 combo. To my ears, the AOIP solution seems to have an overall better flow and ease about it while the uRendu/LPS presents the music with a bit more edge/splash. Ultimately, it's the same verdict I had before but the inclusion of the LPS-1 does close the gap. I did pick up a Meridian Explorer 2 about a month ago (to hear what the fuss was about MQA) and the LPS-1 is now paired up with that.
> 
> One thing did surprise me. Many moons ago I picked up a PS Audio Perfectwave Transport and it's been sitting in my system completely unused for about a year (Since I started moving more and more  to  PC  based Audio) . I realized when I was doing the above comparison that I have never hooked up the Yggy directly to the PWT. So I hooked the Yggy up and listened to some CD's and wow, it sounded great. That led me to do some comparisons with  Yggy/PWT/CD's and Yggy/Dante/Computer Rips and Roon Streaming. Both sounded great and nearly identical. I doubt I would be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. However, If forced to choose I would probably pick the PWT/CD combo by the slimmest of margins. The biggest take aways on this was how good CD sounded with Yggy/Transport and how AOIP sounds much closer to the transport than it does top rung USB.  The flexibility of Computer Audio will keep me from going back to dedicated transport but I will no doubt be using it more often and not letting it collect as much dust - that "old" technology still has life in it.


 
 How much does the Cybershaft add to the D16 (I'm assuming you were using it in the comparisons)?
 Did you try PWT/CD/AOIP/Yggy?


----------



## Iving

gldgate said:


> Before I purchased my RedNet D16 I had a Sonore Microrendu. My opinion of the uRendu was very positive - best USB connection I've had but not up to AOIP.  Since then the Uptone LPS-1 has become very popular and many have said that the uRendu needs higher end LPS to bring out its best. So I ordered one and it arrived earlier this week. Been listening to Yggy - uRendu - LPS  combo and doing some comparison to Yggy-D16.  My opinion is that the uRendu - LPS combo is an improvement over what I used before ( used iFi iPower) but  ultimately I still prefer the Yggy- D16 combo. To my ears, the AOIP solution seems to have an overall better flow and ease about it while the uRendu/LPS presents the music with a bit more edge/splash. Ultimately, it's the same verdict I had before but the inclusion of the LPS-1 does close the gap. I did pick up a Meridian Explorer 2 about a month ago (to hear what the fuss was about MQA) and the LPS-1 is now paired up with that.
> 
> One thing did surprise me. Many moons ago I picked up a PS Audio Perfectwave Transport and it's been sitting in my system completely unused for about a year (Since I started moving more and more  to  PC  based Audio) . I realized when I was doing the above comparison that I have never hooked up the Yggy directly to the PWT. So I hooked the Yggy up and listened to some CD's and wow, it sounded great. That led me to do some comparisons with  Yggy/PWT/CD's and Yggy/Dante/Computer Rips and Roon Streaming. Both sounded great and nearly identical. I doubt I would be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. However, If forced to choose I would probably pick the PWT/CD combo by the slimmest of margins. The biggest take aways on this was how good CD sounded with Yggy/Transport and how AOIP sounds much closer to the transport than it does top rung USB.  The flexibility of Computer Audio will keep me from going back to dedicated transport but I will no doubt be using it more often and not letting it collect as much dust - that "old" technology still has life in it.


 
  
 Maybe the thread too! Great post.
 For a variety of reasons I committed to RedNet having gone a long way with USB, but not as far as microrendu.
 I'm glad I did anyway - no matter what.
 But your post indulges my cognitive dissonance all the same.
 It's crossed my mind to trial my Convert-2 with a CD transport, but I haven't got around to it.
 Incidentally, and at the risk of provoking astro, Peter Qvortrup argued in private comms to me that his AN transports would trounce any "streamer".
 Well - I explained that AOIP isn't "streaming", at least not as he meant it.
 It would take a transport-and-a-half is my estimation.


----------



## gldgate

golfnutz said:


> How much does the Cybershaft add to the D16 (I'm assuming you were using it in the comparisons)?
> Did you try PWT/CD/AOIP/Yggy?


 
  
 Well, in the order of SQ "Improvements" I would rank my gadgets as follows:
  
 1) Rednet D16
 2) Mutec MC-3 + USB
 3) Clocks (Antelope Liveclock and Cybershaft)
  
 The Clocks come in a distant third. Since the Yggy cannot use an external clock the benefits are strictly on improvement over the internal D16 clock. I think there is an improvement but it's not night and day stuff and I would have a hard time recommending it from a value/$ perspective. For those willing to throw $'s to eek out the last couple of % points only. One of the main reasons I got the clock(s) is that I am sort of interested in trying a PRO audio DAC at some time in the future that might have both built in Dante and external clock option. Not unhappy with Yggy at all but since this is a hobby I would not mind having 2 nice DAC's to alternate (The Meridian 2 explorer is very nice for the price but I don't consider it top of line stuff).


----------



## Golfnutz

gldgate said:


> Well, in the order of SQ "Improvements" I would rank my gadgets as follows:
> 
> 1) Rednet D16
> 2) Mutec MC-3 + USB
> ...


 
 Thanks for the feedback on the external clocks. I have to admit, I was sort of interested, but now I think that can wait.
  
 Did you get a chance to try the PWT/D16/Yggy together?


----------



## gldgate

golfnutz said:


> Thanks for the feedback on the external clocks. I have to admit, I was sort of interested, but now I think that can wait.
> 
> Did you get a chance to try the PWT/D16/Yggy together?


 
 To be honest, I did not even think about that combo but I can put it on my list of things to try out....


----------



## kazsud

gldgate said:


> Before I purchased my RedNet D16 I had a Sonore Microrendu. My opinion of the uRendu was very positive - best USB connection I've had but not up to AOIP.  Since then the Uptone LPS-1 has become very popular and many have said that the uRendu needs higher end LPS to bring out its best. So I ordered one and it arrived earlier this week. Been listening to Yggy - uRendu - LPS  combo and doing some comparison to Yggy-D16.  My opinion is that the uRendu - LPS combo is an improvement over what I used before ( used iFi iPower) but  ultimately I still prefer the Yggy- D16 combo. To my ears, the AOIP solution seems to have an overall better flow and ease about it while the uRendu/LPS presents the music with a bit more edge/splash. Ultimately, it's the same verdict I had before but the inclusion of the LPS-1 does close the gap. I did pick up a Meridian Explorer 2 about a month ago (to hear what the fuss was about MQA) and the LPS-1 is now paired up with that.
> 
> One thing did surprise me. Many moons ago I picked up a PS Audio Perfectwave Transport and it's been sitting in my system completely unused for about a year (Since I started moving more and more  to  PC  based Audio) . I realized when I was doing the above comparison that I have never hooked up the Yggy directly to the PWT. So I hooked the Yggy up and listened to some CD's and wow, it sounded great. That led me to do some comparisons with  Yggy/PWT/CD's and Yggy/Dante/Computer Rips and Roon Streaming. Both sounded great and nearly identical. I doubt I would be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. However, If forced to choose I would probably pick the PWT/CD combo by the slimmest of margins. The biggest take aways on this was how good CD sounded with Yggy/Transport and how AOIP sounds much closer to the transport than it does top rung USB.  The flexibility of Computer Audio will keep me from going back to dedicated transport but I will no doubt be using it more often and not letting it collect as much dust - that "old" technology still has life in it.




The used PWT price is still more expensive than the D16 though.


----------



## gldgate

kazsud said:


> The used PWT price is still more expensive than the D16 though.


 
  
 I am by no means pushing a transport on anybody.  The D16 is staying in my system and will continue to be the mainstay of my Computer Audio system. I was just really surprised that the Yggy/PWT combo sounded as good as it did.  As mentioned, I find the sq essentially identical to Rednet system and both sound better than USB IMO. 
  
 What I find interesting (as Iving mentioned in his post above) is some of the cognitive dissonance that comes with this. Maybe it is not a complete coincidence that both PS Audio (Memory Player) and Chord (Blu Mk.II) have come out with or have announced new transports while many think of this as "dead-end" technology. Both units are well above what I will pay for any audio gear these days but it does seem to signify that some manufacturers think that there still may be more sq to squeeze out of good old redbook...


----------



## alubis

Gdgate experience echoes mine. I have Marantz CDP 6005, and it's performance as transport is very close to Rednet D16AES. However, in my case, Rednet comes out slightly ahead. 

I believe CDP as transport is much better solution compare to usb, but not all CDP is the same. I believe PS Audio PWT should be a much better machine compare to my Marantz. 

Btw, my DACs are Chord Hugo TT and Sonic Frontiers Sfd-2 mk2 and I'm using RedNet D16AES without any additional reclockers.


----------



## kazsud

gldgate said:


> I am by no means pushing a transport on anybody.  The D16 is staying in my system and will continue to be the mainstay of my Computer Audio system. I was just really surprised that the Yggy/PWT combo sounded as good as it did.  As mentioned, I find the sq essentially identical to Rednet system and both sound better than USB IMO.
> 
> What I find interesting (as Iving mentioned in his post above) is some of the cognitive dissonance that comes with this. Maybe it is not a complete coincidence that both PS Audio (Memory Player) and Chord (Blu Mk.II) have come out with or have announced new transports while many think of this as "dead-end" technology. Both units are well above what I will pay for any audio gear these days but it does seem to signify that some manufacturers think that there still may be more sq to squeeze out of good old redbook...




What I'm getting at is I would just opt for the cheaper.

I've had the PWT of my wish list forever until discovering this tread and the 208 USB bridge thread. I heard the PWD mkii and the PWT at a meet 3-4 years ago which lead me to get the PWD mkii.


----------



## TG04

gldgate said:


> I am by no means pushing a transport on anybody.  The D16 is staying in my system and will continue to be the mainstay of my Computer Audio system. I was just really surprised that the Yggy/PWT combo sounded as good as it did.  As mentioned, I find the sq essentially identical to Rednet system and both sound better than USB IMO.
> 
> What I find interesting (as Iving mentioned in his post above) is some of the cognitive dissonance that comes with this. Maybe it is not a complete coincidence that both PS Audio (Memory Player) and Chord (Blu Mk.II) have come out with or have announced new transports while many think of this as "dead-end" technology. Both units are well above what I will pay for any audio gear these days but it does seem to signify that some manufacturers think that there still may be more sq to squeeze out of good old redbook...


 
 As for myself, I really do prefer spinning silver discs (using a modest Oppo BDP-95) for in-the-room listening on "the big rig" even as the computer audio route sounds unbelievable on headphones.  Can't really quite explain it.  Different approaches for different purposes I suppose -- and do I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would be listening to Blu-II and DAVE (that's $20k worth of equipment) over headphones ...


----------



## yuhengtiger

Just got a chance to set up my rednet 3 to connect from IMAC to my dac (lavry da924). I am using internal clock of rn3 and spdif out from rn3 to dac. It seems to work now and everything sounds fantastic. But I wanna make sure that my setup is correct. I don't see the "world clock output = network" option as shown in the pic of post #2769?
  
 So here are some screen shots on the settings of my rednet control and dante controller.

 dante controller routing setup
  

 rednet control 2 setup 
  

 rednet controller setup on rednet 3
  
 Another problem is that when I wanna switch between different sample rate, do I need to change the setup in dante controller on my rednet 3 sample rate and my iMac's sample rate manually? Do I need to restart rednet 3 everytime  I change the sample rate? 
  
 Thank you!!


----------



## gldgate

I heard about this a few months ago but looks like it is now available for for Hilo and Aurora DAC/ADC products from the usual Pro Audio Places (Sweetwater etc..)
  
 http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=80
  
  
 So Burl B2 Bomber has Company. Guessing we will see more positive moves on DAC/AOIP front.


----------



## mourip

I am having a problem with my HP system that uses a D16. 
  
 Rednet Control v2.0 “apparently” drops its connection information for both my music server and D16. I say apparently because oddly music continues to play perfectly. I can switch tracks, pause, and stop play all without any dropouts and with excellent sound quality.  My server has two ethernet ports and one connects directly to the D16. The second port on the D16 is not used so the D16 only sees Dante traffic from DVS. I have a speaker based system in "The Cave" that is set up with another D16 in the exact same way but still runs the older version of RC. It does not have this issue. I tried reinstalling RCv2 and it seemed to help for a bit but the symptom returned.
  
 Has anyone else seen this? I do have a service call started with Focusrite but they seemed unfamiliar with this issue and just asked for some screen shots. Given that music plays perfectly this seems like a bug with RC.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I am having a problem with my HP system that uses a D16.
> 
> Rednet Control v2.0 “apparently” drops its connection information for both my music server and D16. I say apparently because oddly music continues to play perfectly. I can switch tracks, pause, and stop play all without any dropouts and with excellent sound quality.  My server has two ethernet ports and one connects directly to the D16. The second port on the D16 is not used so the D16 only sees Dante traffic from DVS. I have a speaker based system in "The Cave" that is set up with another D16 in the exact same way but still runs the older version of RC. It does not have this issue. I tried reinstalling RCv2 and it seemed to help for a bit but the symptom returned.
> 
> Has anyone else seen this? I do have a service call started with Focusrite but they seemed unfamiliar with this issue and just asked for some screen shots. Given that music plays perfectly this seems like a bug with RC.


 

 Sorry, never seen/had that issue.
  
 It doesn't surprise me at all that music continues to play. I'm guessing, but I think once the Rednet device has been configured via Dante Controller, that information is passed to the Rednet and stored there. I've connected my CD player to the Rednet without even turning on my computer without any issues at all - plays perfectly (doesn't require Dante Controller or Rednet Control to be running).
  
 Because of the way you have your Ethernet cable connected (directly), would you really consider that a network anyway. Just like my CD player, the Rednet already knows the Ethernet connection is input and AES is output. I have that too, but I also have SPDIF as input and output for my CD Player (channels 3 and 3).


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> Sorry, never seen/had that issue.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me at all that music continues to play. I'm guessing, but I think once the Rednet device has been configured via Dante Controller, that information is passed to the Rednet and stored there. I've connected my CD player to the Rednet without even turning on my computer without any issues at all - plays perfectly (doesn't require Dante Controller or Rednet Control to be running).
> 
> Because of the way you have your Ethernet cable connected (directly), would you really consider that a network anyway. Just like my CD player, the Rednet already knows the Ethernet connection is input and AES is output. I have that too, but I also have SPDIF as input and output for my CD Player (channels 3 and 3).


 
 Thanks for your thoughts. Just out of curiosity what happens if you are streaming from your PC and also playing a CD?


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Thanks for your thoughts. Just out of curiosity what happens if you are streaming from your PC and also playing a CD?


 
 I can't remember if I tried that. Can't see why it wouldn't work though.


----------



## johnjen

I was hoping that RedNet Control v.2 would be 'better' but I still use v.1 instead.
 I find it easier and less confusing to use, especially when changing sample rates.
 And since SR Following still doesn't work on Macs and my setup is so simple, the enhancements of v.2 are overkill for me.
  
 Just my 2¢
  
 JJ


----------



## yuhengtiger

Is it a big improvement to get a world clock for rednet 3? Like a antelope isochrone ocx? 
  
 Also how would that compared to mutec 3 as spdif reclocker?
  
 thanks, anyone.


----------



## gldgate

My opinion is that the Rednet clock is actually pretty good. Having both external clock(s) along with Mutec I would advise getting the Mutec first. The Mutec really is a very flexible audio swiss army knife.


----------



## yuhengtiger

gldgate said:


> My opinion is that the Rednet clock is actually pretty good. Having both external clock(s) along with Mutec I would advise getting the Mutec first. The Mutec really is a very flexible audio swiss army knife.




Thanks! Will the mutec 3 (no usb version) work?


----------



## gldgate

yuhengtiger said:


> Thanks! Will the mutec 3 (no usb version) work?


 
  
 Sure, the Mutec 3 will reclock but my understanding is that the MC-3+USB is actually a later generation product with some additional features (not same product with addition of USB interface). I have not heard the Mutec 3 so hopefully someone who has heard both side by side can provide additional input in regards to SQ.


----------



## yuhengtiger

gldgate said:


> Sure, the Mutec 3 will reclock but my understanding is that the MC-3+USB is actually a later generation product with some additional features (not same product with addition of USB interface). I have not heard the Mutec 3 so hopefully someone who has heard both side by side can provide additional input in regards to SQ.




Got it. Thsnk you!!


----------



## johnjen

I am using the 3+ (no usb) and it does indeed improve the SQ.
 But since I don't have the usb version to directly compare it to, I can't give a relative comparison between them.
  
 But I will be replacing the SMPS with a LPS power supply, which should also improve its performance as well.
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

MC3+usb is suposed to be quite an improvement over the MC3

A chain of 3 MC3's was bettered by a single MC3+USB.

Also MC3 is no longer upgraded while MC3+USB does receive new firmware upgrades. MC3 is not compatible with MC3+USB firmware.


----------



## yuhengtiger

johnjen said:


> I am using the 3+ (no usb) and it does indeed improve the SQ.
> But since I don't have the usb version to directly compare it to, I can't give a relative comparison between them.
> 
> But I will be replacing the SMPS with a LPS power supply, which should also improve its performance as well.
> ...




Is there an easy way to replace the smps to lps? Or I have to do soldering inside redned box?


----------



## gad1

deleted-


----------



## gad1

johnjen said:


> I am using the 3+ (no usb) and it does indeed improve the SQ.
> But since I don't have the usb version to directly compare it to, I can't give a relative comparison between them.
> 
> But I will be replacing the SMPS with a LPS power supply, which should also improve its performance as well.
> ...


 

 Hello johnjen,
  
 Please check your PM.
  
 Thanks-


----------



## johnjen

yuhengtiger said:


> Is there an easy way to replace the smps to lps? Or I have to do soldering inside redned box?


 
 Soldering is required to perform this level of surgery.
 And somewhat delicate soldering at that.
  
 But if you have a fair amount of experience it isn't difficult, just a bit tedious is all.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

gad1 said:


> Hello johnjen,
> 
> Please check your PM.
> 
> Thanks-


 
 Thanks for the heads up.
 And pm returned.
  
 JJ


----------



## yuhengtiger

johnjen said:


> Thanks for the heads up.
> And pm returned.
> 
> JJ


 
 got it. I will take it a shot after reading the instructions here. Thanks!


----------



## yuhengtiger

mourip said:


> I am having a problem with my HP system that uses a D16.
> 
> Rednet Control v2.0 “apparently” drops its connection information for both my music server and D16. I say apparently because oddly music continues to play perfectly. I can switch tracks, pause, and stop play all without any dropouts and with excellent sound quality.  My server has two ethernet ports and one connects directly to the D16. The second port on the D16 is not used so the D16 only sees Dante traffic from DVS. I have a speaker based system in "The Cave" that is set up with another D16 in the exact same way but still runs the older version of RC. It does not have this issue. I tried reinstalling RCv2 and it seemed to help for a bit but the symptom returned.
> 
> Has anyone else seen this? I do have a service call started with Focusrite but they seemed unfamiliar with this issue and just asked for some screen shots. Given that music plays perfectly this seems like a bug with RC.


 
  
 I see this when I use VPN in my network. That will cause the rednet3 to disappear. See if this is the case in your HP setup, and check the firewall as well.


----------



## mourip

yuhengtiger said:


> I see this when I use VPN in my network. That will cause the rednet3 to disappear. See if this is the case in your HP setup, and check the firewall as well.


 
  
 Thanks for the suggestions. I have a direct connection from one ethernet port to my D16 with no VPN and the firewall turned off by Audiophile Optimizer.
  
 The odd thing is that music plays perfectly so this is mainly curiosity at this point. It seems that realtime monitoring is broken but basic functionality is intact. If this was a studio environment I would be grumpy!


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. I have a direct connection from one ethernet port to my D16 with no VPN and the firewall turned off by Audiophile Optimizer.
> 
> The odd thing is that music plays perfectly so this is mainly curiosity at this point. It seems that realtime monitoring is broken but basic functionality is intact. If this was a studio environment I would be grumpy!


 

 What about removing any traces of SR follows to see if that clears the message.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> What about removing any traces of SR follows to see if that clears the message.


 
  
 Good idea. I set Tab Follow Device to "None". We shall she what happens...


----------



## yuhengtiger

I have a question about the rednet3 aes output. 
  
 So I wanna conenct the rednet3 to prism sound ada8xr using aes connection. The db25 pin on the 8xr side looks is here:

 And the db25 connector on the rednet 3 looks like this:
  

  
 so what type of cables can I use to connect this two devices? I wanna output 2 channel digital signal from rednet3 to 8xr. Any links to the things I should purchase are appreciated!!


----------



## mourip

Does anyone know what the red indicator at the top of the channel 1 level meter means? If this was an analog meter I would say that it indicated signal overload/clipping. Not sure how this pertains to digital...the same? And if this is a problem where how is it possible to adjust the incoming digital stream to be less hot???


----------



## johnjen

I don't know about that red indication either (I've never seen it) but seeing as how its 'above' the 0dB line that would make sense.
 As for reducing digital clipping that can be performed inside the DSP stack with a reduction in gain by ≈3-6dB, or until it doesn't re-appear.
  
 At least that is where I adjust the overall gain in my setup.
  
 JJ


----------



## atomicbob

mourip said:


> Does anyone know what the red indicator at the top of the channel 1 level meter means? If this was an analog meter I would say that it indicated signal overload/clipping. Not sure how this pertains to digital...the same? And if this is a problem where how is it possible to adjust the incoming digital stream to be less hot???


 
 It is a clip indicator. Behavior may be configured on the preferences page in Rednet Control 2. If it has been set for 0 dBFS then it may be perfectly normal to see these light up on some material. If you can't hear clipping then it is probably normal. If you do hear clipping then there is a gain adjustment in your player that should be changed.


----------



## johnjen

So I just posted my write up on the LPS conversion to my RN3, here.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/810#post_13278351
  
 Thus far the results are quite welcome and most definitely fall into the *'Better'* category.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

*Question on sample rate auto switching*
  
 I think I read someone on here who was trying to set this up in Dante V2. Can I ask if it is possible to set the Rednet 3 to auto switch sample rate to the incoming stream? I can see I may have 44.1, but now on Tidal masters either 96K or 88,2K and no clear way of knowing what it is until I load the track in Audirvana. At the moment On a Mac) I would need to go into Dante Controller, change the sample rate, then into Audio Midi to change 44.1 to 88.2 or 96. Pain, but hey, maybe less than changing a record over. Still, it would be nice for it to do it automatically. Also if for instance I have a playlist created, some are 96k, others 44.1, chaos reins....
  
 Ideas anyone?


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> *Question on sample rate auto switching*
> 
> I think I read someone on here who was trying to set this up in Dante V2. Can I ask if it is possible to set the Rednet 3 to auto switch sample rate to the incoming stream? I can see I may have 44.1, but now on Tidal masters either 96K or 88,2K and no clear way of knowing what it is until I load the track in Audirvana. At the moment On a Mac) I would need to go into Dante Controller, change the sample rate, then into Audio Midi to change 44.1 to 88.2 or 96. Pain, but hey, maybe less than changing a record over. Still, it would be nice for it to do it automatically. Also if for instance I have a playlist created, some are 96k, others 44.1, chaos reins....
> 
> Ideas anyone?


 

 If possible, I would just set your sample rate to 96k, or whatever your DAC will accept that you prefer to be the highest sample rate, and leave it at that.
  
 If your AN only does 96k max, do you really think there's going to be that much difference between 44.1, 88.2, or 96k. I know it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## thisisvv

Need some advice . Currently able to get some funds and can get into the AOIP world.  MY current system is YGG ->ear pre amp and amp and Omega speakers. Most of my music is on NAS and recently i am loving the TIDAL...
  
 I have three options...
  
  

I have a generic desktop which i use for many things.I can use that for streaming my music  as well. SO dekstop PC->router -> RN3 ->Mutec Usb 3 - >YGG
Buy specialized streaming PC ->  RN3  -> YGG . Another connection to router to connect to NAS
Buy  SO dekstop PC->router -> RN D16  - >YGG
  
  
 Which one of above 3 you guess suggest...i am tilting towards 1 mostly...
  
 V


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Need some advice . Currently able to get some funds and can get into the AOIP world.  MY current system is YGG ->ear pre amp and amp and Omega speakers. Most of my music is on NAS and recently i am loving the TIDAL...
> 
> I have three options...
> 
> ...


 
 Go with your gut. Try 1 first and if you have any issue, buy new PC.


----------



## Golfnutz

LPS finally showed up. Just needs a bit of surgery first. Hoping it might be done in the next week or two.
  
 Remove GX 2-pin connector from LPS (includes removing both +- wires), and add earth ground wire to chassis.

  
 1. Substitute 2-pin with 3-pin 16mm GX connector, connect new +- Ground wires (also called aviation connector).
 2. Solder cut power cord cable to 3-pin GX 16mm female connector (pass earth ground from LPS to D16).
 3. Plug power cord directly into D16 (D16 receptacle will be replaced with basic C13 receptacle)
 4. Unplug current JST XH connector from D16 and replace with 3 wire harness. Wires will attach to C13 inside D16.
 Note: in case it's not clear #2 and #3 are the same power cord. GX 3-pin into LPS, C14 end into D16.
 
  
 This makes everything reversible (LPS and D16). No de-soldering required.


----------



## astrostar59

thisisvv said:


> Need some advice . Currently able to get some funds and can get into the AOIP world.  MY current system is YGG ->ear pre amp and amp and Omega speakers. Most of my music is on NAS and recently i am loving the TIDAL...
> 
> I have three options...
> 
> ...


 

 Can you miss out the router? I go direct to Rednet 3. And then surf if I need to on wifi.
  
 There is another poster on this thread who has the Rednet 3 and a Yggy. Maybe PM him.


----------



## thisisvv

astrostar59 said:


> Can you miss out the router? I go direct to Rednet 3. And then surf if I need to on wifi.
> 
> There is another poster on this thread who has the Rednet 3 and a Yggy. Maybe PM him.


 
 I cant the Dekstop and RN3 are in two different room. There is an Ethernet connection that is through router....


----------



## Jozurr

What is the MUTEC in there for? Why not go from RN3 to Yggy?


----------



## thisisvv

jozurr said:


> What is the MUTEC in there for? Why not go from RN3 to Yggy?




It's been listed an great addition to theRN3


----------



## alubis

If I'm not mistaken you can't do pc - router-Rednet. It can only be direct connection from pc via ethernet cable to Rednet.


----------



## johnjen

You can, but for our uses because the bandwidth used is so low and our setups are so simple, it is unnecessary.
  
 But in a complex pro audio setup it would probably be mandatory to have switches of suitable capability on a dedicated network…
  
 JJ


----------



## jazzfan

thisisvv said:


> astrostar59 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you miss out the router? I go direct to Rednet 3. And then surf if I need to on wifi.
> ...


 
  
 If you have an open PCI-e slot available, you may want to go with a direct connection to the RN3. I went with an inexpensive Intel based NIC like _this one_ I found on Amazon. If you're interested in my particular RN3 system configuration have a look at my RN3 review _here_.


----------



## jabbr

alubis said:


> If I'm not mistaken you can't do pc - router-Rednet. It can only be direct connection from pc via ethernet cable to Rednet.


 
 AOIP technology has been designed to be used with switches.
 It is only a matter of convenience that you can also do a direct connection.


----------



## astrostar59

jabbr said:


> alubis said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm not mistaken you can't do pc - router-Rednet. It can only be direct connection from pc via ethernet cable to Rednet.
> ...


 

 It says in the Rednet user manual. The thing to watch if you need to have the switch in your network, is the speed. It must be fully 1000 Base T compliant and not mess with the latency of the Rednet. That is most important.


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> I cant the Dekstop and RN3 are in two different room. There is an Ethernet connection that is through router....


 
 My computer is 50' away from my audio rack.
  
 I have a 50' AES cable from the Rednet to my DAC. Rednet is connected directly to my computer with 3' Ethernet cable.
  
 I also have a 50' fiber optic cable running from my computer to my audio rack. This gives me the flexibility to move the Rednet (with direct connection to PC) to my audio rack and connect it to my DAC with a 3' AES cable. I've done both connections and don't hear any differences between the longer AES cable and the shorter AES cable.
  
 If you already have an Ethernet cable from your router to your listening room, isn't is possible to run another Ethernet cable (or fiber), and/or AES cable? This will allow you to have a direct connection from your PC to the Rednet.


----------



## thisisvv

I guess i can get another cable for 50' that shouldn't be a problem...just one last qyestion then is there a difference in audio from a general PC against a an CAPS like optimized audio pc in AOIP...
  
 V


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> I guess i can get another cable for 50' that shouldn't be a problem...just one last qyestion then is there a difference in audio from a general PC against a an CAPS like optimized audio pc in AOIP...
> 
> V


 

 The only way for you to know is to have both and compare them.  Most people have a starting point and go from there.
  
 In your case, I would just start with AOIP, using your current PC, and see if you like it.
  
 If you feel the need to upgrade to a better/dedicated PC, do it afterwards. Same with the Mutec.
  
 Too many upgrades all at the same time can lead to buyers remorse.


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> The only way for you to know is to have both and compare them.  Most people have a starting point and go from there.
> 
> In your case, I would just start with AOIP, using your current PC, and see if you like it.
> 
> ...




Valid point .. will go this route then


----------



## astrostar59

thisisvv said:


> golfnutz said:
> 
> 
> > The only way for you to know is to have both and compare them.  Most people have a starting point and go from there.
> ...


 
 I would get it going first with your base PC. Then look at software to send to your DAC via Rednet. And then look to improve the PC which is quite cheap if you do it yourself.


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Valid point .. will go this route then


 

 Sorry, let me back up for a minute. Something I forgot about (maybe you've already done this).
  
 First thing to do is make sure your current PC doesn't have any latency issues. This is kind of important if you decide to go the AOIP route.
  
 Download this application and run it for awhile on your PC - http://www.resplendence.com/latencymon
  
 This could be helpful for you.


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> thisisvv said:
> 
> 
> > Valid point .. will go this route then
> ...


 

 I guess basics like:
  
 1. Use an SSD (solid state drive)
 2. Fanless (if possible)
 3. Lots of RAM
 4. Recent chip (fast)
 5. Dedicated music station if possible (no tasking while playing music)
 6. Best player software for your application
 7. Use Ethernet for music, wifi for internet and network access to other devices
 8. LPS to power the PC (if possible)
 9. Different mains circuit for PC and DAC
  
 These are the ones off the top of my head. There are more, but that will get you closer to a bought in (expensive) server solution
 and for less money.
  
 Depending if you do up sampling or not, will load up the chip with extra work. I don't do that but ones that do ofter say HQ Player is good.
 IMO you can do better than the fee music software. It's a personal choice.
  
 I use a Mac Mini headless and run it from a 12V DC LPS, Audirvana+ and Rednet 3. Sounds marvellous.
  
 Good luck.


----------



## thisisvv

Yes I know about fabless pc I am just trying to see if anyone found any audio difference between two 

First I will do one thing at a time get RN3 get connected to my pc and then let's see


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Yes I know about fabless pc I am just trying to see if anyone found any audio difference between two
> 
> First I will do one thing at a time get RN3 get connected to my pc and then let's see


 

 That's a good start.
  
 However, I recommend you download the latencymon program (it's free), just to make sure your PC is up to the task.
 If there are any issues, you could start here - https://global.focusrite.com/optimising-a-pc-for-low-latency-audio
  
 Nothing worse than encountering unwanted surprises.


----------



## astrostar59

jabbr said:


> mtoc said:
> 
> 
> > I've said before, you have to add a MCLK to it if you wanna auto-sample rate switching, and if you use some software to unsample all your stuff to 192kHz, that'z no good. A few more clicks everything's fine.
> ...


 

 Going back to this question. Did the Dante and Rednet controller 'update' work on auto sample rate switching? I don't remember reading follow up to this subject here.
  
 Thie sample rate switching is become a pain in Tidal app with MQA as it is not apparent whether the master is at 88.2K or 96K. 
  
 Next question
 I can get USB to play MQA Tidal Masters. But using Dante and Rednet 3, on play Tidal kicks back to internal speaker. This happens no matter what setting I use in Rednet. I also tried playing normal 44.1 hifi tracks in Tidal and the same thing happens. Seems a bug with Rednet and Tidal app? In Audirvana it works fine on 44.1, just don't have V3 yet so I can't try MQA on the Rednet yet. I am on Mavericks 10.9.5.
  
 Any help would be great!


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Going back to this question. Did the Dante and Rednet controller 'update' work on auto sample rate switching? I don't remember reading follow up to this subject here.
> 
> Thie sample rate switching is become a pain in Tidal app with MQA as it is not apparent whether the master is at 88.2K or 96K.
> 
> ...


 

 I've found Focusrite Customer Support to be very responsive. You should try contacting them if you cannot find any help here.


----------



## johnjen

So status update.
 I just finished building a true dual channel LPS suitable to power a range of loads but I'll be using it on my Mutec 3+.
 I'll complete the wiring into the Mutec tomorrow.
  
 I measured the noise on the LPS and it is hovering at the limits of the resolution of my scope to capture it.
 Of course this is powering a resistor but the load that digital circuits present are WAY noisier than a resistor.
  
 One thing I have noticed after installing a LPS into my RN3 is an apparent drop in the volume of the music.
 Put another way I have to crank the moar knob even higher to achieve the 'same' apparent playback volume.
  
 I see this as a decidedly good thing as I have chronicled previously.
  
 It would appear that any and all of the digital circuits that comprise this AOIP approach perform *'better'* using LPS's instead of SMPS's,
 Which isn't a big secret just one that gets confirmed every once in a while.
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

johnjen said:


> So status update.
> 
> One thing I have noticed after installing a LPS into my RN3 is an apparent drop in the volume of the music.
> Put another way I have to crank the moar knob even higher to achieve the 'same' apparent playback volume.


 
 johnjen
  
 I wonder what is causing that? If the voltage you measured was indeed 5V? Maybe it was a bit higher, or it needs more amps in the supply? I wonder what output in amps was the original SMPS?
  
 Hope it is ok, I ordered my bits now.


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> johnjen
> 
> I wonder what is causing that? If the voltage you measured was indeed 5V? Maybe it was a bit higher, or it needs more amps in the supply? I wonder what output in amps was the original SMPS?
> 
> Hope it is ok, I ordered my bits now.


 
 Say there.
 The key to my post is the word apparent, as in…
 "an apparent drop in the volume of the music"
  
 I have mentioned this phenomenon before, where the apparent volume seems to drop after a tweak has settled in.
 IOW I can crank the Moar knob up higher to achieve the same degree of volume.
  
 This is also accompanied by an increase in SQ as the degree of focus of and in the soundfield also takes a step up at the same time.
  
 I hear this, as a greater degree of acoustic energy is applied where it should be, and less is wasted or applied where it shouldn't be.
 This in turn sounds like the volume has dropped because the acoustic energy is more focused in each 'voice' instead of being smeared thru time.
 This is also associated with what I call *tLFF* (the Listener Fatigue Factor) where the Moar knob can get cranked up to a higher setting while hearing the same apparent volume as before.
  
 Essentially it's an acoustic 'trick', one that I use as an indicator of *'Better'* and is highly desirable, at least to me.
  
 JJ


----------



## Clemmaster

astrostar59 said:


> johnjen
> 
> I wonder what is causing that? If the voltage you measured was indeed 5V? Maybe it was a bit higher, or it needs more amps in the supply? I wonder what output in amps was the original SMPS?
> 
> Hope it is ok, I ordered my bits now.



Where talking about digital transmission here. Voltage doesn't translate to volume.

The perceived loss of volume is probably due to less noise being transmitted through the signal chain, all the way to the analog output. Be it direct electrical noise, or indirect noise like that induced by jitter.


----------



## astrostar59

clemmaster said:


> astrostar59 said:
> 
> 
> > johnjen
> ...


 

 I see, thanks for that. Maybe though in digital audio a power supply still affects things like dynamics and slew rates. For example, I had a series PS feeding my DAC, and when I fitted a shunt type it sounded better, more impact and dynamics, just better overall. I perceived that as faster and better power supply (energy pool) if the shunt type.


----------



## Clemmaster

astrostar59 said:


> I see, thanks for that. Maybe though in digital audio a power supply still affects things like dynamics and slew rates. For example, I had a series PS feeding my DAC, and when I fitted a shunt type it sounded better, more impact and dynamics, just better overall. I perceived that as faster and better power supply (energy pool) if the shunt type.


 
  
 Was the new power supply feeding only the digital section of your DAC? Or both digital and analog?


----------



## thisisvv

So was  able to score a mint RN3 for around 750...First part is done...Now trying to get 50ft ethernet cable ...


----------



## gefski

thisisvv said:


> So was  able to score a mint RN3 for around 750...First part is done...Now trying to get 50ft ethernet cable ...


 

 Blue Jeans Cable, Cat 5e, Cat 6 any length you want, affordable, fast (immediate) build and ship.


----------



## thisisvv

gefski said:


> Blue Jeans Cable, Cat 5e, Cat 6 any length you want, affordable, fast (immediate) build and ship.


 
 Could some one share what cable are they connecting from RN3 to YGG???  Just to note i do plan to add Mutec3 usb down the line


----------



## mourip

thisisvv said:


> Could some one share what cable are they connecting from RN3 to YGG???  Just to note i do plan to add Mutec3 usb down the line


 
  
 I have a Rednet D16 via AES to Mutec USB via AES to an Yggy. I am using Apogee Wyde Eye AES/EBU cables which I bought on EBAY. I saw Apogee recommended over on CA. It is my understanding that many find the AES input of the Yggy to sound the best.
  
 I also tried a DH Labs Silver Sonic D-110 AES/EBU but preferred the Apogee.


----------



## johnjen

thisisvv said:


> Could some one share what cable are they connecting from RN3 to YGG???  Just to note i do plan to add Mutec3 usb down the line


 
 I started with this and adapted it to the RN3.
 http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/digital-cables-occ-copper-and-occ-silver/#!/Statement-SE-Silver-AES-EBU-XLR-Digital-Cable/p/59369117/category=4059160
  
 And since I started with a 1meter cable I used 1/2 of it for the cable from the Mutec to the Jggy.
  
 JJ


----------



## gefski

thisisvv said:


> Could some one share what cable are they connecting from RN3 to YGG???  Just to note i do plan to add Mutec3 usb down the line




I have this one in the For Sale thread for $75. Johnjen (see previous post) made it specifically for RN3 to Yggy and cooked it 40 hrs. It's 5 feet. You can PM me if interested.


----------



## mhamel

So, I think I am probably going to be temporarily stepping away from the RedNet / AoIP setup and selling my D16 (along with a few other things) if anyone is interested.
  
 I haven't posted it yet but probably will early next week if I haven't sold it by then.
  
    -Mike


----------



## mourip

mhamel said:


> So, I think I am probably going to be temporarily stepping away from the RedNet / AoIP setup and selling my D16 (along with a few other things) if anyone is interested.
> 
> I haven't posted it yet but probably will early next week if I haven't sold it by then.
> 
> -Mike


 
  
 Hi Mike. Have you found something better?
  
 Don't make us beg


----------



## mhamel

mourip said:


> Hi Mike. Have you found something better?
> 
> Don't make us beg


 
  
  
 Hahaha, no, just downsizing for now and selling off a bunch of gear, tubes, etc. 
  
 Unless something drastic changes on the AoIP front in the next year or so, I will be back to it.


----------



## astrostar59

Rednet Control app V2?
  
 Has anyone here updated their Rednet to the V2 software? I am wondering if it is any better. Also if it does auto sample rate switching.
  
 Not sure if I should update as my system is working ok at the moment (if it ain't broke...).


----------



## mourip

astrostar59 said:


> Rednet Control app V2?
> 
> Has anyone here updated their Rednet to the V2 software? I am wondering if it is any better. Also if it does auto sample rate switching.
> 
> Not sure if I should update as my system is working ok at the moment (if it ain't broke...).


 
 V2 and associated firmware for my D16 has sample rate following but I found that it was buggy. I returned to just upsampling everything to 192K and it sounds great.


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> Rednet Control app V2?
> 
> Has anyone here updated their Rednet to the V2 software? I am wondering if it is any better. Also if it does auto sample rate switching.
> 
> Not sure if I should update as my system is working ok at the moment (if it ain't broke...).


 
 Rednet control app v.2 is a way of addressing the Dante network and the Rednet boxes in particular.
 There is no updating of the Rednet box per se from the v.2 app.
  
 And for my uses I went back to using v.1 of the app because I found v.2 too cumbersome and confusing to use.
 And while it has additional uses, none of which I need, the added complexity wasn't helpful.
  
 And since the SR Follow feature still doesn't work on the Mac platform there isn't any reason to use v.2 anyway.
  
 YMMV etc…
  
 JJ


----------



## astrostar59

Thanks JJ. I will do the same.


----------



## thisisvv

Got RN3 used , getting the dante sound card, trying to install them . Are there any steps needed , can some one point me some steps. Also  can i connect Yggy to RN3 using spdif cable , heard there was lot of problem in that connection.


----------



## johnjen

There are videos on the Focusrite site to help with the installation.
  
 And you really don't need the Dante ethernet card, as any ethernet port (either a separate ethernet port on the computer or even a compatible switch or router port) will suffice, especially for our minuscule bandwidth needs.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

I would go AES/EBU for the connection. One of the owners at Schiit recommends it as the best input to the Yggy.
  
 According to Focusrite the hardware card just gives you better control over more channels. Probably not worth the expense for us.
  
 +1 for just adding a second Intel based network card if you have an extra slot. Use one port for your LAN connection and the other to connect your Dante Virtual Soundcard(software) to your RN3.
  
 It can be a bit confusing to setup but you will love the sound quality.


----------



## jelt2359

I have a silly question- what's the difference between word clock in and master clock in? For example can I get a master clock to output to both mutec and RN3, or do I have to output to mutec and then from mutec to rn3 via word clock connection?


----------



## joelha

johngen and mourip,

Could one or both of you give me the latest versions of pre-version two software to use?

It's been so long since I've used them, I'm not sure which versions to go with on the Dante and Rednet programs.

Buggy is right as regards version 2.

Much as I like the sample rate changing, the other hassles now have me questioning the value of that feature.

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## Baldr

jelt2359 said:


> I have a silly question- what's the difference between word clock in and master clock in? For example can I get a master clock to output to both mutec and RN3, or do I have to output to mutec and then from mutec to rn3 via word clock connection?


 

 Word Clock is the clock which tells the DAC to convert at the selected sampling rate; master clocks are not required for multibit designs but are the higher frequency clocks required for (usually 128 to 512 times the word clock) required for delta sigma and sigma delta dacs and adcs.


----------



## Muziqboy

OK, for all of you who have the Rednet's, Mutec MC3+ usb, Antelope Live Clock might want to consider ditching those noisy smps and modding it with lps.
  
 If you guys think those set-up sounds good now, wait until you hear what the lps's bring to the table. More dynamics and inner detail was being revealed. Realism just took a major 'Mother May I step Up' in SQ.
 I have to say that those smps are the limiting factor on these Pro Audio Gears.
  
 I have been communicating with @johnjen and have been experimenting with it for a week or so and really glad that I followed his lead on this. Just head over to his DIY cookbook thread to follow the developments.
  
 The latest addition of the lps for the Antelope Live Clock that I received this morning has given the SQ another boost in the right direction. I'm still waiting for the LT3042 regulator to arrive so that I can start the RN3 lps mod and when that's done, there will be no smps in my digital stack.


----------



## Mist3rLao

Are these LPS limited to DIY mods as of the moment?


----------



## Golfnutz

mist3rlao said:


> Are these LPS limited to DIY mods as of the moment?


 
 It depends on the type of change...
  
 For example, the Antelope Live Clock is DC input, so you could build your own LPS, or purchase a pre-assembled one. I assume this is replacing a wall wart power supply that comes with the Live Clock.
  
 Otherwise, some of the other mods are replacing the internal SMPS with internal DIY LPS, or replacing the internal SMPS with an external DIY/or pre-assembled LPS.


----------



## Mist3rLao

What would be a good example of a good off the shelf LPS for the RedNet and the Mutec MC-3+?


----------



## Golfnutz

mist3rlao said:


> What would be a good example of a good off the shelf LPS for the RedNet and the Mutec MC-3+?


 
  
 I'm still waiting for mine to be done, but I'll be using this one for the D16 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/100VA-Ultra-low-Noise-LPS-R-core-Linear-power-supply-DC-5V-24V-With-display-/131867485038. http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2820#post_13288215
  
 For anyone changing the Rednet 3, I've only seen where they are doing an internal DIY mod (separate transformer and Power Supply regulator).
  
 I don't have a Mutec MC-3+. If the power requirements are 5v for the Mutec, it could be possible to power the Rednet and Mutec from that same LPS (5v/6A) with a split cable. Someone posted the non-USB is 5v and the USB is 6.3v (not sure what the voltage requirements would be if the USB board was removed).


----------



## Muziqboy

golfnutz said:


> I'm still waiting for mine to be done, but I'll be using this one for the D16 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/100VA-Ultra-low-Noise-LPS-R-core-Linear-power-supply-DC-5V-24V-With-display-/131867485038. http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2820#post_13288215
> 
> For anyone changing the Rednet 3, I've only seen where they are doing an internal DIY mod (separate transformer and Power Supply regulator).
> 
> I don't have a Mutec MC-3+. If the power requirements are 5v for the Mutec, it could be possible to power the Rednet and Mutec from that same LPS (5v/6A) with a split cable. Someone posted the non-USB is 5v and the USB is 6.3v (not sure what the voltage requirements would be if the USB board was removed).


 
  
 I got 2 of those LPS powering up the Mutec usb version and the Antelope Live Clock. I measured the voltages as follows:
  
 Mutec non-usb - 5v
 Mutec usb        - 6.3v
 Antelope Live Clock - 18v
  
 Still waiting for another 1 of those LPS @ 5v to power up both the Mutec non-usb in my digital chain. Currently just using a Jays Audio 5v/2.5A lps to power both.
  
 LT3042 regulator board just arrived so will be doing the surgery on my RN3 in a moment.


----------



## Golfnutz

muziqboy said:


> I got 2 of those LPS powering up the Mutec usb version and the Antelope Live Clock. I measured the voltages as follows:
> 
> Mutec non-usb - 5v
> Mutec usb        - 6.3v
> ...


 

 Did you remove the USB board?


----------



## johnjen

The word clock is used to synchronize the sample rate of the digital audio bit stream for all devices that use a separate word clock source.
 IOW it is used to establish the 44.1 or 48 or… sample rate of the digital audio stream for all devices that it is sent to.
 Which means the word clock signal is sent to each device separately, not in a daisy chain arrangement.
  
 A master clock is a reference clock to help 'calibrate' all devices it is connected to, to the same base operating frequency.
 And again the master clock signal is sent to each device separately, not in a daisy chain arrangement.
  
 As such the word clock is used to synchronize all of the digital audio devices in the chain while in use.
 This keeps them all marching to the same beat as the digital audio stream is passed from one device to the next.
  
 And the master clock is used to synchronize these same devices (assuming they have a master clock input) so they are all operating on the same base frequency (not the word clock frequency).
 Kind of a set it all up and then leave it alone once calibrated sorta thing, well, until powered down.
  
 Does this answer your question?
  
 JJ


----------



## jelt2359

johnjen said:


> The word clock is used to synchronize the sample rate of the digital audio bit stream for all devices that use a separate word clock source.
> IOW it is used to establish the 44.1 or 48 or… sample rate of the digital audio stream for all devices that it is sent to.
> Which means the word clock signal is sent to each device separately, not in a daisy chain arrangement.
> 
> ...


 
 Mm yes, the strange thing is that one clock manufacturer I'm talking to has suggested using their master clock to connect to my Mutec, and saying that I can use my Mutec's word clock out to daisy chain the same clock info to the Rednet.
  
 I was originally of the idea that it makes more sense to use their master clock to connect directly to both the Mutec and the Rednet, so I'm confused why they're suggesting this.


----------



## johnjen

The master clock is, or can be, a set and forget function, so the advice can make more sense when viewed in that way.
  
 And both the RN3 and D16 have no master clock input, only word clock in/out.
 Which means the master clock has no other device, other than the 3+, to send it's signal to.
  
 JJ


----------



## Muziqboy

golfnutz said:


> Did you remove the USB board?


 

 Yes I did removed it since I'm not using USB input. Fabricated a plate to mount the DC jack and mounted the plate in that square USB opening.
  
 Sorry for the late response since it took me almost half of the day to perform the install of the internal lps in the RN3.


----------



## Golfnutz

muziqboy said:


> Yes I did removed it since I'm not using USB input. Fabricated a plate to mount the DC jack and mounted the plate in that square USB opening.
> 
> Sorry for the late response since it took me almost half of the day to perform the install of the internal lps in the RN3.


 

 Thank you.


----------



## Golfnutz

jelt2359 said:


> Mm yes, the strange thing is that one clock manufacturer I'm talking to has suggested using their master clock to connect to my Mutec, and saying that I can use my Mutec's word clock out to daisy chain the same clock info to the Rednet.
> 
> I was originally of the idea that it makes more sense to use their master clock to connect directly to both the Mutec and the Rednet, so I'm confused why they're suggesting this.


 

 I was under the impression the best place for the Mutec was after the Rednet, feeding the DAC?


----------



## jabbr

Yep, best place is after the Rednet to reclock the SPDIF, not as a master clock to the RedNet.
During the time Rob was still posting here, he also found that there are better Word clocks than Mutec.


----------



## mourip

baldr said:


> Word Clock is the clock which tells the DAC to convert at the selected sampling rate; master clocks are not required for multibit designs but are the higher frequency clocks required for (usually 128 to 512 times the word clock) required for delta sigma and sigma delta dacs and adcs.


 
  
 Glad to see you checking in here. Have you had a chance to listen to a Dante AOIP setup?


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> johngen and mourip,
> 
> Could one or both of you give me the latest versions of pre-version two software to use?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have two systems. One for headphones and also a speaker system. The speaker system uses v1.1 while my HP system uses V2. I find V2 to be buggy.


----------



## jelt2359

johnjen said:


> The master clock is, or can be, a set and forget function, so the advice can make more sense when viewed in that way.
> 
> And both the RN3 and D16 have no master clock input, only word clock in/out.
> Which means the master clock has no other device, other than the 3+, to send it's signal to.
> ...




So they are right in that that's the only way to use it. Would the whole system then take the master clock as reference in this case and would it be optimal? Or should I just be looking for a clock with word clock output?


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> I have two systems. One for headphones and also a speaker system. The speaker system uses v1.1 while my HP system uses V2. I find V2 to be buggy.


 
 Thanks a lot, mourip.
  
 So I can I just uninstall v. 2 and reinstall v. 1.1?
  
 And I don't have to change anything with regard to the Dante software I've already installed?
  
 Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Thanks a lot, mourip.
> 
> So I can I just uninstall v. 2 and reinstall v. 1.1?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have been working with Focusrite(Dante) for a while to get my issues with V2 sorted out. Basically they are scratching their heads but said that you can safely have both versions installed at the same time if you like. I will probably do that and then uninstall V2 if 1.1 works as expected.
  
 The problem I have with RC V2 is that it seems to drop it's connection with my server and my D16 and then shows an error. Oddly music still plays and I can change tracks and albums in JRMC. Rebooting allows the Rednet devices to show again but after a while they drop off. I also could never get SRF working consistently.


----------



## jelt2359

mourip said:


> I have been working with Focusrite(Dante) for a while to get my issues with V2 sorted out. Basically they are scratching their heads but said that you can safely have both versions installed at the same time if you like. I will probably do that and then uninstall V2 if 1.1 works as expected.
> 
> The problem I have with RC V2 is that it seems to drop it's connection with my server and my D16 and then shows an error. Oddly music still plays and I can change tracks and albums in JRMC. Rebooting allows the Rednet devices to show again but after a while they drop off. I also could never get SRF working consistently.



Exactly the same here. But I did not uninstall v1.1 and that still works.


----------



## thisisvv

Well able to get mutec-3 USB too. Now waiting for it to come then will see how good this system is. Didn't had right cable for RN3 to Yggdrasil so haven't tested anything yet.

Btw any one seen any difference using different power cables on these equipment


----------



## joelha

mourip said:


> I have been working with Focusrite(Dante) for a while to get my issues with V2 sorted out. Basically they are scratching their heads but said that you can safely have both versions installed at the same time if you like. I will probably do that and then uninstall V2 if 1.1 works as expected.
> 
> The problem I have with RC V2 is that it seems to drop it's connection with my server and my D16 and then shows an error. Oddly music still plays and I can change tracks and albums in JRMC. Rebooting allows the Rednet devices to show again but after a while they drop off. I also could never get SRF working consistently.


 
 I've had similar issues, mourip.
  
 Thanks for the great information.
  
 Joel


----------



## mourip

After reading the glowing reports regarding LPS replacements in the DIYers thread I decided to try an easy one. I already had an HDPlex LPS with multiple outputs which I have been using very successfully to power my audio server so I used an open 12V output to power my Antelope LiveClock. Luckily it has an external DC supply with a standard case connector.
  
 This one is definitely worth it. I immediately experienced an increase in clarity and a more natural tonality.
  
 Those of you with an RN3 are lucky because your 2U case is a lot thicker. My D16 is 1U and will not be easy to squeeze in an LPS internally. I might consider an external one after my warranty expires.


----------



## Muziqboy

mourip said:


> After reading the glowing reports regarding LPS replacements in the DIYers thread I decided to try an easy one. I already had an HDPlex LPS with multiple outputs which I have been using very successfully to power my audio server so I used an open 12V output to power my Antelope LiveClock. Luckily it has an external DC supply with a standard case connector.
> 
> This one is definitely worth it. I immediately experienced an increase in clarity and a more natural tonality.
> 
> Those of you with an RN3 are lucky because your 2U case is a lot thicker. My D16 is 1U and will not be easy to squeeze in an LPS internally. I might consider an external one after my warranty expires.


 
  
 I believe the Antelope Live Clock is rated for voltage input of 12v - 18v and  I really do think that those clocks benefit from a very good LPS, specially a very low noise one.
  
 Glad you tried it out.


----------



## Mist3rLao

Muziqboy That means that I should be able to use my Aurlic LPS rated at 16V/1A with the LiveClock, right?


----------



## Muziqboy

Try it and report back here. If it has the standard 5.5mm x 2.1mm dc barrel plug then it's plug and play. Although I think your supply might not have enough current if it is only rated at 1A.

You can verify the amp rating by looking at the spec on the included wall wart of the Live Clock.


----------



## Mist3rLao

Will do. I was just concerned that I might damage the LiveClock with an incompatible power supply.


----------



## mourip

mist3rlao said:


> Will do. I was just concerned that I might damage the LiveClock with an incompatible power supply.


 
  
 As long as the voltage is between 12 and 18 volts and the current output is at least that of the original power supply you should be good. The only other thing to consider is the connector size which you can just try by plugging it in without the LPS connected to the wall. If you have a volt meter I suppose you could verify that the connector barrel is ground and the center pin is hot also.
  
 5v and 12v connectors tend to be the 2.1mm that you need. 18/19v connectors tend to be the larger 2.5mm and will not fit.


----------



## joelha

I've been using the D16 happily for sometime time now, but for reasons I can't determine, while I can play Redbook files just fine, 24/176 and 24/192 files won't output sound.

I've got green checkmarks in the Dante Controller for the high res files.

I'm using Rednet Controller 2.0.

But the latency reading shoots way up when I play those those files and the latency bars are red, and not green as they should be.

Focusrite support couldn't help me much.

They think it's a network issue but my bandwidth needs are so minimal, it's hard to believe that's the issue.

Then again, Mayne it is.

I'll appreciate any help anyone can offer.

Thanks in advance.

Joel


----------



## johnjen

Have you tried running ONLY your player and the dante network (no internet)?
 You could turn off your modem, then reboot.
 Or if your modem and router are a combined unit, try disconnecting the internet feed cable.
  
 See if that helps, or not.
  
 JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> I've been using the D16 happily for sometime time now, but for reasons I can't determine, while I can play Redbook files just fine, 24/176 and 24/192 files won't output sound.
> 
> I've got green checkmarks in the Dante Controller for the high res files.
> 
> ...


 
 My suggestion is to connect D16 directly to PC, and run those files locally from your PC. No network all.
 This should help determine if you have a network issue or not.


----------



## joelha

johnjen said:


> Have you tried running ONLY your player and the dante network (no internet)?
> You could turn off your modem, then reboot.
> Or if your modem and router are a combined unit, try disconnecting the internet feed cable.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks a lot, johnjen,
  
 I'll give that a shot and see what I find out.
  
 Joel


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> My suggestion is to connect D16 directly to PC, and run those files locally from your PC. No network all.
> This should help determine if you have a network issue or not.


 
 I am running a direct line from my PC to my D16, Golfnutz.
  
 But I'm also running an internet line as well.
  
 I'll play around with leaving only a direct connection, as johnjen also suggested, and see what result.
  
 Thanks very much for the suggestion.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> I am running a direct line from my PC to my D16, Golfnutz.
> 
> But I'm also running an internet line as well.
> 
> ...


 

 OK, thought maybe you had a NAS connected (reason you mentioned network - which is why I suggested playing some sample music locally from your PC).
  
 Your internet line should have absolutely nothing to do with this (unless it's got something to do with the music you're playing).
  
 If you do as JJ suggested, and it fixes your problems, than you do have some bigger issues at hand. My guess would be your PC (have you try running latencymon).


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> OK, thought maybe you had a NAS connected (reason you mentioned network - which is why I suggested playing some sample music locally from your PC).
> 
> Your internet line should have absolutely nothing to do with this (unless it's got something to do with the music you're playing).
> 
> If you do as JJ suggested, and it fixes your problems, than you do have some bigger issues at hand. My guess would be your PC (have you try running latencymon).


 
 Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Golfnutz.
  
 I'll try Latencymon and see what it tells me.
  
 Joel


----------



## gefski

Though I know it's "illegal" to post any Atterotech info here, I just want to let you Redneck guys know that your linear ps upgrades are great, and I've snagged an "alleged new" Acopian linear ps from an electronics salvage place and it's inbound.

First step is to test it at atomicbob's (30 day DOA right of return), then see if I can beg johnjen to help me carve a holes in it for an IEC input and on/off switch (if there's room in it), making it "desktop friendly". 

Then will it send the cleanest 24VDC ever seen by an unDAES-O?

Thanks to muziqboy, JJ, atomicbob, and soundsgoodtome for keeping me unsatisfied!


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> Though I know it's "illegal" to post any Atterotech info here, I just want to let you Redneck guys know that your linear ps upgrades are great, and I've snagged an "alleged new" Acopian linear ps from an electronics salvage place and it's inbound.
> 
> First step is to test it at atomicbob's (30 day DOA right of return), then see if I can beg johnjen to help me carve a holes in it for an IEC input and on/off switch (if there's room in it), making it "desktop friendly".
> 
> ...


 
 No problem in helping put odd shaped holes here and there…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But adding an IEC panel mt connector may (or may not) be doable based upon the internal space available.
 Adding an on/off switch is usually much less problematic all the way around, mostly because its small and can be located where space allows.
  
 We'd also have to rewire that terminal strip if we added an IEC connector so the 120Vac isn't 'live' at the input terminals, just because.
  
 Fortunately it looks like it should come apart fairly easily, especially that front panel in the pic above.
  
 As for keeping you "unsatisfied" well what are phellow audiophools phor iph not to keep the **** stirred up?   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 JJ


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> OK, thought maybe you had a NAS connected (reason you mentioned network - which is why I suggested playing some sample music locally from your PC).
> 
> Your internet line should have absolutely nothing to do with this (unless it's got something to do with the music you're playing).
> 
> If you do as JJ suggested, and it fixes your problems, than you do have some bigger issues at hand. My guess would be your PC (have you try running latencymon).



 


Well, I tried Latencymon and my results are as follows.

Thanks very much in advance to anyone who can help me to figure out how to fix my issue.

Direct connecting my D16 to my server did nothing to help, unfortunately.

Joel


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts. 
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for 0:02:00 (h:mm:ss) on all processors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SYSTEM INFORMATION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computer name: DESKTOP-UIAOCCR
OS version: Windows 10 , 10.0, build: 14393 (x64)
Hardware: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., Z170N-WIFI-CF
CPU: GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz
Logical processors: 8
Processor groups: 1
RAM: 32652 MB total


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU SPEED
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported CPU speed: 3408 MHz
Measured CPU speed: 1 MHz (approx.)

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature. 



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEASURED INTERRUPT TO USER PROCESS LATENCIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interrupt to process latency reflects the measured interval that a usermode process needed to respond to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution. This includes the scheduling and execution of a DPC routine, the signaling of an event and the waking up of a usermode thread from an idle wait state in response to that event.

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 420.356934
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 4.229279

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 396.920307
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 1.677354


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED ISRs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs): 40.616784
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%): 0.001261
Driver with highest ISR total time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in ISRs (%) 0.001261

ISR count (execution time <250 µs): 14445
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED DPCs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs): 221.303991
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%): 0.684176
Driver with highest DPC total execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in DPCs (%) 0.835851

DPC count (execution time <250 µs): 1059843
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count: svchost.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults 2493
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process: 1745
Highest hard pagefault resolution time (µs): 48287.252934
Total time spent in hard pagefaults (%): 1.226844
Number of processes hit: 19


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 PER CPU DATA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 0 Interrupt cycle time (s): 12.362942
CPU 0 ISR highest execution time (µs): 37.860915
CPU 0 ISR total execution time (s): 0.005257
CPU 0 ISR count: 8104
CPU 0 DPC highest execution time (µs): 221.303991
CPU 0 DPC total execution time (s): 7.042403
CPU 0 DPC count: 773275
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s): 5.863521
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs): 40.616784
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s): 0.006825
CPU 1 ISR count: 6323
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs): 172.018192
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s): 0.146209
CPU 1 DPC count: 14636
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s): 2.07820
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs): 2.500587
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s): 0.000021
CPU 2 ISR count: 18
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs): 164.159624
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s): 0.031767
CPU 2 DPC count: 4891
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s): 2.871438
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR count: 0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs): 61.356221
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s): 0.003616
CPU 3 DPC count: 824
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.371355
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR count: 0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs): 92.982981
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s): 0.020498
CPU 4 DPC count: 5230
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s): 7.547129
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR count: 0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs): 142.173709
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s): 0.759203
CPU 5 DPC count: 256542
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s): 1.720246
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR count: 0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs): 88.374413
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s): 0.013835
CPU 6 DPC count: 3116
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s): 1.944448
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR count: 0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs): 75.463028
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s): 0.006637
CPU 7 DPC count: 1329
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## Golfnutz

Did you leave it running while you had issues with upsampling the files you're having problems with?
  
 2 minutes isn't that long, try running it longer to see if it catches anything (10 minutes).
*"WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature."*
  
 Did you try running those problem files from your local hard drive to see if you have the same issues?


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> Did you leave it running while you had issues with upsampling the files you're having problems with?
> 
> 2 minutes isn't that long, try running it longer to see if it catches anything (10 minutes).
> *"WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature."*
> ...


 
 Thanks for the quick reply, Golfnutz. I will run the report for 10 minutes as you suggest.
  
 Also, I'm not upsampling. I'm only running native 24/192 files.
  
 Are you suggesting I run my music files from my OS drive or something else?
  
 Thanks again.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> Thanks for the quick reply, Golfnutz. I will run the report for 10 minutes as you suggest.
> 
> Also, I'm not upsampling. I'm only running native 24/192 files.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, try the same native 24/192 files directly from your OS drive.


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> Yes, try the same native 24/192 files directly from your OS drive.



 


Thanks again, Golfnutz. I'll do that.

In the meantime, as long as I've run the report again for over 12 minutes, here's the result.

Joel

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts. 
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for 0:14:29 (h:mm:ss) on all processors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SYSTEM INFORMATION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computer name: DESKTOP-UIAOCCR
OS version: Windows 10 , 10.0, build: 14393 (x64)
Hardware: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., Z170N-WIFI-CF
CPU: GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz
Logical processors: 8
Processor groups: 1
RAM: 32652 MB total


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU SPEED
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported CPU speed: 3408 MHz
Measured CPU speed: 1 MHz (approx.)

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature. 



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEASURED INTERRUPT TO USER PROCESS LATENCIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interrupt to process latency reflects the measured interval that a usermode process needed to respond to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution. This includes the scheduling and execution of a DPC routine, the signaling of an event and the waking up of a usermode thread from an idle wait state in response to that event.

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 614.461202
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 5.735084

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 588.320309
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 2.374474


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED ISRs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs): 71.968310
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%): 0.000552
Driver with highest ISR total time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in ISRs (%) 0.000552

ISR count (execution time <250 µs): 35997
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED DPCs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs): 300.149061
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%): 0.795901
Driver with highest DPC total execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in DPCs (%) 0.958087

DPC count (execution time <250 µs): 7576762
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs): 11
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count: runtimebroker.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults 3364
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process: 1112
Highest hard pagefault resolution time (µs): 396283.314554
Total time spent in hard pagefaults (%): 0.172595
Number of processes hit: 24


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 PER CPU DATA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 0 Interrupt cycle time (s): 101.725772
CPU 0 ISR highest execution time (µs): 36.571009
CPU 0 ISR total execution time (s): 0.016561
CPU 0 ISR count: 20080
CPU 0 DPC highest execution time (µs): 300.149061
CPU 0 DPC total execution time (s): 59.650406
CPU 0 DPC count: 5596062
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s): 43.998456
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs): 71.968310
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s): 0.021568
CPU 1 ISR count: 15804
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs): 230.710681
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s): 0.603272
CPU 1 DPC count: 55080
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s): 43.992818
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs): 20.0
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s): 0.000240
CPU 2 ISR count: 113
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs): 295.430751
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s): 6.042632
CPU 2 DPC count: 1871146
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s): 43.097672
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR count: 0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs): 136.916080
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s): 0.040705
CPU 3 DPC count: 8641
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s): 16.663184
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR count: 0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs): 116.302230
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s): 0.085621
CPU 4 DPC count: 13844
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s): 18.690305
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR count: 0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs): 137.063967
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s): 0.046435
CPU 5 DPC count: 8708
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s): 13.491732
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR count: 0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs): 141.309272
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s): 0.084098
CPU 6 DPC count: 13969
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s): 16.250680
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR count: 0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs): 120.257042
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s): 0.056645
CPU 7 DPC count: 9323
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## joelha

And here's the report after running the 24/192 file off of the OS drive.

Realize that on the main page, the hard pagefault resolution time is showing at 24206+.

So I don't know why Latencymon is showing my system is suitable for handling realtime audio.

In any event, here's the report.

Joel


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts. 
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for 0:10:43 (h:mm:ss) on all processors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SYSTEM INFORMATION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computer name: DESKTOP-UIAOCCR
OS version: Windows 10 , 10.0, build: 14393 (x64)
Hardware: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., Z170N-WIFI-CF
CPU: GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz
Logical processors: 8
Processor groups: 1
RAM: 32652 MB total


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU SPEED
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported CPU speed: 3408 MHz
Measured CPU speed: 1 MHz (approx.)

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature. 



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEASURED INTERRUPT TO USER PROCESS LATENCIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interrupt to process latency reflects the measured interval that a usermode process needed to respond to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution. This includes the scheduling and execution of a DPC routine, the signaling of an event and the waking up of a usermode thread from an idle wait state in response to that event.

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 245.784259
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 5.421172

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 224.751376
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 2.179221


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED ISRs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs): 15.799883
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%): 0.000002
Driver with highest ISR total time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in ISRs (%) 0.000002

ISR count (execution time <250 µs): 250
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED DPCs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs): 235.6250
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%): 0.713094
Driver with highest DPC total execution time: ndis.sys - Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS), Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in DPCs (%) 0.866519

DPC count (execution time <250 µs): 5568626
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count: teamviewer.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults 518
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process: 110
Highest hard pagefault resolution time (µs): 24206.093897
Total time spent in hard pagefaults (%): 0.002780
Number of processes hit: 18


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 PER CPU DATA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 0 Interrupt cycle time (s): 70.606643
CPU 0 ISR highest execution time (µs): 15.799883
CPU 0 ISR total execution time (s): 0.000112
CPU 0 ISR count: 220
CPU 0 DPC highest execution time (µs): 235.6250
CPU 0 DPC total execution time (s): 39.772699
CPU 0 DPC count: 4133670
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s): 31.877465
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.8750
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s): 0.000013
CPU 1 ISR count: 30
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs): 138.909038
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s): 0.140835
CPU 1 DPC count: 18912
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s): 12.694932
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 2 ISR count: 0
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs): 226.185446
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s): 0.130641
CPU 2 DPC count: 13609
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s): 17.421292
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR count: 0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs): 134.299883
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s): 0.027387
CPU 3 DPC count: 5026
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s): 34.391154
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR count: 0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs): 134.180751
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s): 4.365337
CPU 4 DPC count: 1374051
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s): 32.398767
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR count: 0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs): 133.744131
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s): 0.032850
CPU 5 DPC count: 6751
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s): 10.229161
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR count: 0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs): 129.118545
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s): 0.067664
CPU 6 DPC count: 10272
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s): 10.942856
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR count: 0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs): 120.244718
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s): 0.037410
CPU 7 DPC count: 6335
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## Golfnutz

Have you tried removing your Rednet device and playing those files directly from your PC to your DAC to see if you get any dropouts?
  
 Basically, you need to provide the simplest baseline possible for yourself. Are you sure the playback software you're using isn't the issue?


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> Have you tried removing your Rednet device and playing those files directly from your PC to your DAC to see if you get any dropouts?
> 
> Basically, you need to provide the simplest baseline possible for yourself. Are you sure the playback software you're using isn't the issue?


 
 It's tough to play direct to the DAC, Golfnutz, as my DAC has no usb input (it's a Berkeley DAC).
  
 I could try a device other than the D16 however and see what happens. That's a good idea.
  
 I know it's not the player as I've tried two different players with the same result.
  
 Thanks for hanging in there with me on this.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> It's tough to play direct to the DAC, Golfnutz, as my DAC has no usb input (it's a Berkeley DAC).
> 
> I could try a device other than the D16 however and see what happens. That's a good idea.
> 
> ...


 
 Yeah, if it doesn't work without the Rednet, than it's not going to work with the Rednet either (Rednet's not going to fix it).
 I'm sure you've changed latency settings/buffer size as well?


----------



## joelha

As it happens, I have a Singxer F-1 hooked up on another input of the same DAC already so I could try the 24/192 file quickly and easily.
  
 And the F-1 worked with the 24/192 file.
  
 So that knocks out the network and server as culprits and likely leaves me with some sort of issue with Dante and/or Rednet.
  
 Very frustrating but at least, with your help, Golfnutz, I've narrowed the issue down considerably.
  
 Yes, I've played around with the latency settings.
  
 I'll gratefully suggest any suggestions from here. I'm not sure how much more the folks at Focusrite are going to be able to help me.
  
 Thanks very much again.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> As it happens, I have a Singxer F-1 hooked up on another input of the same DAC already so I could try the 24/192 file quickly and easily.
> 
> And the F-1 worked with the 24/192 file.
> 
> ...


 

 It might be easier to send them the files(s) you're using and see if they have the same issue. They would probably need to use the same software too, so that could be a problem.


----------



## joelha

Thanks Golfnutz, as I've used two different players, it wouldn't seem to be the player that's the issue.

But I will take another swing at Focusrite and see if they can help me figure out what's going wrong.

If they do, I'll certainly want to post about it here.

Thanks again (again).

Joel


----------



## astrostar59

You using the supplied Ethernet cable from Rednet?
  
 Are you sending data as is, not up sampling in any software?
  
 Are you sure you set up Dante and the router connections correctly? I got Sweetwater to check mine using remote desktop.
  
 Is your PC running 1000 base T?
  
 If ok on the above, I would try using Rednet V1 software, not V2.
  
 Good luck.


----------



## joelha

Thanks for the suggestions, astrostar59.
  
 I'm probably not using the cable which came with the Rednet and probably couldn't find it as this point.
  
 I'm currently using brand new CAT6 cable so I would think the cable would not be an issue.
  
 As for your suggestion regarding Sweetwater, I'll consider giving them a call to help out.
  
 I have two ethernet ports in my server, both of which are gigabit capable.
  
 And I've tried Rednet version 1 already. No luck there.
  
 Focusrite is insisting that since DVS is showing a 100mbps (vs. 1gig) connection, that I can't play higher res. files.
  
 I find it hard to believe that my 100mbps connection (I don't know why I can't get 1 gig and I'm checking on that).is the reason I can play up to 24/96 files, but no higher.
  
 The search continues.
  
 Thanks again.
  
 Joel


----------



## mhamel

joelha said:


> Thanks for the suggestions, astrostar59.
> 
> I'm probably not using the cable which came with the Rednet and probably couldn't find it as this point.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 There should be no reason whatsoever that 24/192 files can't be played over 100mb. The amount of bandwidth used for a stereo pair of channels is a fraction of the bandwidth of even 100BaseT... whoever from FR is telling you that, they are either artificially limiting it somewhere or they are just plain wrong.
  
    -Mike


----------



## joelha

I absolutely could not agree with you more, Mike.
  
 And I've tried on two different phone calls to make this point to them.
  
 I said it's as if someone is trying to tell me my one gallon jug isn't big enough for the quart I want to pour into it.
  
 But they're insistent.
  
 Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> I absolutely could not agree with you more, Mike.
> 
> And I've tried on two different phone calls to make this point to them.
> 
> ...


 

 What color is the LAN connection on your PC flashing (connected to D16)? Manual states 1-GB = orange, 100-MB = green.
  
 I agree that 100MB should be enough, but until you use 1GB and prove it doesn't work, you're probably not going to get any farther than you are now.


----------



## joelha

I'm not in front of my server right now, Golfnutz.
  
 But your point is very well taken. While I don't get the point about 100mb vs. 1gb service, I'm going to work to resolve the issue regardless.
  
 You're right. At least it's a path forward.
  
 Thanks.
  
 Joel


----------



## jazzfan

@joelha - Have you used RedNet Control to manually set the Sample Rate to match the source file? If the Sample Rate is not set incorrectly, my RN3 will not produce any output. I've been unsuccessful in getting automatic Sample Rate switching to work consistency across all sample rates.


----------



## joelha

Thanks for the suggestion, jazzfan.
  
 Yes, I've definitely made sure the sample rates match up.
  
 At 24/176 and 24/192, no sound.
  
 Anything lower, no problem.
  
 Joel


----------



## Jozurr

For RN3 to work with the Yggy, what cable are you guys using in case you have to use AES/EBU? Also, does this setup have the problem like the undaes-o where you have to manually change the sampling rate for any change of sampling rate in the music you play?


----------



## joelha

So at long long last, I resolved the issue.

I went into my basement to see that my switch was sending some cables 100MB and some 1GB service.

Why, I don't know. But that's for another day.

As I had multiple ethernet outlets near my server (and not knowing which would output what speed), I switched outputs and found that the reason my server would only output 100MB is because that's all it was receiving.

Guess what?

When it received 1GB service, DVS and Rednet Controller output sound for 24/192 files.

Here's a lesson I never finish learning in this hobby: Sometimes the answer to my audio problems lies within the solution which makes no sense.

There you have it.

You guys have been great about trying to help me out.

Thanks to all of you.

Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> So at long long last, I resolved the issue.
> 
> I went into my basement to see that my switch was sending some cables 100MB and some 1GB service.
> 
> ...


 

 Glad to see you got it sorta out Joel.
  
 However, this does prove that Focusrite was correct in saying you need 1GB speed to process those files correctly (native 24/192).
  
 Also, if you were running your music files from your OS system, and connecting directly to your D16, why would it still be using 100MB speed (there should have been no connection to your router/modem during this test)?


----------



## joelha

Thanks a lot, Golfnutz.

I honestly don't know and, as I'm sure you can understand, I don't intend to take the time to find out.

If anyone else finds out of course I'll be interested in learning what they discover.

Joel


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> Thanks a lot, Golfnutz.
> 
> I honestly don't know and, as I'm sure you can understand, I don't intend to take the time to find out.
> 
> ...


 

 Pretty obvious why, I'm just surprised you didn't figure it out earlier....


----------



## mourip

jozurr said:


> For RN3 to work with the Yggy, what cable are you guys using in case you have to use AES/EBU? Also, does this setup have the problem like the undaes-o where you have to manually change the sampling rate for any change of sampling rate in the music you play?


 
  
 I have a D16 and use an Apogee Wyde Eye AES/EBU cable  as I understand that one of the owners of Schitt prefers it. I have not tried fiber.
  
 In theory with later versions of Rednet Control and a firmware update you can do rate following but I have found it to be inconsistent. I just set JRMC to upsample everything to 192K which is the Yggy's max. It sounds wonderful.


----------



## jazzfan

jozurr said:


> For RN3 to work with the Yggy, what cable are you guys using in case you have to use AES/EBU? Also, does this setup have the problem like the undaes-o where you have to manually change the sampling rate for any change of sampling rate in the music you play?


 
  
 I put a metal AMP DB25 connector on a  _Mogami Gold AES 03 Reference_ cable.
  

  
 My experience with auto rate switching is similar to @mourip. I was unable to get it to work consistently, so I manually change the Sample Rate in RedNet Control.


----------



## Jozurr

mourip said:


> I have a D16 and use an Apogee Wyde Eye AES/EBU cable  as I understand that one of the owners of Schitt prefers it. I have not tried fiber.
> 
> In theory with later versions of Rednet Control and a firmware update you can do rate following but I have found it to be inconsistent. I just set JRMC to upsample everything to 192K which is the Yggy's max. It sounds wonderful.


 
  
  


jazzfan said:


> I put a metal AMP DB25 connector on a  _Mogami Gold AES 03 Reference_ cable.
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with auto rate switching is similar to @mourip. I was unable to get it to work consistently, so I manually change the Sample Rate in RedNet Control.


 
  
 I'm not sure if upsampling everything is a good idea and I don't want to keep changing the sampling rate manually as I have a lot of different kind of audio quality to play. Sounds like it is not worth the hassle to improve the little bit of sound quality over the Singxer SU-1 > Yggy.


----------



## astrostar59

jozurr said:


> I'm not sure if upsampling everything is a good idea and I don't want to keep changing the sampling rate manually as I have a lot of different kind of audio quality to play. Sounds like it is not worth the hassle to improve the little bit of sound quality over the Singxer SU-1 > Yggy.


 
 I can relate to your issue. I used to have various USB 'fixers' and has to set the clock on those. BUT the Rednet sounds much better in every way than all my previous boxes and fixers.
  
 The sound loosed that last digital feel to it, a subtle but also quite obvious character to the sound, especially apparent in female vocals (the higher pitched tine the worse they were) and violins. Also piano and electric guitar sound more real, as though from a master tape and not a digital copy. 
  
 You get my drift, and it takes me 20 seconds to whizz into Dante (2 settings) and Rednet Control (1 setting) to get the nitrate to be as the file. Also recently I have been listening to a lot of MQA off Tidal and they vary from 96K or 192K, sometimes 44.1. But again, they sound great, so I have no real problem with it. Maybe the time it took me to take an LP out of the sleeve and pick up the tone arm, but probably much quicker. I guess we are spoilt, having got used to instant music tracks at one click. 
  
 I would say go for the Rednet, for what it costs I think it is a major upgrade for little cost v the price of a top DAC or HP and amp combo. In fact my Rednet 3 cost me less than my Offramp 5 inc LPS, a lot less.


----------



## johnjen

mourip said:


> snip





> I just set JRMC to upsample everything to 192K which is the Yggy's max. It sounds wonderful.


 
 Have you tried the other extreme?
  
 Down sampling everything to, and/or leaving all of the redbook files at 44.1?
  
 It has been noticed and commented that the Jggy does its best when it internally, maximally, up samples the incoming digital audio data.
  
 Worth trying to see if you notice any changes/improvements.
  
 JJ


----------



## jazzfan

jozurr said:


> I'm not sure if upsampling everything is a good idea and I don't want to keep changing the sampling rate manually as I have a lot of different kind of audio quality to play. Sounds like it is not worth the hassle to improve the little bit of sound quality over the Singxer SU-1 > Yggy.


 
  
 Although some part of me would like to believe that bit perfect is better, I'm slowly coming to the realization that in a digital world, bit perfect playback is no longer an absolute requirement for realistic sound reproduction. In fact, bit perfect playback is likely only a starting point. Given recent improvements in digital processing technology, my long held belief that chasing higher sample rates and wider bit depths were the only paths to achieving the "absolute" sound is slowly being dispelled.
  
 Very believable sound can be produced at sample rates as low as 48k as is done with the Smyth Realiser, and room correction software (Acourate) and hardware (DEQX) completely deconstruct and reconstruct bit perfect audio signals to produce quite remarkable improvements in tonality, imaging, and detail. Ultimately, what matters is the resulting sonic output from the stream of electrons that drive your transducers and whether or not those results appeal to your sensibilities. I'm much closer today to discarding old paradigms and fully embracing what is possible in this increasingly digital world. I should probably try some form of re-sampling.


----------



## mourip

_"Have you tried the other extreme?
  
 Down sampling everything to, and/or leaving all of the redbook files at 44.1?
  
 It has been noticed and commented that the Jggy does its best when it internally, maximally, up samples the incoming digital audio data."_
  
  
 I have not tried that but I do download a lot of 24/192k files from High Definition Tape Tracks so it is easier to just leave everything at 192K.
  
 I used to avoid upsampling until I got the D16 AOIP system using the Mutec to re-sample.


----------



## johnjen

mourip said:


> _"Have you tried the other extreme?
> 
> Down sampling everything to, and/or leaving all of the redbook files at 44.1?
> 
> ...


 
 One thing to note is, even if the renderer engine does an excellent job, then down sampling can usually do a better job then up sampling.
 Also not crossing the series of 44.1/88.2/176.4 vs the 48/96/192 series of sample rates, usually also makes for a 'better' sample rate conversion.
  
 And it was Mike M. that noted that feeding CD's at their native rate of 44.1 optimized the SQ of the Jggy.
 Which implies that the best up sampling seems to take place inside the Jggy.
  
 And once my rig stabilizes I will experiment with both up sampling and down sampling to feed my Jggy using the same source files ranging from 44.1 to 192 files.
  
 Just some additional thoughts to consider.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> One thing to note is, even if the renderer engine does an excellent job, then down sampling can usually do a better job then up sampling.
> Also not crossing the series of 44.1/88.2/1765.4 vs the 48/96/192 series of sample rates, usually also makes for a 'better' sample rate conversion.
> 
> And it was Mike M. that noted that feeding CD's at their native rate of 44.1 optimized the SQ of the Jggy.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the added input. Looking forward to your experiments.
  
 When I was trying rate following I would set 44.1 to only upsample to 176k but did not hear a (significant) difference or when just leaving it at 44.1K. They all sounded excellent.


----------



## mourip

For those of you using a Mutec +3 USB to re-clock after your Rednet device I have a free, easy, non-warranty-breaking tweak.
  
 The Mutek USB comes with the USB input on a daughter-board. It is held in place with two screws on one side and attached to the mainboard by a bunch of pins that slip into an on-board connector.
  
 Just unscrew the screws and pull it out. This of course assumes that the input to the Mutec is AES or SPDIF(fiber).
  
 Not only does the Mutec still work perfectly but it will consume less power and probably introduce a bit less noise into the system. Oh yeah, I did notice a bit darker background with consequently more detail.
  
 My original intention was to remove the SMPS and hook up my LPS but I decided to try this first.


----------



## thisisvv

can some one point me how to get this working.
  
 PC -> switch -> RN3-> Mutetc _yggy
  
 PC (jriver ) can see the dante Virtaul card....it plays....whats next
  
 can someone upload a pic how they have connected Mutec 3 with Rn3???  i dont think we can use coaxial from RN3 to mutec as i don't see any input coaxial on my mutec....what cable connected the RN3 to Mutec...


----------



## gefski

thisisvv said:


> can some one point me how to get this working.
> 
> PC -> switch -> RN3-> Mutetc _yggy
> 
> ...




Don't you just use a breakout cable (jazz fan shows one a few posts up) from RN3 to Mutec AES, and a standard AES cable from Mutec to YGGY?


----------



## thisisvv

I can connect from mutec to yggy....from rednet 3 to mutec i guess i need another cable...anyone selling any cable???


----------



## gefski

thisisvv said:


> I can connect from mutec to yggy....from rednet 3 to mutec i guess i need another cable...anyone selling any cable???




Just sold mine. Johnjen makes and cooks 'em, maybe he will chime in.


----------



## thisisvv

gefski said:


> Just sold mine. Johnjen makes and cooks 'em, maybe he will chime in.




Hopefully , in meanwhile can someone give me pointers about how to user jriver and Dante to RN3


----------



## johnjen

The DB-25 to XLR cable I now use is kinda expensive (all silver Oyaide wire and a rhodium Focus 1 xlr connector).
 But if pro audio cable and connectors are used they can be any where from ≈ $25 to much more, depending upon the parts cost.
  
 It took me a while to find the DB-25 connector I use, which is about as audio grade as a computer connector can get.
  
 As for Jriver to the RN3, once you have the Dante Virtual Soundcard Driver loaded then just select it under the 'Tools' > 'Options' drop down menu then under the 'Audio' section select the 'Dante Virtual Soundcard' from the list and Jriver is set to go.
  
 JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> The DB-25 to XLR cable I now use is kinda expensive (all silver Oyaide wire and a rhodium Focus 1 xlr connector).
> But if pro audio cable and connectors are used they can be any where from ≈ $25 to much more, depending upon the parts cost.
> 
> It took me a while to find the DB-25 connector I use, which is about as audio grade as a computer connector can get.
> ...


 
  
 I would add that unless you plan to enable rate following which many of us to have found to work inconsistently the you also need to go into the Audio\Options and configure "DSP & output format". You will need to set all file rates to just one set rate. I chose 192K.
  
 The other option is to manually set Rednet to the same rate as the file each time you want to play but this is a pain.


----------



## thisisvv

johnjen said:


> The DB-25 to XLR cable I now use is kinda expensive (all silver Oyaide wire and a rhodium Focus 1 xlr connector).
> But if pro audio cable and connectors are used they can be any where from ≈ $25 to much more, depending upon the parts cost.
> 
> It took me a while to find the DB-25 connector I use, which is about as audio grade as a computer connector can get.
> ...




I guess I need to search for the cable before I can use this thing ... any idea where I can find parts or how to make them ..


----------



## thisisvv

mourip said:


> I would add that unless you plan to enable rate following which many of us to have found to work inconsistently the you also need to go into the Audio\Options and configure "DSP & output format". You will need to set all file rates to just one set rate. I chose 192K.
> 
> The other option is to manually set Rednet to the same rate as the file each time you want to play but this is a pain.




Thanks for pointing this .. will do once I get it working ...I will do the same make every file to 192k and don't worry about the bit rate


----------



## johnjen

thisisvv said:


> I guess I need to search for the cable before I can use this thing ... any idea where I can find parts or how to make them ..


 
 These cables need 3 parts.
  
 1) the 110Ω balanced cable itself
 2) the male 3pin XLR connector
 3) the DB-25 connector
  
 These parts are available from a variety of sources, among them are,
 commercial electronic sources,
 audio DIY parts sources,
 ebay, if you know specifically what you are looking for.
  
 Or you can order up a custom cable made to your requirements from several cable makers.
 I mention this because unless you are equipped with the necessary tools and have enough hands on experience in knowing how to solder etc. this project may be more than you are willing to tackle.
  
 And not to make it sound more complicated than it really is…
 Making this cable calls upon knowing what you are doing, ie which pins to connect to which other pins etc., using which wires etc.
  
 And the DB-25 connector has small pins, which are in close proximity to each other, so a degree of delicate soldering and wire prep and construction is needed.
  
 1) the cable should be 110Ω rated balanced cable and depending upon how tweako the wire (solid silver, cladded silver, copper, etc.) and can range from $1-2 to hundreds.
 2) the XLR connector, again depending upon your desired level of tweako, the prices range from ≈$3 to $1-200
 3) these DB-25 connectors can be found for ≈ $1 to ≈ $50 each. The ones I use are ≈ $15.
  
 Sorry I can't tell you, go here, get this, and do that, due to the number of choices available and other influences (skill level, $'s, length etc.).
  
 And then there are the tweaks that can be applied after construction, again depending upon several factors.
  
 And yeah all this just to make a 'special' cable does seem way overboard, as in way too much 'stuff' involved, but heh, it's our hobby and we can get as carried away with the small details as we want to,
 just because we can… 
  
 Or not…!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 JJ


----------



## thisisvv

I just got lucky and was able to get one for 40$...no more worrying about soldering etc.


----------



## johnjen

Excellent!
  
 Now onto more important things, like listening to music.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 JJ


----------



## yates7592

Is the D16 giving the best audio quality to go from PC > Ethernet > AES xlr > DAC? I don't know, but it seems a bit overkill with 16 channels. Is there a better solution for just 2 channels and maybe improved sound quality?


----------



## astrostar59

The Rednet 3 is the same SQ and costs less. It is a pro DAW unit, and yes you don't need all those channels, but likewise I can't see a consumer unit come out anytime soon using Dante as it is from the pro audio sector. Getting rid of USB is the thing, and the latency of the Rednet is superb.
  
 I spent way more on stupid USB decrapifiers and convertors, TotalDAC USB cable, LPS for the OffRamp and later M2Tech full stack. The Rednet wipes the floor with all those devices, trust me.


----------



## Golfnutz

yates7592 said:


> Is the D16 giving the best audio quality to go from PC > Ethernet > AES xlr > DAC? I don't know, but it seems a bit overkill with 16 channels. Is there a better solution for just 2 channels and maybe improved sound quality?


 

 Haven't checked for awhile, but search this thread for Atterotech Un-DAES - it's 2 channel (there's also a review someone posted).


----------



## yates7592

Understood Julian, but my AES cable is balanced XLR and I don't see that output on Rednet 3, but rather the 25 pin Dsub connector. Presumably then I need yet another adapter to use my XLR cable and I'd much rather go straight in. I'm just looking for a high quality interface with as few boxes/adapters/cables as possible to go from PC to balanced AES with XLR connector into DAC.


----------



## astrostar59

yates7592 said:


> Understood Julian, but my AES cable is balanced XLR and I don't see that output on Rednet 3, but rather the 25 pin Dsub connector. Presumably then I need yet another adapter to use my XLR cable and I'd much rather go straight in. I'm just looking for a high quality interface with as few boxes/adapters/cables as possible to go from PC to balanced AES with XLR connector into DAC.


 

 I would ask JohnJen on the DIY cookbook thread here of Rednet mods. He made such a cable himself.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/781268/the-diyrs-cookbook/900#post_13321678
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/2925#post_13339400


----------



## thisisvv

Anyone can tell where I can change the bit rate on rednet3 manually as I don't have the control software for rednet got the rednet as used


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Anyone can tell where I can change the bit rate on rednet3 manually as I don't have the control software for rednet got the rednet as used


 

 Dante Controller -> Device Config
  
 There are screen shots of it in this thread, just try searching...
  
 Not sure what software you're using to play music, but you might have to set it there as well.


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> Dante Controller -> Device Config
> 
> There are screen shots of it in this thread, just try searching...
> 
> Not sure what software you're using to play music, but you might have to set it there as well.




Thanks will check but doing so shouldn't the front of rednet also change so if I select 44.1 and then later select 192 shouldn't the Lee should change in front of rednet 3


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Thanks will check but doing so shouldn't the front of rednet also change so if I select 44.1 and then later select 192 shouldn't the Lee should change in front of rednet 3


 
 Yes, it should change (x2 or x4 - going by memory as I don't have my D16 right now).
  
 If it doesn't you probably need to do 'reset' from the same screen (or manually reset - off/on button).


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> Yes, it should change (x2 or x4 - going by memory as I don't have my D16 right now).
> 
> If it doesn't you probably need to do 'reset' from the same screen (or manually reset - off/on button).




Will check when I get wore tomorrow .. btw I have rednet 3


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Will check when I get wore tomorrow .. btw I have rednet 3


 

 OK, I guess the Rednet 3 show actual sample rate (not 2x or 4x). Should still be the same with what I mentioned about soft/hard reset.


----------



## Iving

yates7592 said:


> Understood Julian, but my AES cable is balanced XLR and I don't see that output on Rednet 3, but rather the 25 pin Dsub connector. Presumably then I need yet another adapter to use my XLR cable and I'd much rather go straight in. I'm just looking for a high quality interface with as few boxes/adapters/cables as possible to go from PC to balanced AES with XLR connector into DAC.


 
  
 This - but also what astro said about "stupid USB" (= much exasperation with it in my own experience and a fundamental distaste partly arising out of sycophancy at CA) is why I have a D16 and stick with it. The PC does make a difference as per this thread - even the choice of network adapter (my mobo has 2 onboard). Mojo = goose bumps is what I'm after, and I'm not jumping ship any time soon.


----------



## yates7592

iving said:


> This - but also what astro said about "stupid USB" (= much exasperation with it in my own experience and a fundamental distaste partly arising out of sycophancy at CA) is why I have a D16 and stick with it. The PC does make a difference as per this thread - even the choice of network adapter (my mobo has 2 onboard). Mojo = goose bumps is what I'm after, and I'm not jumping ship any time soon.




Thanks. So it sounds like you go:
PC > ethernet cable > D16 > AES cable XLR > DAC
And this works well does it?


----------



## Iving

yates7592 said:


> Thanks. So it sounds like you go:
> PC > ethernet cable > D16 > AES cable XLR > DAC
> And this works well does it?


 
  
 Correct
 My DAC is Dangerous Convert-2 and like @mhamel I use its clock.
 Otherwise yes
 My tweaking is mostly in and about the PC.
 The system is robust and so is the fruit.


----------



## yates7592

Great, it sounds like D16 is the way I need to go. Just snagged a Kondo LS41 silver balanced AES cable and I do not want to compromise it with crappy adapters and too many connections in the path.


----------



## Iving

I am very happy with my D16. Focusrite are very professional and supportive. I understand your thinking and wish you success with your developments.


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> Incidentally, and at the risk of provoking astro, Peter Qvortrup argued in private comms to me that his AN transports would trounce any "streamer".
> Well - I explained that AOIP isn't "streaming", at least not as he meant it.
> It would take a transport-and-a-half is my estimation.


 
 Hey, you spoke to Peter? Yes, he does say that a lot. I get his angle and top respect to him, he has designed good power supplies and worked the SPDIF output to mate perfectly with his DACs. BUT they are not cheap, and IMO the ship has sailed on a CDP. I used to own a CEC 51 belt drive which cost me 3.5K and was supposed to be very good. I was good, but I beat it soon after with my Mac Mini and A+ and tweaks to it. And have since beaten that with the Rednet. And, of course, we have HD and Tidal with MQA as well as local. So spinning discs is gone for me now. I sold most of mine on Music Magpie for peanuts. I still buy the odd CD, ripp it with XLD and sell it, crazy and wasteful, but until Amazon do AIFF downloads, no choice. 
  
 Having files on a local server, is sort of a streamer, or at least a music server with direct connection to a DAC. I think for folk who have real world budgets (not fantasy amounts) the Rednet is a great solution to an age old problem, getting top audio out of the consumer PC or Mac. We can't all afford a 10K optimised music server, and I would say you can get to that level much cheaper by DIY.
  
 I am doing the PS upgrade in a week to my Rednet 3. Cost me 120 USD and according to JJ is yet another leap up in sound. Now that is what I call a bargain!


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Hey, you spoke to Peter? Yes, he does say that a lot. I get his angle and top respect to him, he has designed good power supplies and worked the SPDIF output to mate perfectly with his DACs. BUT they are not cheap, and IMO the ship has sailed on a CDP. I used to own a CEC 51 belt drive which cost me 3.5K and was supposed to be very good. I was good, but I beat it soon after with my Mac Mini and A+ and tweaks to it. And have since beaten that with the Rednet. And, of course, we have HD and Tidal with MQA as well as local. So spinning discs is gone for me now. I sold most of mine on Music Magpie for peanuts. I still buy the odd CD, ripp it with XLD and sell it, crazy and wasteful, but until Amazon do AIFF downloads, no choice.
> 
> Having files on a local server, is sort of a streamer, or at least a music server with direct connection to a DAC. I think for folk who have real world budgets (not fantasy amounts) the Rednet is a great solution to an age old problem, getting top audio out of the consumer PC or Mac. We can't all afford a 10K optimised music server, and I would say you can get to that level much cheaper by DIY.
> 
> I am doing the PS upgrade in a week to my Rednet 3. Cost me 120 USD and according to JJ is yet another leap up in sound. Now that is what I call a bargain!


 

 My pride and joy is a pair of Snell Type A III. I had the woofers refoamed years ago. Last year I got the mids done and carried out other maintenance myself - without replacing the cloth. That is what I chatted about with PQ.
  
 I loathe Apple and all commercial environments. I still value records (in fact I sell online) and my digital playback is for ripped CDs (like records I have thousands).
  
 Good luck with the PS project. I may do my D16 if only I had the time - and I am grateful to the pioneers.


----------



## thisisvv

Help Needed.....

I can see the Rednet3 , i can change the bit rate but seems like there is no green speaker connected to my pc.....all 8 states not connected sign....any idea how to make it green...


as per dante it says :An error has occurred - for example, there is insufficient bandwidth to establish the subscription:

RN3 and PC are directly connected and i can see RN3 has 169 ip address ...

V


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> Help Needed.....
> 
> I can see the Rednet3 , i can change the bit rate but seems like there is no green speaker connected to my pc.....all 8 states not connected sign....any idea how to make it green...
> 
> ...


 
 Try going into Dante Virtual Soundcard and make sure the button says 'Stop', and not 'Start'. If it reads 'Start', you need to press that button.


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> Try going into Dante Virtual Soundcard and make sure the button says 'Stop', and not 'Start'. If it reads 'Start', you need to press that button.


 
 it says STOP....the Jriver is sending music to dante sound card...


----------



## Golfnutz

thisisvv said:


> it says STOP....the Jriver is sending music to dante sound card...


 
 Post some screen shots of Dante controller. Will have to look at it tomorrow morning (unless someone else can help you).


----------



## thisisvv

golfnutz said:


> Post some screen shots of Dante controller. Will have to look at it tomorrow morning (unless someone else can help you).


 
 changed everything to 44.1 and it works....i was trying to go through the Mutec 3+ but the signal was not passing now directly to yggy is going fine.
  
 can anyone point me to where to find how to set mutec 3 to take the AES input and output through AES to yggy...


----------



## johnjen

thisisvv said:


> changed everything to 44.1 and it works....i was trying to go through the Mutec 3+ but the signal was not passing now directly to yggy is going fine.
> 
> can anyone point me to where to find how to set mutec 3 to take the AES input and output through AES to yggy...


 
 How is the 3+ configured?
 IOW what front panel led's are lit up?
  
 JJ


----------



## thisisvv

johnjen said:


> How is the 3+ configured?
> IOW what front panel led's are lit up?
> 
> JJ




Here is a pic


----------



## jabbr

thisisvv said:


> Here is a pic




Its is now set to use the USB input and apply automatic DOP to PCM conversion on the USB input.
Just change the setting of the reference column to the input you have your audio signal on.


----------



## Golfnutz

Finally, after what seemed like forever (just over 2 months), my D16 has been changed to run from an external LPS.
  
 Too early to give any real impressions, other than to say I really like what I'm hearing. If I had to describe the initial changes, it would mirror exactly what johnjen has said.
  
 I can safely say, these are real changes, not 'I think it sounds better' type of change.
  
 Starting with the LPS (Meiyan S130), the 2-pin connector was changed to 3-pins (3rd pin was to add earth ground). Common ground (-) was also connected to earth ground. I won't get into the common ground/earth ground debate, but will say the guy doing the repair was adamant it needed to be done. LPS has a floating ground (had).

  
 Back of LPS showing 3-pins. There are photos in this forum showing what the LPS looked like prior to these changes.

  
 Rewired D16. Changed the filtered IEC 3-prong connector to basic 3-prong connector and attached internal wires to it.
 I asked him to leave the original SMPS in the D16, but I guess he forgot. Shouldn't be to difficult to put it back if I need to (no real plans to do so at this point).

  
 Showing both units connected together. _*Word of caution - if a normal power cable was plugged into the D16 at this point, it would most definitely get fried.*_


----------



## thisisvv

Am I missing something ?

Still nothing comes out as audio


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> Finally, after what seemed like forever (just over 2 months), my D16 has been changed to run from an external LPS.
> 
> Too early to give any real impressions, other than to say I really like what I'm hearing. If I had to describe the initial changes, it would mirror exactly what johnjen has said.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Very clever and can be easily switched back. where did you get the multipin connector?


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Very clever and can be easily switched back. where did you get the multipin connector?


 
  
 The seller of the LPS sent them to me with the shipment (no charge, 2 pairs). You can get them anywhere though, just look up 3-pin aviation connectors (they're pretty cheap actually).


----------



## mourip

Thanks. I have some of those. I have used them for a lot of projects. Even Radio Shack used to carry them. Anyone remember Radio Shack? 
  
 I was thinking of the PCB board mounted connector. I found the part numbers in the DIY thread though.
  
 Best,
  
 Paul


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Thanks. I have some of those. I have used them for a lot of projects. Even Radio Shack used to carry them. Anyone remember Radio Shack?
> 
> I was thinking of the PCB board mounted connector. I found the part numbers in the DIY thread though.
> 
> ...


 

 OK, sorry about that. 2 parts, the header and the pins (think I posted them in JJ's DIY cookbook thread).


----------



## johnjen

thisisvv said:


> Am I missing something ?
> 
> Still nothing comes out as audio


 
 Try changing your 'MODE' to only re-clock and see if that makes the magic happen.
 Also you're set to 96KHz, is that what you're feeding it?
  
 JJ


----------



## jabbr

johnjen said:


> Try changing your 'MODE' to only re-clock and see if that makes the magic happen.
> Also you're set to 96KHz, is that what you're feeding it?
> 
> JJ


 
  
 The picture shows that it has a lock on the incoming audio signal. The mutec cannot be 'set' to a certain frequency, what's coming in, is what is sent out.
 The settings are just fine now: "reclocking the audio signal using the internal clock", input selected is the AES-input. There is an audio signal, mutec clock has a lock on the signal, output is sent out in 96kHz.
  
 So if there is still no sound, I would check the cabling to and settings of the next devices in the chain.


----------



## johnjen

Ah yes.
 I see that now, good catch!
  
 I have the non-usb version which threw me off a bit.
  
 And what I should have stated was, is the dac set to this sample rate of 96KBs as well.
  
  
 JJ


----------



## Muziqboy

thisisvv said:


> Am I missing something ?
> 
> Still nothing comes out as audio


 
  
 If you are doing re-clocking, both the top blue lights on the STATUS column of the Mutec should light up. I only see the MAIN REF LOCK being lit while the RE-CLK REF LOCK is not.
 Did you test the DB25 to AES cable that you got by plugging it in directly to your DAC to see if you get music playing?


----------



## thisisvv

muziqboy said:


> If you are doing re-clocking, both the top blue lights on the STATUS column of the Mutec should ligth up. I only see the MAIN REF LOCK being lit while the RE-CLK REF LOCK is not.
> Did you test the DB25 to AES cable that you got by plugging it in directly to your DAC to see if you get music playing?


 
 Cable is fine...music plays when connected directly to dac...i am passing 96k to mutec/dac ...which lights need to be on in that case?


----------



## yates7592

Has anybody been able to compare Arrakis Simple IP-D to Rednet3/16? Looks to be simpler, fewer channels, but no 88/176kHz sampling rate. I wonder how it compares in sound to RN3/RN16?


----------



## astrostar59

yates7592 said:


> Has anybody been able to compare Arrakis Simple IP-D to Rednet3/16? Looks to be simpler, fewer channels, but no 88/176kHz sampling rate. I wonder how it compares in sound to RN3/RN16?


 

 Well I would say right away it appears to have no AES/SPDIF output, unless I missed it. Only RJ45s.
  
 So how is it different to any Router. OK may be audio optimised, but we need a digital output for consumer audio. In a DAW environment that is not always required.


----------



## yates7592

Hi Julian, IP-D does have digital out (balnced AES, but no SPID/F). IP-A is analog only.


----------



## Golfnutz

yates7592 said:


> Hi Julian, IP-D does have digital out (balnced AES, but no SPID/F). IP-A is analog only.


 

 Search this thread, there's already been discussions about this product.
  
 Personally, I don't see any advantage over Rednet 3 or D16 for various reasons (which are also mentioned in those discussions).


----------



## jabbr

muziqboy said:


> If you are doing re-clocking, both the top blue lights on the STATUS column of the Mutec should ligth up. I only see the MAIN REF LOCK being lit while the RE-CLK REF LOCK is not.
> Did you test the DB25 to AES cable that you got by plugging it in directly to your DAC to see if you get music playing?


 
 The second blue light comes on when using an external clock and there is a lock on that signal, not when using the internal clock.
  
 Just wondering if the D25 to AES cable has the proper wiring scheme?
 Rednet3 uses the Tascam pin-out and not the Yamaha pin-out.
 Maybe the cable used is wired for Yamaha pin-out?
 https://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/aesebu-db25-pinout-guide/


----------



## Muziqboy

jabbr said:


> The second blue light comes on when using an external clock and there is a lock on that signal, not when using the internal clock.
> 
> Just wondering if the D25 to AES cable has the proper wiring scheme?
> Rednet3 uses the Tascam pin-out and not the Yamaha pin-out.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for pointing that out as I do am using the Live Clock as an external to feed the Mutec's.
 So according to the picture he posted, all the lights are correctly lit up.
 The cable would be suspect then.


----------



## Muziqboy

thisisvv said:


> Cable is fine...music plays when connected directly to dac...i am passing 96k to mutec/dac ...which lights need to be on in that case?


 
  
 How about the AES to AES cable you are using from the Mutec to the DAC? Did you tested that one too?


----------



## thisisvv

muziqboy said:


> How about the AES to AES cable you are using from the Mutec to the DAC? Did you tested that one too?


 
 Yes that works perfec too.. i had connected my iphone ->usb->mutec->ygg  that works perfect


----------



## Golfnutz

Quick update on the D16 with external LPS.
  
 My impression is this change is probably 2-3 times greater than the D16 itself. It really is remarkable what a difference taking out the SMPS is making.
  
 If I had to describe in a single word what the differences are, it would be 'focus'.
  
 Everything just seems so much more focused than before, like an entire blanket of veil has been removed.
  
 Better imaging (pin point), separation of voices (including multiple voices) and instruments (incredible), bass is more pronounced (not bloated at all).
  
 The only way I can perceive the sound improving is with better speakers, amp, and DAC.
  
 For the cost of this change ($200 - $250 USD), this really is a no brainer. Easily one of the best improvements in my system, by far.
  
 What do I like about the D16, no USB and no SMPS!
  
  
 For the guys who have replaced the SMPS from the Rednet and also have the Mutec, what does the Mutec add at this point? Please describe the improvements? Have you listened to your system without the Mutec? Thanks.


----------



## astrostar59

golfnutz said:


> Quick update on the D16 with external LPS.
> 
> My impression is this change is probably 2-3 times greater than the D16 itself. It really is remarkable what a difference taking out the SMPS is making.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice one Golfnufz.
  
 I had a similar upgrade in SQ ripping out the SMPS in my Mac Mini. TBH I am coming to the conclusion a lot of the sonic benefits of various DACs is the integrity of the power supplies. It is down to cost and space I guess, and the fact SMPS's can take worldwide voltage, so less stock for the manufacturer. It is incredible that SMPS are still in audio gear once the price goes north of 1K. It makes me mad really, selling stuff out with amazing 'tech specs' and oversampling jargon for the masses. Long live the fight back!!
  
*Rednet v USB*
 This got me thinking again about the original thread that started all this by rb2013. Lots of great work done on that thread and it has helped me as well. rb2013 started another thread more recently entitled 'USB fights back'. And his summary after some examination and testing various USB fixers and clocks, was USB can fight back. This is on his own system, and may indeed be different results on others systems depending on the jitter sensitivity of a DAC used among many other things, and the quality of the USB feed from said PC or server.
  
 But I am now wondering, as far as I am aware, he didn't fit a LPS to his Rednet before he sold it and moved onto more complex USB fixer chains and various LPS solutions on those, so, _maybe_ that is the secret ingredient for the Rednet here? Basically leverage AOIP and it's benefits. Anyway, a theory, can't wait to fit my own LPS in the Rednet 3.


----------



## joelha

For those of us who wouldn't know how to use a soldering iron on a dare, what's the recommendation for finding someone to make this conversion?

How best to describe the work to be done?

Looks like a great upgrade.

Thanks for posting the information.

Joel


----------



## astrostar59

joelha said:


> For those of us who wouldn't know how to use a soldering iron on a dare, what's the recommendation for finding someone to make this conversion?
> 
> How best to describe the work to be done?
> 
> ...


 

 Golfnutz did an external LPS and nice connection method, JJ and some others have fitted in internal LPS. I would say have a go, it doesn't  seem too complex (I am to do mine this week). Though I may regret saying that (hope not).


----------



## belgiangenius

Considering buying an Atterotech Undaes-O to try next to my Audiophilleo 1.
  
 Where would one get a good quality 24VDC LPS?


----------



## Golfnutz

joelha said:


> For those of us who wouldn't know how to use a soldering iron on a dare, what's the recommendation for finding someone to make this conversion?
> 
> How best to describe the work to be done?
> 
> ...


 
 Let me first say this - my estimate of 2-3 times better than the D16 itself is really underestimated. I can't put a number on it, but it's high...
  
 Probably the easiest thing to do is copy the photos I've posted and show them to the person at an electronic repair shop.
  
 If doing the same change as me, you would need the following:
  
 1. Meiyan S130 LPS. Could even ask them to make the same change I did. (change 2-pin to 3-pin, with additional earth ground, and -5v connected to earth ground as well). I could provide a better pic if they need to see it. I did ask them, but they didn't understand what I was asking for. Maybe a picture would help and they wouldn't mind doing it. The guy who did mine basically said these changes are replicating what the SMPS in the D16 was doing. I think it's worth asking.
 2. Wire with 3-pin connector from LPS to D16 (either same way I did it, or remove the IEC connector and run 3 wires through the vacant hole (5v, Ground, Earth/Chassis Ground). Only real issue here is replacing the JST XH connector. Hopefully, they have the tool to do that.
  
 Note: I did order some additional JST XH connectors and pins from China almost 2 months ago, but they haven't arrived yet. If/when they do, I could make the connectors for anyone wanting one or two (would only charge what my cost is - shipping and hardware).


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Nice one Golfnufz.
> 
> I had a similar upgrade in SQ ripping out the SMPS in my Mac Mini. TBH I am coming to the conclusion a lot of the sonic benefits of various DACs is the integrity of the power supplies. It is down to cost and space I guess, and the fact SMPS's can take worldwide voltage, so less stock for the manufacturer. It is incredible that SMPS are still in audio gear once the price goes north of 1K. It makes me mad really, selling stuff out with amazing 'tech specs' and oversampling jargon for the masses. Long live the fight back!!
> 
> ...


 

 My guess is that it's not even a close comparison with Rednet using LPS....


----------



## joelha

astrostar59 said:


> Golfnutz did an external LPS and nice connection method, JJ and some others have fitted in internal LPS. I would say have a go, it doesn't  seem too complex (I am to do mine this week). Though I may regret saying that (hope not).



 


Thanks a lot for the information, Astrostar,

Given that I have both JS-2' and Sbooster LPS', I'm wondering if it's possible for me to employ one (or either) of them as an external power supply.

Joel


----------



## joelha

golfnutz said:


> Let me first say this - my estimate of 2-3 times better than the D16 itself is really underestimated. I can't put a number on it, but it's high...
> 
> Probably the easiest thing to do is copy the photos I've posted and show them to the person at an electronic repair shop.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hey Golfnutz,
  
 All of this information, and your offer to help further is very nice of you.
  
 Thanks so much.
  
 If I need to come back to you, I certainly.
  
 All the best.
  
 Joel


----------



## johnjen

Performing this internal mod to a RN3 is actually more complex than adding an external LPS to a D16 (or an RN3 for that matter).
 It's not just a matter of being handy with a soldering iron because there is the drilling of holes and mounting of the transformer and regulator board, let alone the re-wiring of the IEC and front panel on-off switch, etc.
  
 And since with an external LPS mod, all of the LPS component mounting etc is already done so its then just a matter of supplying this voltage to the RedNet box and then to the mainboard.
  
 Most competent electronic techs should have little difficulty in performing any of this surgery.
 But there is a degree of risk with this type of modification especially if doing anything like this is a new experience for you, let alone the fact that the warranty has been completely tossed aside.
  
 But the results speak for themselves and for me are far beyond being just *'Better'* in terms of the RN3 alone.
 Mostly because these SMPS's really are noisy and this noise can and does spread to all the rest of the interconnected gear.
 So eliminating as many of these sources of noise seems to have a cumulative effect and results if SQ improvements that can be quite astounding overall.
  
 And I do realize that many have just rolled their eye's, yet again at such 'outlandish' claims.
 And to address this I will say, experience a properly setup system for yourself and then decide.
 Because that is the only way to really understand what having your music come into focus really means.
 Those who have heard this understand.
  
 And again yeah, it ain't cheap, at least not yet, but there are hint's on the horizon of new boxes of wonder for considerably less $$$$.
  
 Among which is the uDo (Atterotech unDaes-O) Dante capable box, which is all set up with a barrel connector to accept the 24Vdc it needs, so there is NO need to fuss with it's internals and no voiding your warranty etc.
 It does have one 'limitation' in that it is sample rate limited to 96KHz.
 This isn't a problem for the Schiit MB dacs as they perform 'best' with the lower original native sample rates of CD's etc., but for some this is a deal killer.
  
 All in all, uncorking this digital audio stream by simply reducing the amount noise being generated, some of which propagates onto ground, and thus to all other grounded devices, yields significant improvements in SQ.
  
 Most notably what I've noticed is an improvement in *LEDI* (Leading Edged Dynamic Impact), where all 'voices' (technical and organic) are presented with more gratifying and focused acoustic power, more visceral impact, and not just in the bass but everywhere.
  
 Just a few thoughts to consider.
  
 JJ


----------



## gefski

How one feeds Yggy continues to matter. Replaced the unDAES-O wall wart with an Acopian Gold Box linear PS. Already thrilled with the uDO/Yggy combo, I didn't expect significant sonic improvements, just peace of mind with a quality PS. What I got was an ever more graceful ease (with no loss of detail) --- garden gloves replaced by custom fitted velvet ones. 

Thanks to atomicbob for nicely cabling it up, great conversation as always, and the listen to the outstanding Saga.


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> How one feeds Yggy continues to matter. Replaced the unDAES-O wall wart with an Acopian Gold Box linear PS. Already thrilled with the uDO/Yggy combo, I didn't expect significant sonic improvements, just peace of mind with a quality PS. What I got was an ever more graceful ease (with no loss of detail) --- garden gloves replaced by custom fitted velvet ones.
> 
> Thanks to atomicbob for nicely cabling it up, great conversation as always, and the listen to the outstanding Saga.


 
 Excellent!
 I was waiting for a report from you after removing the SMPS from your setup.
  
 How many hrs on this setup thus far?
  
 JJ


----------



## gefski

johnjen said:


> Excellent!
> I was waiting for a report from you after removing the SMPS from your setup.
> 
> How many hrs on the this setup thus far?
> ...




48ish hours. It runs 24/7 along wth Yggy.


----------



## thisisvv

thisisvv said:


> Cable is fine...music plays when connected directly to dac...i am passing 96k to mutec/dac ...which lights need to be on in that case?


 
 Anyone...?


----------



## jabbr

thisisvv said:


> Anyone...?




Does the DB25-XLR cable have a Tascam or a Yamaha wiring scheme on the DB25 connector?


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> 48ish hours. It runs 24/7 along wth Yggy.


 
 I would suspect that in the ±125hr time window, the SQ might take a step up, at least that is what I've noticed.
  
 JJ


----------



## Mist3rLao

To those using an Antelope LiveClock with their RNs, what do you call the power supply cable used for the LiveClock, which is a screw on? I'm looking for an umbilical cord cable from an external lps to the LiveClock.


----------



## thisisvv

jabbr said:


> Does the DB25-XLR cable have a Tascam or a Yamaha wiring scheme on the DB25 connector?


 
 I bought it from the OP ...confirmed with buyer he had connected RN3 with Mutec and cable worked fine...need to see what setting am i missing...
  
 V


----------



## jabbr

thisisvv said:


> I bought it from the OP ...confirmed with buyer he had connected RN3 with Mutec and cable worked fine...need to see what setting am i missing...
> 
> V




Nothing on the Mutec I would say. It shows it is receiving and sending an audio signal.


----------



## mourip

mist3rlao said:


> To those using an Antelope LiveClock with their RNs, what do you call the power supply cable used for the LiveClock, which is a screw on? I'm looking for an umbilical cord cable from an external lps to the LiveClock.


 
  
 You can use a standard DC connector like the kind that usually comes with an LPS. My HDPlex had one that fit perfectly. It is a two terminal barrel type connector. I cannot remember if it is 2.1 or 2.5 mm.
  
 It does not need to be the same "safety" screw-on type. The regular type just slips inside as it normally would.


----------



## Muziqboy

The Live Clock takes the 5.5mm x 2.1mm dc barrel plug connector.


----------



## Hifi Boy

Hi guys.
  
 I have a question regarding both Rednet devices and the Cybershaft clocks.
  
 First of all, seeing as how I already have a Mutec-3+USB, I was considering getting an additional clock.
 From what I've read on this thread, Cybershaft products should be a good and cheap choice.
  
 Also, I've seen a lot of discussion on Rednet devices as well.
 Could anyone explain what exactly does a Rednet device do, and which would Cybershaft clock would be the best choice to go with?
  
 I'm also guessing, from what I read, that adding the Antelope Live clock would not add much to the performance?
 Since, I'm planning on getting the Grimm CC1 anyway, that would just be a waste of money, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## mourip

hifi boy said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> I have a question regarding both Rednet devices and the Cybershaft clocks.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I am using an Antelope LiveClock to clock my D16. I am not currently externally clocking my Mutec and do not have a 10M reference clock
  
 I have an anecdote. I decided to use my HDPlex LPS to power my LiveClock which came with an external SMPS brick. In the process of rebooting my system I realized that I did not have Rednet Control set to use the external clock! I am not sure how long it had been that way but my guess is that it had been turned off for a while as I know that I had it enabled when I first got the LiveClock. Once enabled the difference was not subtle. Much blacker background and better focus. There was also a better sense of movement in the music.
  
 I now plan to use another of the LiveClocks outputs for my Mutec USB. After that I plan to replace the SMPS of both the D16 and the Mutec with an LPS.
  
 Not sure how much a reference clock will gain. Others have said they heard a difference but it did not seem to be large.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I am using an Antelope LiveClock to clock my D16. I am not currently externally clocking my Mutec and do not have a 10M reference clock
> 
> I have an anecdote. I decided to use my HDPlex LPS to power my LiveClock which came with an external SMPS brick. In the process of rebooting my system I realized that I did not have Rednet Control set to use the external clock! I am not sure how long it had been that way but my guess is that it had been turned off for a while as I know that I had it enabled when I first got the LiveClock. Once enabled the difference was not subtle. Much blacker background and better focus. There was also a better sense of movement in the music.
> 
> ...


 

 OK, so does this change which has a bigger impact, LiveClock or Mutec 3+ USB (on their own)?


----------



## Hifi Boy

mourip said:


> Not sure how much a reference clock will gain. Others have said they heard a difference but it did not seem to be large.


 
  
 Hi mourip, thank's for the explanation.
  
 What you said right here is what makes me think.
 The quote from this review is why I decided on the Grimm CC1.
  
_*Grimm Audio CC1 Master Clock* – Quick summary: Allen bought one immediately!  This clock is incredible. The detail and imaging from it are superior to anything we heard, and the overall “relaxed” sound of the playback was as close to analog tape (read: jitter-free) as anything we’d tried. The Grimm CC1 didn’t make the music sound as aggressive and forward as the Antelope clocks, and that was a huge plus, because what you get instead is unparalleled depth and detail, as well as a feeling of “calm” that none of the other clocks provided.  Of course, the CC1 is simply a clock with no conversion available (like the Cranesong HEDD), but it seems there is something to be said for a dedicated clock, as whatever Grimm has done inside the CC1 is topping an elite class of options as a price less than half of some of the other offerings.  Hands down, the CC1 was our preference._
  
 I'm always willing to reconsider, the price difference between Grimm CC1 and LiveClock is not small, even though the dealer here who I know can get me a good Price for the Grimm, its still going to be 4 times more than the LiveClock.
  
 Also, what exactly does a Rednet D16 do, and what's the sound quality impact with having one?


----------



## yates7592

Just ordered my D16, they seem to be getting harder to come buy at a reasonable price (discontinued according to some outlets). The Grimm Audio CC1 clock looks very interesting. How is this connected to the D16, just straight in via BNC?


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> OK, so does this change which has a bigger impact, LiveClock or Mutec 3+ USB (on their own)?


 
  
 So curiosity got the best of me and I added the BNC cable from my LC to my Mutec. I then switched it over to external timing source.
  
 I did not even break even. The sound was flat and un-involving. Once I went back to the internal Mutec wordclock the magic was back. Many months ago on the Mutec thread on CA the Mutec rep who is always very helpful suggested that the internal clock on the Mutec was already very good. I believe that he is right.
  
 So my D16 benefited a lot from external clocking and the Mutec not at all. I guess that there could be other factors at play like the cable I am using but the sound is so good as is that I am not going to pursue it. I still hold out hope for switching over to LPS for both the D16 and the Mutec however.
  
 Which made the biggest difference? Both increased the refinement, resolution, and focus..


----------



## mourip

hifi boy said:


> Also, what exactly does a Rednet D16 do, and what's the sound quality impact with having one?


 
  
 Used with Dante Virtual Soundcard it is an ethernet to SPDIF converter. I use the AES output as recommended by my DAC maker, Schitt.
  
 Lots of testimonials in this thread. I had a pretty good USB chain using the Mutec USB and a Regen with LPS etc.. the Rednet has a much more analog and refined sound. Much more involving and convincing.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> So curiosity got the best of me and I added the BNC cable from my LC to my Mutec. I then switched it over to external timing source.
> 
> I did not even break even. The sound was flat and un-involving. Once I went back to the internal Mutec wordclock the magic was back. Many months ago on the Mutec thread on CA the Mutec rep who is always very helpful suggested that the internal clock on the Mutec was already very good. I believe that he is right.
> 
> ...


 
 OK, but if you could only pick one, LiveClock with your external LPS (no Mutec in the chain), or Mutec (no LiveClock in the chain), which one?


----------



## astrostar59

yates7592 said:


> Just ordered my D16, they seem to be getting harder to come buy at a reasonable price (discontinued according to some outlets). The Grimm Audio CC1 clock looks very interesting. How is this connected to the D16, just straight in via BNC?


 

 Nice one! I would get the Rednet rocking first, fit the LPS internal mod, then see. The LPS is cheap as chips, a clock not so cheap. TBH the LPS is a nice upgrade, especially transparency and smoother treble (yes even smoother). It isn't 'digital' now Ha Ha, *at last* 25 years of digital later.....


----------



## Golfnutz

astrostar59 said:


> Nice one! I would get the Rednet rocking first, fit the LPS internal mod, then see. The LPS is cheap as chips, a clock not so cheap. TBH the LPS is a nice upgrade, especially transparency and smoother treble (yes even smoother). It isn't 'digital' now Ha Ha, *at last* 25 years of digital later.....


 

 Don't think I would recommend internal mod with D16, it should be done externally. There just isn't the room in the D16 to do what you Rednet 3 owner's did. External mod would apply to Rednet 3 as well (if anyone doesn't feel they have the expertise for the internal mod).
  
 Based on your impressions of the mod you did (and the other 2 on JJ's thread), sound wise, I don't think there's a difference between internal or external mods.


----------



## Muziqboy

golfnutz said:


> Don't think I would recommend internal mod with D16, it should be done externally. There just isn't the room in the D16 to do what you Rednet 3 owner's did. External mod would apply to Rednet 3 as well (if anyone doesn't feel they have the expertise for the internal mod).
> 
> Based on your impressions of the mod you did (and the other 2 on JJ's thread), sound wise, I don't think there's a difference between internal or external mods.


 
  
 IMO there should be no difference between internal and external lps mod in SQ.
 The difference is in aesthetics as in the RN3 will remain looking stock with the internal lps mod including the power switch fully functional.


----------



## Hifi Boy

mourip said:


> Used with Dante Virtual Soundcard it is an ethernet to SPDIF converter. I use the AES output as recommended by my DAC maker, Schitt.
> 
> Lots of testimonials in this thread. I had a pretty good USB chain using the Mutec USB and a Regen with LPS etc.. the Rednet has a much more analog and refined sound. Much more involving and convincing.


 
  
 Hmm... does that mean that I can't use this with a MacBook or an iMac directly into its Ethernet port?
  
 Does it require a special sound card to work, or is it this app that you're what you're talking about?


----------



## Golfnutz

hifi boy said:


> Hmm... does that mean that I can't use this with a MacBook or an iMac directly into its Ethernet port?
> 
> Does it require a special sound card to work, or is it this app that you're what you're talking about?


 

 You can use the Mac with the app you have linked to.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> OK, but if you could only pick one, LiveClock with your external LPS (no Mutec in the chain), or Mutec (no LiveClock in the chain), which one?


 
  
 I would say that the biggest jump was adding the Mutec USB as a reclocker....but the other changes were definitely worthwhile.


----------



## astrostar59

hifi boy said:


> mourip said:
> 
> 
> > Used with Dante Virtual Soundcard it is an ethernet to SPDIF converter. I use the AES output as recommended by my DAC maker, Schitt.
> ...


 

 QCorrect. But that app is cheap, or free with a new Rednet. I use a Mac Mini and it sounds great. Word of caution though, due to the AES or SPDIF output on the Rednet you can go to 192K sample rate max. Doesn't bother me as I run an NOS DAC, but if you are into HQPlayer or DSD you need to stay on USB.


----------



## Hifi Boy

@Golfnutz
 @astrostar59
  
 Thanks guys, good to know I can use it with my MacBook Pro, I'm currently using Audirvana Plus and upsampling all to exactly 192KHz, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Oh, and I'm also converting my DSD to PCM. Yeah, I think that way it sounds better, please don't shoot me for saying that! 
  
@mourip
 Well, I don't yet have Rednet or Cybershaft, but I can vouch for the Mutec-3+USB. The difference from going MacBook to Fostex DAC, to going Macbook to Mutec to Fostex DAC via Toslink, was substantial. Sound became more holographic and the soundstage expanded a lot.
  
 For the price, highly recommended!


----------



## yates7592

Dumb question here, but I'm going to ask it anyway....
 When using an external clock such as Grimm CC1 with Rednet D16, does clock go before or after the D16 in the chain? I'd be going:
 PC > ethernet cable > D16/clock (or clock/D16) > AES > DAC
 Clock would also be in/out via DARS (XLR AES). I think this is possible right?


----------



## Hifi Boy

Its D16 then clock, since the clock has no Ethernet port.


----------



## jabbr

yates7592 said:


> Dumb question here, but I'm going to ask it anyway....
> When using an external clock such as Grimm CC1 with Rednet D16, does clock go before or after the D16 in the chain? I'd be going:
> PC > ethernet cable > D16/clock (or clock/D16) > AES > DAC
> Clock would also be in/out via DARS (XLR AES). I think this is possible right?




The clock isn't part of the audio chain. The external clock supports the D16.
So it is

PC-->ethernet-->D16-->AES-->DAC
________________^
________________|
________________|
________________Clock


----------



## yates7592

jabbr said:


> The clock isn't part of the audio chain. The external clock supports the D16.
> So it is
> 
> PC-->ethernet-->D16-->AES-->DAC
> ...




Ah! Thanks, so I have my audio chain as above but the external clock is simply another input into the D16. So I have 2 cables into D16 (ethernet and aes xlr DARS clock cable) and then another AES xlr cable out to DAC? That makes sense.


----------



## mourip

So after watching others go boldly I decided to mod my D16 to use an external LPS. I did not do an entirely unreversible mod. Instead I drilled the back panel for a DC jack, and removed the SMPS but used a multi-pin connector so I could always switch back if necessary.
  
 I used pin 1 for the +5v and pin 3 for ground. I also tied ground to the existing chassis ground. I also added a high quality electrolytic 680mf@25v bypass cap at the inlet. I used the 5v output from my HDPlex LPS to power.
  
 No smoke and a very, very nice improvement for the D16 in my HP rig. Increased clarity and sweetness. I will definitely do the same for the D16 in my speaker rig next.
  
 Thanks to those who posted their findings here!


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> So after watching others go boldly I decided to mod my D16 to use an external LPS. I did not do an entirely unreversible mod. Instead I drilled the back panel for a DC jack, and removed the SMPS but used a multi-pin connector so I could always switch back if necessary.
> 
> I used pin 1 for the +5v and pin 3 for ground. I also tied ground to the existing chassis ground. I also added a high quality electrolytic 680mf@25v bypass cap at the inlet. I used the 5v output from my HDPlex LPS to power.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice! Pics please.


----------



## mourip

golfnutz said:


> Nice! Pics please.


 
 I did my second D16 in my speaker rig this morning. 
  
 Pin 1 to 5v+ and pin 3 to ground. Terminal strip made soldering and wiring easier.

  
 I bought the multi-pin adapter and pins from a link here. Assembling it was the only hard part of the entire mod.

  
 Unobtrusive DC jack. My warranty is gone over but if sold I could still offer a buyer a switchable choice of either LPS or stock SMPS.
  
 Tip: when you drill out the chassis turn it upside down so metal filings do not find their way to the circuit board. I learned this the hard way when I drilled out my PC chassis to accommodate an external 5v LPS. A piece of metal dropped onto my USB card and I failed the smoke test. Luckily only the USB card ate it...
  

  
 Ground wire soldered to existing IEC ground terminal which is tied to chassis.
 Stock SMPS removed to make more room. D16 power switch is no longer working but I leave it on 24/7 anyway and the HDPlex LPS has a switch, fuse, and over current protection.


----------



## somestranger26

Thanks for the pictures. That actually looks pretty simple to do.
  
 Could you explain what the bypass cap is for? I don't know much about electronics.
  
 Also, was the threading for the terminal strip one that was already being used by the SMPS or did you have to drill a new hole for that?


----------



## mourip

somestranger26 said:


> Thanks for the pictures. That actually looks pretty simple to do.
> 
> Could you explain what the bypass cap is for? I don't know much about electronics.
> 
> Also, was the threading for the terminal strip one that was already being used by the SMPS or did you have to drill a new hole for that?


 
  
 The bypass cap is basically a local reservoir for transient needs considering the long umbilical. Possibly not necessary but one of my audio habits. Probably more important with outboard supplies for analogue equipment.
  
 I used the screw and standoff from the SMPS which I had removed. Convenient.


----------



## Golfnutz

Thanks for the pictures Mourip.
  
 I had some fun today changing the connector on my D16.
  
 To ensure better safety I decided to install a female connector in the D16. I also connected the Common wire '-' to earth ground on the D16 (done in case I went with 2-pin connector, I would have '-' connected to chassis). The connector is physically too big for the D16 opening (1/16"), no problem, just mount it from the inside of the D16 (connection is very solid - not any different if it would have fit).

 With this connector it would be pretty hard to find something that plugs into this end and the wall at the same time. No chance of blowing up the D16.

  
 Close up of connector inside D16.

  
 Full view of mod

  
 Made a 2-pin cable (just didn't solder the earth ground wire to the 2-pin connector), and 3-pin cable to connect from LPS to D16.

  
 Wanted to hear what it sounded like without earth ground (I couldn't tell the difference).

  
 LPS plugged into D16

  
 If anyone is interested in this mod, send me a PM and I'll do what I can to help (D16/Rednet 3 is fully reversible). I have plenty of JST XH connectors and pins to replace the stock wire harness that connects to the main board.
  
 Also, it probably wouldn't matter what type of connection your LPS has (as long as you have an extra cable or get an extra cable to connect from your LPS to the Rednet). Using one of these manual connectors simplifies the cable. Just cut the end of that would go into the Rednet and attach it.


----------



## Iving

In deference to LPS pioneers hereabouts ...
 Having eavesdropped on John Swenson here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/29662-discussion-of-ac-mains-isolation-transformers-started-wposts-moved-from-quotlps-1-troubleshootingquot-thread/, and intending to procure a 5000VA isolation transformer (with very low capacitance of course), I ended up with a 500VA one (owing to a mistake on the part of the Seller) and wondering what to do with it.
 Dedicated to my PC only, the effect was massive - notably increased transparency with pinpoint imaging.
 Powering all the digital components of my chain up to the DAC - including the PC and - naturally - my D16 AES, there may have been a very small sacrifice of detail compared with supplying the PC only - but the effect on tone was on the scale of overhaul. No digital nastiness - just deep producer's cut.
 I've spent the last couple of hours rediscovering many favourite tracks.
 The incentive to fit LPSs anywhere in my system has been subtracted from me because (i) the music is so satisfying now and (ii) I imagine I have substantially closed the incremental SQ gap that otherwise would have been achieved by doing so.
 Whilst an ATX LPS for the PC wouldn't involve too much trouble (although it might compromise aesthetics wrt to my coffee table brushed aluminium case), should I butcher my D16 AES now?
 What about my (nearly) £3k SMPS-saddled DAC?
 The isolation transformer powers the italicised section:
_Silent PC comprising AURUM Xilenser 500W __PSU__; Asus Z170-WS mobo with dual Intel Gigabit __LAN__ (I219-LM preferred over I210-AT); Intel i7-6700 3.4 GHz CPU; NOFAN CR-80EH Copper IcePipe CPU Cooler; 16Gb Corsair Dominator Platinum __DDR__4 2400MHz __RAM__ (__CAS__ 10-12-12-28); Windows 10 Pro on Samsung SM951 128Gb M.2 __SSD__; *.flac on Samsung 850 EVO 1Tb __SSD__ | Blue Jeans Cat 6 ethernet cable (40') | Focusrite RedNet D16 __AES__ | van den Hul __AES__-EBU 110 Ohm Professional cable (0.8m) | Dangerous Convert-2 DAC (Word Clock Out to Focusrite RedNet D16 __AES__ via Pro Co Premium Canare cable c. 3') _| Bespoke Achtung Audio Silver XLR/RCA "Pin 3 Floating" interconnects (1.2m) | Linn AV 5103 System Controller (= pre-amp) | Linn Silver interconnects (1.2m) | 2 x stereo Quad 909 power amps with identical DADA revisions | vertically bi-amping via Linn LK400 speaker cable (c. 3m) | (restored and refurbished) Snell Type A III.


----------



## mourip

iving said:


> In deference to LPS pioneers hereabouts ...
> Having eavesdropped on John Swenson here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/29662-discussion-of-ac-mains-isolation-transformers-started-wposts-moved-from-quotlps-1-troubleshootingquot-thread/, and intending to procure a 5000VA isolation transformer (with very low capacitance of course), I ended up with a 500VA one (owing to a mistake on the part of the Seller) and wondering what to do with it.
> Dedicated to my PC only, the effect was massive - notably increased transparency with pinpoint imaging.
> Powering all the digital components of my chain up to the DAC - including the PC and - naturally - my D16 AES, there may have been a very small sacrifice of detail compared with supplying the PC only - but the effect on tone was on the scale of overhaul. No digital nastiness - just deep producer's cut.
> ...


 
  
 Based on that same thread I bought a used isolation transformer off of EBAY. It is a low capacitance 1000VA unit. My experience is the same as yours. At first I was just putting my DAC, preamp and D16 on it to good effect. Today I moved my power amp over to it as it is only 10 watts output, plenty for my 99db speakers. The benefit was immediately obvious. Better clarity, dynamics and imaging. Mine came with unterminated end and jumpered as step down so note that if you buy one from EBAY you might be into a bit of DIY with line voltage.
  
 I have actually used smaller isolation(1:1) transformers for years but I feel that the big benefit was getting with enough current capacity (and with low capacitance) to move most of my gear onto it.
  
 Big bang for the buck!


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> In deference to LPS pioneers hereabouts ...
> Having eavesdropped on John Swenson here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/29662-discussion-of-ac-mains-isolation-transformers-started-wposts-moved-from-quotlps-1-troubleshootingquot-thread/, and intending to procure a 5000VA isolation transformer (with very low capacitance of course), I ended up with a 500VA one (owing to a mistake on the part of the Seller) and wondering what to do with it.


 
 Interesting, I can agree on mains noise. I went a different route with a PS Audio P10. It takes the AC sinewave, and converts it to DC then regenerates the AC as clean sinewave. I had 1.3 - 2.8% line distortion and it is now 0.1%. I also had voltage from 226V to 248V and have it set now to 230V exactly. The P10 has a sinewave and a multi wave. I don't fully understand that part. It also has shut down in an outage (no reboot to avoid spikes) has surge and overload protection.
  
 I have had it for a year now. Mileage will vary depending on how far your location is away from the mains transformer in the street, and other factors such as commercial premises loading up mains with spikes and garbage. I live in a new build apartment and the transformer is at the end of our street.
  
 The sound after the P10 (to the whole system) was a darker background, bigger dynamic, deeper bass and cleaner treble. Everything got cleaner, that is the best way to describe it. The peak performance time on my system before the P10 was about 2am in the morning. I get quite a bit better than that now 24/7. And it upgraded all my gear attached, i.e all my system. And I was worried in Spain as we do have outages, sometimes at 1am and the services company cluelessly try to reboot the grid, it comes on for 30 seconds then off again. Then 2 minutes later on again, then off. Not good for your hifi.
  
 Going back to the Rednet LPS mod I did this week, it seems to have settled down. First few hours the bass was sucked out a bit, but I could tell more goodies were coming. Now 3 days in, it has all got better, and the bass has come back - and some. Very fast bass and more textured and tunefull. The other big change on the Rednet is the soudstage, it has got WIDER, a lot wider. The layering has expanded and everything it positioned more 3D, less glued together. It is much easier to take in what is going on. For 130USD this is the best meal ticket I have experienced in hifi so far.
  
 Iving, I would press on with any LPS ideas after the Isolation unit. There is more, as I have added 2 x LPS's since the P10 and heard further improvements. One in my Mac Mini and the other in the Rednet. And LPS's as DIY are cheap.


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> Based on that same thread I bought a used isolation transformer off of EBAY. It is a low capacitance 1000VA unit. My experience is the same as yours. At first I was just putting my DAC, preamp and D16 on it to good effect. Today I moved my power amp over to it as it is only 10 watts output, plenty for my 99db speakers. The benefit was immediately obvious. Better clarity, dynamics and imaging. Mine came with unterminated end and jumpered as step down so note that if you buy one from EBAY you might be into a bit of DIY with line voltage.
> 
> I have actually used smaller isolation(1:1) transformers for years but I feel that the big benefit was getting with enough current capacity (and with low capacitance) to move most of my gear onto it.
> 
> Big bang for the buck!


 
  
 Yes - I daren't add my power amps to the 500VA out. I am going to study the JS thread to try to understand whether another 1, 1.8, 2.4 etc KVA could supply the analogue phase, or whether it would be worth the candle to get a 2.5 or 5 to power everything (leaving the 500VA sadly redundant) - all of course plugged into a single power strip! The 5KVAs weigh half a large human being - and there is the matter of thermal management - and hiding (audibly speaking) hum too. I wonder whether running the PC only from the 500VA (separated signal-wise by ethernet of course) and all left downstream from a larger iso might be the way to go. Thinking cap on. It's difficult to experiment without buying equipment and rewiring every permutation germane. The 500VA required only proper connection at the in and out terminals (info easily available) to change from USA to UK volts. Yes - the SQ enhancement is better than I expected - at least as much as I would have imagined from LPSs. It's now a question of weighing against expense/work/warranty and resale implications the LPS vs SMPS prospect when AC line noise has already been factored out by iso.


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Interesting, I can agree on mains noise. I went a different route with a PS Audio P10. It takes the AC sinewave, and converts it to DC then regenerates the AC as clean sinewave. I had 1.3 - 2.8% line distortion and it is now 0.1%. I also had voltage from 226V to 248V and have it set now to 230V exactly. The P10 has a sinewave and a multi wave. I don't fully understand that part. It also has shut down in an outage (no reboot to avoid spikes) has surge and overload protection.
> 
> I have had it for a year now. Mileage will vary depending on how far your location is away from the mains transformer in the street, and other factors such as commercial premises loading up mains with spikes and garbage. I live in a new build apartment and the transformer is at the end of our street.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm not familiar with the P10, and I don't think that this (clean sine wave reconstruction via DC) approach features in the JS thread. But it all demonstrates to me the significant of power management - something I had underappreciated till now. I guess I'll be tempted with LPSs eventually - I have only so much time (and monies) for Hi-Fi! The temptation to upgrade is greater when there is an annoyance in the system - usually digital glare: there is no salient annoyance at this time. I tell myself I don't need to be a fanatic audiophile ("SQ because I can") to get goosebumps - but then I become accustomed to what I've got and get tempted to think that goose bumps will come harder and faster with another upgrade. Do I sound like an addict. I guess I am not alone!


----------



## Hifi Boy

astrostar59 said:


> The sound after the P10 (to the whole system) was a darker background, bigger dynamic, deeper bass and cleaner treble. Everything got cleaner, that is the best way to describe it. The peak performance time on my system before the P10 was about 2am in the morning. I get quite a bit better than that now 24/7. And it upgraded all my gear attached, i.e all my system.


 
  
 This sound very good, especially since I got a P5 coming next week. 
 I hope to get the same results as you did with this upgrade.
  
 Does the Power Plant require any break in time, or will these great effects be noticeable immediately?


----------



## astrostar59

hifi boy said:


> astrostar59 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound after the P10 (to the whole system) was a darker background, bigger dynamic, deeper bass and cleaner treble. Everything got cleaner, that is the best way to describe it. The peak performance time on my system before the P10 was about 2am in the morning. I get quite a bit better than that now 24/7. And it upgraded all my gear attached, i.e all my system.
> ...


 
  

  

  
  
 You can see the P10 on the floor left side. It looks cool, and like starship enterprise on a night. I have it set to shut down after an outage, and multi wave on the sine wave setting. Distortion is held at 0.1% from nearly 3% average incoming, and I set it to 230.0V
  
 It is silent and hardly warm on the heat sinks. I use about 25% load with my headphone amp on as well as the power amp.
  
 You will hear immediate upgrades in SQ. But the soundstage and sub bass will 'ping' in 2-3 weeks on 24/7. I love my P10, it was an odd thing to buy I guess, coz, hey, it doesn't create any music. BUT the noisy mains is a hidden devil. You are not aware of it until you get rid of it.
  
 The other thing to look at (cheap) is a separate ring main and trip fuse from the consumer unit. I ran a new ring right to the wall behind the P10. Nothing else is on that line. So spikes from the fridge and washing machine and other gear in your house is separated out. I used fat 45 amp wiring and decent wall plug.
  
 Good luck, you will be happy trust me.


----------



## Hifi Boy

@astrostar59
  
 Thanks for letting me know, now I can't wait for it to get here!
 Sure, I can wait for 2-3 weeks for the soundstage to widen.
  
 That's some nice setup you got there, must have cost a fortune.
  
 If you can run all of that wit the P10, then I'm pretty sure I won't have a problem running a simple headphone setup with P5.
  
 The reason why I didn't invest in this sooner is precisely the same reason as you: "it doesn't make music".
 But it looks like this is probably gonna be the best upgrade I did, since I got the HE-1000.


----------



## astrostar59

iving said:


> I'm not familiar with the P10, and I don't think that this (clean sine wave reconstruction via DC) approach features in the JS thread.


 
 I am glad you are enjoying your new mains ISO system. On the Rednet, the SMPS creates it's own noise right where it sits, and can even send that down the AC line to other gear.
  
 As I understand it, a switch mode power supply has super fast switches that basically click over when the AC goes to the top of the wave i.e. before it goes negative from positive. This action creates an amount of noise, it is the science and can't be avoided. Yes, they put in caps and other 'smoothing' techniques but it is inherently a flawed and budget solution. So even if we sort out the incoming mains, the all important and every sensitive digital circuits are getting polluted with noise anyway. JJ put out measurements showing the SMPS in the Rednet chucked out 30 times more noise than the LPS.
  
 All power supplies have issues, either some noise or straying from the correct voltage or flaking pout if the demand for current is rapid or higher tun it can handle.
  
 The absolute best power supplies IMO are shunt power supplies and preferably tube regulated. Next down solid state shunt, next down linear power supplies, then battery supplies. Many others below that, but right at the bottom below battery supplies are our dreaded SMPS.
  
 I note the top tier DACs at silly money such as the Areas Cerat Kassandre, Audio Note Fifth Element, MSB Select DAC, they all have another the same sized box for just a power supply.
  
 Anyway, that is on another planet to the likes of anyone I know in this hobby, but for 130 USD, the little LPS is a MUST HAVE item.


----------



## Kaixing

Hi! I need help with the Rednet 3. I got my rednet 3 working before but today my rednet 3 has no sound suddenly. I set the sample rate to 44.1HZ and connected to DVS and Forssell mada-2. I can find the rednet on the rednet controller 2 and I can ID the rednet 3 but when I play music in WDM mode,the aes activity light is not on at all and no sound. My music is 44.1hz flac file and I am using foobar. Anyone has any idea on where the problem could be?


----------



## johnjen

astrostar59 said:


> I am glad you are enjoying your new mains ISO system. On the Rednet, the SMPS creates it's own noise right where it sits, and can even send that down the AC line to other gear.
> 
> As I understand it, a switch mode power supply has super fast switches that basically click over when the AC goes to the top of the wave i.e. before it goes negative from positive. This action creates an amount of noise, it is the science and can't be avoided. Yes, they put in caps and other 'smoothing' techniques but it is inherently a flawed and budget solution. So even if we sort out the incoming mains, the all important and every sensitive digital circuits are getting polluted with noise anyway. JJ put out measurements showing the SMPS in the Rednet chucked out 30 times more noise than the LPS.
> 
> ...


 
 The reason for the wide spread use of SMPS's is cost and size and convenience.
 When the mains voltage frequency of 50-60Hz is replaced with a several hundred Hz operating frequency, the primary transformer can be much smaller and more efficient and so, much less costly.
  
 Unfortunately this switching behavior creates lots of noise, which spreads out to the associated gear it is connected to, not to mention directly influencing the device it is powering.
  
 And supposedly these all digital devices should be 'immune' to this SMPS generated noise, except that we can hear differences.
 But how much is due to the direct effect this noise has on the rednet (and other types of digital) boxes we are using vs. how much this added noise contributes to the degradation of the rest of our gear remains unknown at this time.
  
 But what is clear is that removing these SMPS's, does yield significant benefits to the capability of our playback systems.
  
 A tweakers delight, indeed…  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 JJ


----------



## Hifi Boy

Well the P5 has finally arrived!





What can I say, except, that this is by far the best investment into my system I've made up till now.
Every single aspect of sound has improved. Soundstage is imense, there are more details, the base is harder and tighter and I would even say that the transient response got better as well. Also, the most important thing for me, is that the sound is just so much smoother now.

For an example, Alabama 3 - Woke up this morning, the base that keeps hitting you throughout this song is just skullcrushingly hard and tight.

Kelly Family - Feel in love with an alien, lets you experience pure music. The intro with the background sounds puts you right in the center of the performance. Right after the into, the solo vocals without much of the instruments to be heard, are beautifully presented and extremely musical.

Soft Jazz - Ain't no Sunshine, at 0:10 when the sax starts with the "ain't no Sunshine ..." Part. This sound is so smooth and so enjoyable it makes me want to move and makes me want to dance. Slowly and gently, and I don't even dance!  Again, the beautiful sad at 2:17, simply makes me close my eyes and makes me want to hold on to something or someone..

Moving onto the soundstage, Travis - Sing, the whole piece, but especially the chorus, simply put you in a field, an endless field of sound. I could honestly see the immense fields of sound which were all around me moving through me flowing beautifully. It is as if the sound is flowing through me and as its flows, I am being carried away along with it. 

Also, let us not forget Nils Lofgren - Keith Don't go. The beginning of this piece, with the solo guitar is beautifully airy. The imaging of each string is pin point accurate. I could see Nils' fingers on each and every string as he plucks away. Masterful and beautiful at the same time!

Again, what can I say, I have never experienced so many different emotions while listening to music. My experiences with hifi systems could always only be described as great in a certain aspects, as in either the soundstage, the speed or musicality and this invoking only one emotion from the music, but never has it moved me on so many levels as it has now.

So, will the sound improve after 2-3 weeks, I do not know and honestly at this point, I do not really care. This is the best setup I've heard to date and no system should go without a good power supply. Highly recommended upgrade if you can afford it!


----------



## astrostar59

hifi boy said:


> Well the P5 has finally arrived!


 
 Ha Ha, told you. Nice one, and enjoy the new (clean) power supply to your hifi system.
  
 Yes, it will keep improving. I think 3-4 weeks before it reaches it's absolute best level.
  
 I have mine set to Multiwave, and to NOT reboot after an outage, to protect my gear I leave on 24/7.
  
 The P5 and P10 are not cheap I guess, maybe as much as a decent DAC, but until you get one in, it isn't apparent how much mains pollution is messing with the sound.
  
 Good luck Hifi Boy.


----------



## Hifi Boy

Yes, you most certainly did tell me so, but I could not have imagined that it will be this much of a difference. 

I have mine set to Sine, I guess I should try to set it to Multi like you did, but have no idea what difference that would make. Oh well, guess it's time to experiment further!

Anyway, I just moved my system to a new apartment when the P5 came and as you might have noticed from the pics, I took them in the dark. Basically I didn't even bother to plug in a light bulb in my new apartment because I just couldn't tear myself away from the music! I spent 4 hours lying on the rug till 1AM listening to this thing and only then did I decide to go back to the old apartment and sleep on the bed.

Also, you know when you buy a new addition to your system and you're happy with how it sounds and you don't have that urge for at least a couple of months to buy something new? Well, this thing had the opposite effect on me, it actually made me want to upgrade more!

This hobby of ours can be quite addictive.


----------



## astrostar59

hifi boy said:


> Also, you know when you buy a new addition to your system and you're happy with how it sounds and you don't have that urge for at least a couple of months to buy something new? Well, this thing had the opposite effect on me, it actually made me want to upgrade more!
> 
> This hobby of ours can be quite addictive.


 
 I agree. My theory for digital audio right now, is there are big gains to be had (grabbed) in the new influx of cheap discrete DACs coming out of China and Korea. They seem to be well engineered and 1/4 the price of European designs. I am going to investigate further, but I think right now is a good time to explore the R-2R DAC sector as it is much more affordable than previously. I have no idea if they are equal to the 10K european designs, but if they are close, it is great news for digital replay.
  
 Also, IMO there are big gains in mains regeneration as discussed above, but also Linear Power supplies feeding all audio gear on SMPS. I had done my whole system now and the upgrade in SQ is immense.
  
 Both of the above are 'affordable' upgrades to most audio fans. We are not talking 20K plus for a DAC or amplifier here.


----------



## Hifi Boy

Absolutely agree with you there.
  
 No need to spend crazy money on DACs anymore seeing as how the Chinese an Korean ones will suffice.
 Any reasonably well off audiophile today can have a pretty good system for much less than $20K, as you've put it.
  
 I sure do hope you get one of those R2R DACs, would be great if you could report back on the performance.
  
 My current opinion is that once you've managed to make the largest investment into a good power supply, you're ready to go. The Amp/DAC (Fostex HP-A4BL) which I had previously, which was quite good, cost me around $450. My current amp, Elekit TU-8200, with all the upgrades, cost me around $1500. The only thing after that you should get is a pair of good headphones and you're set. Assuming you get yourself HD800 or LCD3 (second hand), you won't have to spend a lot.
  
 This is nowhere near $20K like people used to pay before! 
  
 Anyway, the only thing I'm now wondering about are power cords. Every single power cord I have now is the stock one. Do you have any experience with after market ones, and how much sound improvement do you think replacing all my current cables would get me?


----------



## astrostar59

hifi boy said:


> Anyway, the only thing I'm now wondering about are power cords. Every single power cord I have now is the stock one. Do you have any experience with after market ones, and how much sound improvement do you think replacing all my current cables would get me?


 
 I use Belkin mans cable bought at hificollective. I have short runs, so not so worried about the mains cable TBH, as long as it is nice and thick (high amp capacity) and you use medical or audio wall plugs. And I use Furatech IEC midrange plugs. Also try and get a dedicated mains line to your gear back to the consumer unit.
  
 I did get decent interconnects though, silver with good RCA plugs. Don't forget to get hifi fuses such as the AMR ones.
  
 Good luck.


----------



## Hifi Boy

astrostar59 said:


> I use Belkin mans cable bought at hificollective. I have short runs, so not so worried about the mains cable TBH, as long as it is nice and thick (high amp capacity) and you use medical or audio wall plugs. And I use Furatech IEC midrange plugs. Also try and get a dedicated mains line to your gear back to the consumer unit.
> 
> I did get decent interconnects though, silver with good RCA plugs. Don't forget to get hifi fuses such as the AMR ones.
> 
> Good luck.


 
 Hmm... I don't know about the fuses, I'll have to look into that, but what I do know is that I'm planning on getting something from WireWorld.
  
 Probably WireWorld Electra 7 would be a god starting point for a power cord.
  
 Assuming I get a high-end DAC and amp some day, then I should go with Shunyata Research Sigma, these seem to beat WireWorld in all aspects from what I've read.


----------



## Kaixing

Hi! I need help with the Rednet 3. I got my rednet 3 working before but today my rednet 3 has no sound suddenly. I set the sample rate to 44.1HZ and connected to DVS and Forssell mada-2. I can find the rednet on the rednet controller 2 and I can ID the rednet 3 but when I play music in WDM mode,the aes activity light is not on at all and no sound. My music is 44.1hz flac file and I am using foobar. Anyone has any idea on where the problem could be?


----------



## Golfnutz

kaixing said:


> Hi! I need help with the Rednet 3. I got my rednet 3 working before but today my rednet 3 has no sound suddenly. I set the sample rate to 44.1HZ and connected to DVS and Forssell mada-2. I can find the rednet on the rednet controller 2 and I can ID the rednet 3 but when I play music in WDM mode,the aes activity light is not on at all and no sound. My music is 44.1hz flac file and I am using foobar. Anyone has any idea on where the problem could be?


 

 How does Dante Controller look? If there's no issue there, than it's probably nothing to do with Rednet.
  
 Sorry, can't help with Foobar, I'm using HQPlayer.


----------



## mourip

kaixing said:


> Hi! I need help with the Rednet 3. I got my rednet 3 working before but today my rednet 3 has no sound suddenly. I set the sample rate to 44.1HZ and connected to DVS and Forssell mada-2. I can find the rednet on the rednet controller 2 and I can ID the rednet 3 but when I play music in WDM mode,the aes activity light is not on at all and no sound. My music is 44.1hz flac file and I am using foobar. Anyone has any idea on where the problem could be?


 
  
 If you bought it from Sweetwater I would give them a call. Otherwise try to get Focusrite on the phone. They are very responsive.
  
 Have you tried using ASIO?


----------



## thisisvv

Can some one sell me DB25 to AES cable that can work from RN3 -> Mutec->AES. 
  
 MY current cable work perfect from RN3 to Yggy but if i connect RN3 to mutec then it wont work no matter what i try.....i already have  an additional 
  
 https://www.amazon.com/Swellder-Connector-15-pin-Terminal-Breakout/dp/B01270C0ZI/ref=pd_lpo_147_bs_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=13B1V9GRDJQ7J543RD5D
  
 any help...
  
 V


----------



## johnjen

If you already have a DB-25 to XLR that works (from the RN3 to the Jggy), then I would suspect either the xlr to xlr cable from the 3+ to the Jggy, or the setup on the 3+ is the problem.
  
 If your existing DB-25 to XLR works at all, then it's got to be something else.
  
 JJ


----------



## Hifi Boy

@astrostar59

Hey, astrostar. I just saw your post on What's Best Forum about Aqua Formula DAC.

I'm considering either Aqua Formula or TotalDAC d1-tube-mk2 as my endgame DAC, so I was wondering whether you've heard both and could you at all compare these two?


----------



## thisisvv

Just n FYI. I put my Rednet 3 and Mutc on sale here. Need funds for chord dave.


----------



## blitz1856

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I didn't find anything:  Anyone know how much degradation, if any, a person would get from an AES3 to S/PDIF converter?  I was planning on getting a Gungnir Multibit but annoyingly no AES balanced input.  As best I can tell, AS3 and S/PDIF (via BNC) audio formats are the same, and it is easy to convert balanced to unbalanced and convert the impedance, but some S/PDIF receivers won't recognize the stream as the protocols are slightly different.  I wouldn't really expect anyone to know if specifically a Gungnir would accept the converted signal from a Rednet box, but I'm more wondering if anyone has experience with the signal quality in this scenario in general.  Of course I would prefer to do away with the issue by purchasing an Yggy, but budget won't allow that right now.  And of course there are other DACs with AES that I could look into, so this is just a general question.  Thx!


----------



## yates7592

Anybody able to use Foobar with Rednet/Dante? I've hooked up HQplayer and J-River with no problems, but I can't see the Dante Virtual Soundcard as an option to select in Foobar playback devices?


----------



## jabbr

No problem at all. it is in the list of output devices as an ASIO device.


----------



## yates7592

Thanks that is good to know. I don't see anything in the drop down list like that. is there some Foobar add on I need to install before it comes up as an option?


----------



## mourip

I use JRMC and it has been a while since I used Foobar but I believe that ASIO is added as a plugin. 

You might try downloading ASIO4All and use that.

http://www.asio4all.com/


----------



## jabbr

There is a component for foobar called ASIO Support foo_out_asio. 

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_asio


----------



## belgiangenius (May 18, 2017)

Well, I had been using an Audiophilleo 1 with purepower for the past year, which is a USB to SPDIF converter.

Decided to buy an Atterotech Undaes-O just for experimentation.  I also purchased a TeraDak 24VDC linear power supply to feed it.  I connected the Undaes-O to the Schiit Yggdrasil with balanced cable.  The Undaes-O is connected to my Ethernet home network, which has a Mac mini server attached.  I installed Dante virtual sound card driver and the controller app on the server.

The software is not easy to configure if you have never used this AOIP software before.  Finally I got it setup to stream 44.1Khz material and I set JRiver to send only 44.1Khz material to the virtual sound card driver.

Initially it began to work and I thought it sounded like crap...until I realized I was sending the left channel to both speakers and listening to mono.  Like I said - not easy to configure.  Finally got it all sorted out.....and

DAMN.  This is one great sounding transport!  It sounds at least as good as the Audiophilleo....and I suspect it probably sounds even a little bit better.  I'm definitely keeping this setup.  99% of my music is redbook, so I don't care about high resolution formats.

This setup is also cleaner and neater than the Audiophilleo if you have a home network already setup and your music server is far away from your listening room.

Highly recommended.


----------



## gefski

belgiangenius said:


> Initially it began to work and I thought it sounded like crap...until I realized I was sending the left channel to both speakers and listening to mono.  Like I said - not easy to configure.  Finally got it all sorted out.....and.



I did this same thing recently upon returning my rig from a meet. Listening to 'Kind of Blue', I found Cannonball Adderley "all ambient" in one channel---lol! Took me a bit to find the two green check marks in the same column in Dante Controller.

Enjoy it!!


----------



## johnjen (May 21, 2017)

I recently added a 2nd Mutec 3+, this time the 3+USB version to my AOIP setup.
It is being powered by my new dedicated dual LPS.
This addition came 'alive' when I added another matching Audio Sensibility AES cable to the rest of the cables in this digital audio chain.

Such that the whole system is now blossoming, much to my delight.

It is headed towards what I call *Hearing Everything (HE)*.

This is a degree of transparency where every sound source (I call them '*voices*') are homogeneous unto themselves and are fully recognizable as such.
It's like there is no guesswork as to what I'm hearing, no gaps or confusion in following any single 'voice' be it lyrics or the full 'harmonic structure' of an instrument.
Not to mention the whole of the acoustic impression as it is heard.

IOW there is less mental effort required while listening, less 'strain' trying to figure out, or 'reconstruct' the sum total of the acoustic presentation, as a whole.
There is just the flow of the music as it continues to unfold.

Way Kewl.

JJ


----------



## yates7592

I'm unable to play 192kHz files through my D16 (works fine with 44.1kHz files), i.e. I can't get the channels routed correctly. Error message on channel routing is 'source demands more latency than receiver has available'. So I go into the device settings and increase the D16 latency from 250usec to 500usec or even 5ms and still get the same error message. Any ideas where I'm going wrong?


----------



## kazsud

What is your setup?


----------



## yates7592

My set up is:

PC >HQ Player > ethernet > D16 > AES > DAC


----------



## hifimckinney

yates7592 said:


> Anybody able to use Foobar with Rednet/Dante? I've hooked up HQplayer and J-River with no problems, but I can't see the Dante Virtual Soundcard as an option to select in Foobar playback devices?


Won't Virtual Soundcard appear as an option under Playback Devices on Windows 10 so that anything played on computer is routed to Dante?


----------



## yates7592

hifimckinney said:


> Won't Virtual Soundcard appear as an option under Playback Devices on Windows 10 so that anything played on computer is routed to Dante?



Yes I got the Foobar issue sorted thanks. My main problem now is the lack of 192khz playback reported above.


----------



## hifimckinney

yates7592 said:


> Yes I got the Foobar issue sorted thanks. My main problem now is the lack of 192khz playback reported above.



Thanks, looks like I wasn't clear enough. I installed Dante Virtual Soundcard but it does not appear on below screen. Why is that? I want to set that as a default playback device so that any audio played (whether Youtube or any streaming) on my computer are routed to Dante device such as Focusrite Rednet 3 or Atterotech unDAES. Is that possible?


----------



## kazsud

yates7592 said:


> My set up is:
> 
> PC >HQ Player > ethernet > D16 > AES > DAC




What speakers & headphones?

Sorry it doesn't say on your profile.


----------



## yates7592

kazsud said:


> What speakers & headphones?
> 
> Sorry it doesn't say on your profile.



Speakers are Adam S3X-V and cans are SR009. Anyway the problem is sorted now. I spent most of the day on the phone and email to Focusrite who it is true give excellent customer service. It turns out my D16 firmware was not updated properly and now it sings like an angel on anything from 44 to 192khz.


----------



## yates7592

hifimckinney said:


> Thanks, looks like I wasn't clear enough. I installed Dante Virtual Soundcard but it does not appear on below screen. Why is that? I want to set that as a default playback device so that any audio played (whether Youtube or any streaming) on my computer are routed to Dante device such as Focusrite Rednet 3 or Atterotech unDAES. Is that possible?



Sorry I can't help with that.  But would it make much difference with YouTube videos?


----------



## mourip

hifimckinney said:


> Thanks, looks like I wasn't clear enough. I installed Dante Virtual Soundcard but it does not appear on below screen. Why is that? I want to set that as a default playback device so that any audio played (whether Youtube or any streaming) on my computer are routed to Dante device such as Focusrite Rednet 3 or Atterotech unDAES. Is that possible



I do not think that you can play apps that use Windows sound like Youtube or Pandora without using a third party app like Virtual Cable. I installed it and it works well.

http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/


----------



## yuhengtiger

Hi everyone, 

I am using focusrite am2 with dante interface, I am using Jriver on Mac system and have set up the chain using rednet control 2 and dante controller, dvs, etc. Yet how can I do automatic sampling rate change? 

Thanks!


----------



## yates7592

I don't think it's possible to do automatic sample rate change on the Dante gear. It's a pain in the behind everytime you want to change source but IMO well worth it for the quite large step up in SQ vs USB.


----------



## mourip

yuhengtiger said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am using focusrite am2 with dante interface, I am using Jriver on Mac system and have set up the chain using rednet control 2 and dante controller, dvs, etc. Yet how can I do automatic sampling rate change?
> 
> Thanks!



With a firmware update and a new version of Controller you can do SRC with a D16 or an RN3 but to be honest it is very buggy.

You would need to check with Focusrite to see if your AM2 can do SRC.

I just leave everything on 192K and it sounds wonderful.


----------



## yuhengtiger

mourip said:


> With a firmware update and a new version of Controller you can do SRC with a D16 or an RN3 but to be honest it is very buggy.
> 
> You would need to check with Focusrite to see if your AM2 can do SRC.
> 
> I just leave everything on 192K and it sounds wonderful.



Cool. That is a nice walk around. I will try to do the same thing tomorrow. Thanks!


----------



## hifimckinney

mourip said:


> I do not think that you can play apps that use Windows sound like Youtube or Pandora without using a third party app like Virtual Cable. I installed it and it works well.
> 
> http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/


I installed Atterotech unDAES with Audinate DVS and everything is good; this is possible.


----------



## kazsud

Can I input optical from my apple tv into my mbp 2015 and output to undaes-o?


----------



## JayNYC

Has anyone here been in contact with Audinate regarding Dante Virtual Soundcard for Windows?  Does Audinate read this thread?
Every other pro audio interface I've ever used on Windows installs (enables) both WDM and ASIO driver support _simultaneously_.
Right now, Windows users must use the hacky VBAudio cable or similar to route WDM to ASIO in order to "sort of" have both at the same time.


----------



## mourip (May 27, 2017)

I have called them and also emailed them and found them to be very responsive.

I do not think that their software support Windows sound directly. You need the free third party virtual cable software that was mention earlier.


----------



## Hifi Boy

jabbr said:


> There is a component for foobar called ASIO Support foo_out_asio.
> 
> http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_asio



Hi jabbr.

I have seen in your signature that you have a Grimm CC1 and a Mutec-3+USB.

I also have a Mutec-3+USB and would like to get Grimm CC1,
but I've recently seen that Mutec has released their Ref 10 MHz clock so I was wondering whether there is any way to plug this Ref 10 into CC1,
and do you think it would make any difference?


----------



## jabbr

Hifi Boy said:


> Hi jabbr.
> 
> I have seen in your signature that you have a Grimm CC1 and a Mutec-3+USB.
> 
> ...



No, it is of no use to add a Reference clock to the CC1.

On the site of Grimm Audio there are some interesting white papers, including 1 or 2 explaining the situation when Ref-clocks are and are not usefull. It all depends on the quality of the oscillator circuit and the signal locking mechanism (narrow/wide) used in the master clock whether adding a ref-clock makes any sense.


----------



## Hifi Boy

jabbr said:


> No, it is of no use to add a Reference clock to the CC1.
> 
> On the site of Grimm Audio there are some interesting white papers, including 1 or 2 explaining the situation when Ref-clocks are and are not usefull. It all depends on the quality of the oscillator circuit and the signal locking mechanism (narrow/wide) used in the master clock whether adding a ref-clock makes any sense.


Thanks for the info.

I've actually contacted Grimm as well and got some documents sent by them to read up on it.
It would be great if someone could actually buy both and make sure that there are no differences. 

Anyway, I can say that when I added CyberShaft OP14 to my Mutec, the change was noticeable, but not as big as when I first added Mutec MC-3+USB.

So, could you tell me how much of a difference does the CC1 make when it's plugged into Mutec, compared to not having any reclocker at all and then adding a Mutec?

Because if CC1 + Ref10 make no sense, I should choose only one and not waste my money on both.


----------



## yates7592

I would also like to know the answer to that question. Although I have just ordered a CC1 and there is an 8 week waiting time for a new batch. I'm not using a Mutec though. I have the D16 and will slave to the CC1 master clock and then AES out into my DAC.


----------



## johnjen

I just heard from Mutec that for those who are yanking the SMPS for a LPS in their 3+ (w/w-o USB) the MAX supply voltage is 6.0Vdc
I have found that 5.8Vdc or less is best, down to 5.1Vdc.

JJ


----------



## Hifi Boy

yates7592 said:


> I would also like to know the answer to that question. Although I have just ordered a CC1 and there is an 8 week waiting time for a new batch. I'm not using a Mutec though. I have the D16 and will slave to the CC1 master clock and then AES out into my DAC.


Lucky you! 

Please let us know how much the sound quality improves when you get it.


----------



## mourip (Jun 6, 2017)

Hifi Boy said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> I've actually contacted Grimm as well and got some documents sent by them to read up on it.
> It would be great if someone could actually buy both and make sure that there are no differences.
> ...



I have a D16, an Antelope LiveClock, and a Mutec USB. Using the external clock for the D16 made a big difference. When I also had the hooked LiveClock up to the Mutec I did not detect a difference. I think that the Mutec already has a very good internal clock. I am using AES between the Mutec, D16, and my DAC..

YMMV


----------



## yates7592

I'm getting confused now! Are folk using an external clock to reclock the D16? I thought an external clock would only influence something at the digital to analog conversion or analog to digital? D16 is purely digital. I ordered a CC1 to reclock the signal going out from my D16 into my DAC.


----------



## johnjen

A Word Clock is used to synchronize an entire chain of digital devices, mainly used in pro audio setups, (studios, remote setups etc.).

Us audiophools are using them for the same reason only our setups are much simpler.

And most dacs meant for the non-pro user don't have a WC input, so we use the WC's to synch the rest of the gear in our digital audio stream that feeds our dacs.
AOIP is a prime example, where we are also using reclockers or other types of DDC's in sequence.

In some cases using an external WC is a step up in SQ, while in other cases, not so much, as has been noted earlier in this thread.

IOW a WC is a way of getting all the devices in the digital chain to operate in lock step.
Some gear works better this way, while other gear already has 'better' internal clocks and so a WC can degrade or not make any difference to the SQ.

JJ


----------



## mourip

yates7592 said:


> I'm getting confused now! Are folk using an external clock to reclock the D16? I thought an external clock would only influence something at the digital to analog conversion or analog to digital? D16 is purely digital. I ordered a CC1 to reclock the signal going out from my D16 into my DAC.



I am using the LiveClock as an external clock for my D16 and the Mutec as a reclocker. You can also use it as an external clock for the Mutec but in my case I did not see any benefit. I did feel that the LiveClock was better than the internal clock of the D16.


----------



## Hifi Boy

mourip said:


> I am using the LiveClock as an external clock for my D16 and the Mutec as a reclocker. You can also use it as an external clock for the Mutec but in my case I did not see any benefit. I did feel that the LiveClock was better than the internal clock of the D16.


Someone above mentioned that if you go *Cybershaft > LiveClock > Mutec*, that you do notice the difference, and its bettern than simply doing *Cybershaft > Mutec* which is what I'm doing right now.

But what I want to do is go *CC1 > Mutec*, or *Ref10 > Mutec*, we'll see how things turn out.


----------



## yates7592

Thanks for the replies. What do you expect would provide the biggest improvement in my chain (and obviously I will test this myself when my CC1 arrives), but just trying to get a head start:

CC1 as external Word clock input to D16
or
CC1 as reclocker after D16 so: D16 > AES > CC1 > AES > DAC


----------



## mourip

yates7592 said:


> Thanks for the replies. What do you expect would provide the biggest improvement in my chain (and obviously I will test this myself when my CC1 arrives), but just trying to get a head start:
> 
> CC1 as external Word clock input to D16
> or
> CC1 as reclocker after D16 so: D16 > AES > CC1 > AES > DAC



I vote for number 2 and will be interested in your finding.


----------



## winders

You guys have gone off the deep end.....


----------



## mourip (Jun 8, 2017)

winders said:


> You guys have gone off the deep end.....



I did not know that audio had a deep end. I thought it was all deep end! 

None of us would be pursuing this if we had not experienced a significant improvement over our USB based chains...

BTW. It is hard to tell from your post if you are trolling or are acknowledging those who are trying to push the boundaries of better sound. Hopefully the later... otherwise why would you be bothering?


----------



## johnjen

ALL of hi-end audio is the deep end.
I mean spending $2,300 let alone $23,000 or more, for just a dac, is over the edge and into the deep end in the first place.

How high is up, or, how low is deep?

Besides if we learn something by deeply exploring these topics and others can benefit by our efforts, where's the problem in that?

JJ


----------



## gldgate

Hifi Boy said:


> Someone above mentioned that if you go *Cybershaft > LiveClock > Mutec*, that you do notice the difference, and its bettern than simply doing *Cybershaft > Mutec* which is what I'm doing right now.
> 
> But what I want to do is go *CC1 > Mutec*, or *Ref10 > Mutec*, we'll see how things turn out.



That may have been me as I went thru an external clock binge about a year ago. I think I also mentioned that while I noticed an improvement we are talking  small incremental changes and not night and day stuff. Not nearly the sq improvement in my system as the RedNet D16 or Mutec were. Cherry on top of the Sundae.


----------



## Hifi Boy

gldgate said:


> That may have been me as I went thru an external clock binge about a year ago. I think I also mentioned that while I noticed an improvement we are talking  small incremental changes and not night and day stuff. Not nearly the sq improvement in my system as the RedNet D16 or Mutec were. Cherry on top of the Sundae.


Then that could mean that there is no need to get a Ref10 if you have CC1. We won't know for sure until someone actually gets both and listens to them.

It seems that most people only have the CC1, and there are still no Ref10 reviews out there. So we just may have to wait a bit longer.


----------



## jelt2359

gldgate said:


> Changing sample rates while using external clock used to involve two manual operations. Changing sample rate in RedNet Control plus LiveClock SW. SRF solves the RedNet issue but I still need to manually change the SR for the LiveClock. If I don't change the sampe rate in the LiveClock SW with SRF the RedNet clock source changes from word clock input to internal RedNet clock.
> 
> So, not a completely auto process but better than it was before. I don't find it to be a big deal as majority of my listening tends to be longer classical pieces or whole "albums".



Mourip, since we're not really getting exact answers from Julian on CA, I'd just like to say that I found this post and, having now tried to connect a 10mhz clock direct to the Mutec (I borrowed a friend's Antelope 10M), then using the Mutec to the Rednet as a distributor, it works fine. I am also using the Mutec as a reclocker in this mode, mind- ie, Mutec is both distributor and reclocker. Perhaps gldgate, who has far more experience with these clocks, can confirm if his Cybershaft direct to Mutec can work with the Mutec both as distributor and reclocker as well.

Anyhow, with the Rednet we are taking sample rate info from the transmitter, not word clock, the Mutec is taking the sample rate info from the AES stream as well. In short, with this setup you don't have to manually change any sample rates at all.


----------



## mourip

Thanks for "going boldly where no man (non gender specific being) has gone before"! So I guess the big question is how did it sound? 

On another note. CA has become a drag lately. The objectivist mafia (flat earthers) routinely destroy many perfectly reasonable threads often bringing them to their knees with passive aggression in the guise of "humor" or else spinning off with wildly unrelated self indulgent posts. Very few of these folks add knowledge to the effort. In my mind CA has basically dried up with only a few pioneers like John Swenson bravely and maturely carrying the banner of informed experimentation and innovation. In the last two years the only real breakthroughs I have experienced in my own system have been with AOIP(pioneered here) and the isolation/grounding ideas from John Swenson found on CA. Oh yes, add to that DIY interconnects and speaker wire made with Duelund wire, which is extremely cheap by audiophile standards .

BTW. I am an "objecto-subjectivist". I use science and my own objective reasoning to determine the most likely path to good sound and then use my ears to decide if I like the outcome in my own system with my own associated equipment.

Thanks again,

Paul


----------



## jelt2359

It sounds just like the Antelope guys say it would. Warmer, more analog sound, which I like. Separation is markedly better, and bass is bolder and more dynamic too. All in all it's a clear improvement. 

I definitely have the Ref10 in my sights now!


----------



## joelha

Hey mourip,

I missed the part about the diy Dueland wire mods.

I don't want to take the thread OT, but could you post a link regarding this project?

Thanks a lot.

Joel


----------



## mourip

joelha said:


> Hey mourip,
> 
> I missed the part about the diy Dueland wire mods.
> 
> ...



No problem. Here is a link to Jeff Day's web site. This is the most recent post of a nearly year long series on using Duelund wire for both IC's and speaker cable. Feel free to PM me.

http://jeffsplace.me/wordpress/?p=11335


----------



## joelha

You're great, mourip.

Thanks for the information and the quick reply.

Joel


----------



## yates7592

Very comprehensive and in-depth review of everything you need to know about AOIP in this month's 'Sound On Sound':
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ethernet-audio


----------



## mourip

yates7592 said:


> Very comprehensive and in-depth review of everything you need to know about AOIP in this month's 'Sound On Sound':
> http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ethernet-audio



Bummer...

*You've only read 10% of this article, so to continue reading...*
*Option 1: Login to read this article if you have a Digital Subscription or Industry Controlled Circulation account*


To read the full article online (in HTML browser format), please LOG IN at the top of this page.
Note: Your Digital subscription does not include downloadable PDF articles free of charge.
*Option 2: Buy a Digital sub from our shop*


A Digital sub can be bought from our Shop and used immediately, or contact our Subs staff to discuss an upgrade price to add Digital access to your existing Print subscription.
*Option 3: Buy and download this SOS article in Adobe PDF format*


Buy this article now and immediately download the PDF file to your computer.
PDF articles look identical to the printed magazine layouts (but exclude advertisements).
Note: Some shorter articles don't always have a PDF version.


----------



## yates7592

I use option 4 - buy the magazine!


----------



## patrikh

Is it possible to hook a microphone audio interface to the aes input on the rednet16 so I could have both sound and microphone connected to the computer via a single ethernet cable?


----------



## mourip

patrikh said:


> Is it possible to hook a microphone audio interface to the aes input on the rednet16 so I could have both sound and microphone connected to the computer via a single ethernet cable?



Not without adding another device somehow. 

You would need a microphone preamp what included an analogue to digital converter (ADC). The D16 just has an ethernet input.The Rednet 4 offers analogue inputs but now you are out some serious bucks and really into Pro Audio land.

You might be able to use a microphone input of your audio server to channel sound through the software network card out via the ethernet port to the D16.


----------



## Golfnutz

Anyone considering this?

http://jplay.eu/ml_post_slider/jcat-net-card-femto


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> Anyone considering this?
> 
> http://jplay.eu/ml_post_slider/jcat-net-card-femto



I have move to using fiber to connect to both my D16 and my LAN. This has given me a nice improvement. Fiber provides excellent isolation from ground issues. I have a good Intel NIC currently and fiber using fiber media converters surpasses it easily.

I am now looking for a good PCIe fiber card.


----------



## Muziqboy

I have no need for that Jcat netcard since I'm using TP-Link Fiber media converters with both modules being powered by batteries instead of the supplied wallwarts.
And I agree that there was an improvement in the SQ.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I have move to using fiber to connect to both my D16 and my LAN. This has given me a nice improvement. Fiber provides excellent isolation from ground issues. I have a good Intel NIC currently and fiber using fiber media converters surpasses it easily.
> 
> I am now looking for a good PCIe fiber card.



Yes, I saw your comments over at CA.

I have to agree with you about fiber, but the differences are very, very small (my system). Maybe just a slight bit smoother with fiber, but I'm not sure I could tell the difference if I were blind folded.

I cannot say that connecting fiber to the PC/LAN has made any difference for me at all. I would be totally guessing on that one if blind folded (still have it connected from a couple hours ago).

I will say this for certain. Previously, if I sat near my system with my laptop and connected via RDC to my system, I could hear noise through my speakers as I was using my laptop. This is completely gone now, and for this reason alone, I'll keep the fiber connected to the PC/LAN.

You will still need two FMC's for your LAN and the D16, so for me, it's not worth spending money to just eliminate two more FMC's. Obviously, this is just a personal preference.

With regards to the JCAT Card, and this is just my opinion with my system, as everyone's system reacts to equipment differently. I guess it will come down to what the best differences are (if any).

1. No FMC's, direct connect from PC to D16, and PC to LAN
2. FMC's from PC to D16, and PC to LAN
3. JCAT LAN card only, no FMC's (this would totally eliminate many wires/boxes/LPS).
4. JCAT LAN card w/ Fiber connections.


----------



## Golfnutz

Muziqboy said:


> I have no need for that Jcat netcard since I'm using TP-Link Fiber media converters with both modules being powered by batteries instead of the supplied wallwarts.
> And I agree that there was an improvement in the SQ.



I have batteries too, but prefer the LPS simply for the convenience factor. Certainly, batteries didn't sound any better for me.


----------



## Golfnutz (Jul 9, 2017)

I don't know if this is marketing or has some truth.

• Ultra-low noise linear regulators and filters eliminate noise interferences from PC
• No switching power supplies anywhere
• FEMTO Clock Technology (Crystek CCHD-957) lowers jitter below measurable levels

So basically, will there be any benefit to running Ethernet from an LPS? And how much of a difference will the Regulators and FEMTO clock make?

I do know this. Using a LPS to power my SATA drive (operation system) has made a noticeable improvement.


----------



## johnjen

I have noticed that removing ANY SMPS from the system can make a noticeable change for the better.
They are noisy and can pollute the ground plane which can then spread to other gear.

I even removed one that was just powering a fan and nothing else, and heard a small change for the better.

YMMV

JJ


----------



## Golfnutz (Jul 9, 2017)

johnjen said:


> I have noticed that removing ANY SMPS from the system can make a noticeable change for the better.
> They are noisy and can pollute the ground plane which can then spread to other gear.
> 
> I even removed one that was just powering a fan and nothing else, and heard a small change for the better.
> ...



My PC doesn't have any SMPS, it runs from external 12VDC LPS. However, powering the SATA drive from another separate LPS really improved the sound (SATA drive is used only to run OS, HQPlayer, and Rednet/Dante software - no music is stored on this drive). I had the OS and other apps running from the MSATA connection and it wasn't anywhere near as good.
This is why I think running Ethernet from it's own LPS should be just as effective, or maybe not.

This little fanless embedded computer with external LPS is knocking the crap out of my fully loaded 'dedicated to audio' Intel 6700K system.


----------



## johnjen

Who makes that fan-less cpu?
JJ


----------



## Golfnutz (Jul 9, 2017)

johnjen said:


> Who makes that fan-less cpu?
> JJ


http://www.mitxpc.com/proddetail.php?prod=JBC323U591W-3160-B

If I had to do it over, I would probably look for something similar but with full pcie slot and 2 sata connectors. This one doesn't have full pcie, and there's only 1 sata (has msata though). I prefer to have my music files locally, so 1 sata for OP, and 1 for music files. Full pcie slot will allow for add-on's (ie. network cards). DFI has the BW171. As it is now, I wouldn't think of running my music server with anything else than one of these embedded solutions - major step up. The SATA II drive I'm using is 64GB SLC (Intel), this has a lot to do with the quality ($70 for used, but they sold out after I got mine - was going to buy another one).  http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-INTEL-S...927095&hash=item1a28541c80:g:Q9oAAOSwuLZY1JdZ


----------



## johnjen

So how big is your s/w load on your boot drive?
And which OS are you running?

Musicboy has a NµC running winblows that runs his standalone and dedicated music system feeding into his AOIP that feeds his Theta DAC.
The single biggest component is the display with his NµC stuck on the back.

Very tidy and even transportable enough to bring to meets.

JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

johnjen said:


> So how big is your s/w load on your boot drive?
> And which OS are you running?
> 
> Musicboy has a NµC running winblows that runs his standalone and dedicated music system feeding into his AOIP that feeds his Theta DAC.
> ...



There's 20gb left (actual usage is 58gb, so I've used 40gb on Windows 10/HQPlayer/Rednet Control/Dante/Audinate). I had Audio Optimizer (AO) loaded, and even though the number of processes was reduced, the CPU usage jumped from about 20% to over 40%. Sound wise, there's no difference with or without AO.

I'm doing the same as Musicboy, except I run mine using Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) from my 13" laptop. Physical size is very small as well.

Latency averages around 1.1 msec @1.6GHz

I'd also like to comment on how well the D16 response to it's input source. There doesn't seem to be any bottleneck from the D16 at all. I'm not sure if this is because replacing the internal SMPS with an external LPS is just that much better.


----------



## Marcin_gps

Golfnutz said:


> Anyone considering this?
> 
> http://jplay.eu/ml_post_slider/jcat-net-card-femto



There are some folks who ordered it for Rednet, so you may expect feedback later this month. 
If the card didn't improve sound, we wouldn't offer it. It's the same as with all USB gizmos, just nobody else figured out yet that ethernet has to be treated in a similar manner - with a proper low-noise & low-jitter design 

Best regards, 
Marcin


----------



## yates7592

Is anybody here using the Rednet PCIe card, as opposed to just Dante Virtual Soundcard software? The former is much lower latency I understand, but I'm not clear whether that is advantageous for simple 2-channel playback rather than multi-track recording. Then there is also the JCAT Femto Card above. So you could only use *either*: (1) Rednet PCI card; *or* (2) JCAT Femto Card - which would be the best SQ option for 2-channel playback?


----------



## Golfnutz

yates7592 said:


> Is anybody here using the Rednet PCIe card, as opposed to just Dante Virtual Soundcard software? The former is much lower latency I understand, but I'm not clear whether that is advantageous for simple 2-channel playback rather than multi-track recording. Then there is also the JCAT Femto Card above. So you could only use *either*: (1) Rednet PCI card; *or* (2) JCAT Femto Card - which would be the best SQ option for 2-channel playback?



Rednet PCI card offers nothing for home audio use with Rednet 3 or D16 - DVS is absolutely fine. If you're PC is having problems with latency, than get a new PC, don't invest in the Rednet PCI card. An embedded solution running DVS with external LPS will be cheaper and sound better. Lowering latency by a few msec isn't going to improve your system at all.

From what I'm reading, and based on my one time experience, it seems that powering internal devices externally is really the way to go. I have no proof, but it appears that devices powered internally are adding some amount of noise back into the computer system.

I think this is why the JCAT NET card could be an improvement over the integrated LAN ports on the motherboard (or other pcie LAN cards that are powered by the PC).

As Marcin said, wait until the end of the month to hopefully get some feedback from these Rednet users.


----------



## mourip (Jul 10, 2017)

Marcin_gps said:


> There are some folks who ordered it for Rednet, so you may expect feedback later this month.
> If the card didn't improve sound, we wouldn't offer it. It's the same as with all USB gizmos, just nobody else figured out yet that ethernet has to be treated in a similar manner - with a proper low-noise & low-jitter design
> 
> Best regards,
> Marcin



Looking forward to reports. I especially like the dual ports and the option to power it separately. One port to the LAN and the other to the D16 or RN3

Did you test it with Rednet? Would you consider sending one out for evaluation?

At a bit over $900 it could be a winner but I would definitely wait for early adopter feedback!

Best,

Paul


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Looking forward to reports. I especially like the dual ports and the option to power it separately. One port to the LAN and the other to the D16 or RN3
> 
> Did you test it with Rednet? Would you consider sending one out for evaluation?
> 
> ...



Isn't $420 Euros about $500 USD ?


----------



## mourip

I bet that I misread the web page. I think that was for two cards. Thanks. Seems more reasonable!

Who is going first?


----------



## johnjen

I have to wonder if using a pair of FMC's will accomplish the same SQ step up as a dedicated NIC.
I mean complete isolation from the source (computer) to the DDC (RN3/16, uD0 etc) should accomplish much the same end result, I would think.

JJ


----------



## Golfnutz (Jul 10, 2017)

johnjen said:


> I have to wonder if using a pair of FMC's will accomplish the same SQ step up as a dedicated NIC.
> I mean complete isolation from the source (computer) to the DDC (RN3/16, uD0 etc) should accomplish much the same end result, I would think.
> 
> JJ



Except the JCAT is a dedicated NIC that can be powered externally, and has low noise regulators, with a femto clock. I'm not so sure it would be the same as you've described above. We'll have to wait until the end of the month to find out.


----------



## johnjen

My FMC's are externally powered by LPS's using low noise regulators.  Even so we are dealing with digital circuits here, which contribute much more noise than what the LPS's add.
As for the femto clock, we are talking about the ethernet data stream which does get reclocked by the FMC's AND then again in the AOIP data stream and then also by the DAC itself as well.

In my experiments just reducing/eliminating the number of SMPS's was a far greater improvement just behind adopting AOIP in the 1st place.

So it will be interesting to hear what the reports are from yet another $$$ digital device, not to mention what the Schiit Eiter brings to this party.

Interesting Times In Audio Indeed.

JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> My FMC's are externally powered by LPS's using low noise regulators.  Even so we are dealing with digital circuits here, which contribute much more noise than what the LPS's add.
> As for the femto clock, we are talking about the ethernet data stream which does get reclocked by the FMC's AND then again in the AOIP data stream and then also by the DAC itself as well.
> 
> In my experiments just reducing/eliminating the number of SMPS's was a far greater improvement just behind adopting AOIP in the 1st place



Question. Has anyone had issues with FMC's not syncing up  when connected? Yesterday I tried replacing my fiber cable with a longer one(just 3 meters) and it would never get sync. I ended up going back to my old one which was from a different manufacturer and will be returning the new cable today,


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Question. Has anyone had issues with FMC's not syncing up  when connected? Yesterday I tried replacing my fiber cable with a longer one(just 3 meters) and it would never get sync. I ended up going back to my old one which was from a different manufacturer and will be returning the new cable today,



You did use the proper type of fibre cable, single mode vs multi mode, and suitable for the wave lenth of your transeivers?


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> You did use the proper type of fibre cable, single mode vs multi mode, and suitable for the wave lenth of your transeivers?



Good question. I am using MC200CM's and I chose multi-mode SC cables as previously.

I got these before and they worked: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000067SCD/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s03?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This time I got these slightly longer ones: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001B1FHS2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## jabbr

mourip said:


> Good question. I am using MC200CM's and I chose multi-mode SC cables as previously.
> 
> I got these before and they worked: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000067SCD/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s03?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> This time I got these slightly longer ones: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001B1FHS2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1




They look to be technically the same.
I would go for a 10ft length of your original brand that did work.

I'm running a 60 ft cable without issues, but than multi mode fibre optics should be able to run 1000s of feet without issues.


----------



## mourip

jabbr said:


> They look to be technically the same.
> I would go for a 10ft length of your original brand that did work.
> 
> I'm running a 60 ft cable without issues, but than multi mode fibre optics should be able to run 1000s of feet without issues.



Thanks! I got a return label from Amazon last night having come to the same conclusion.


----------



## yates7592

Golfnutz said:


> Rednet PCI card offers nothing for home audio use with Rednet 3 or D16 - DVS is absolutely fine. If you're PC is having problems with latency, than get a new PC, don't invest in the Rednet PCI card. An embedded solution running DVS with external LPS will be cheaper and sound better. Lowering latency by a few msec isn't going to improve your system at all.



Have you actually heard a system with the Rednet PCI card? I'm not having problems with latency in my system but have read in at least 3 sites without axe to grind that SQ with the Rednet card is significantly superior to the DVS software. They are saying that it's basically not worth going the Rednet route without the PCI card. I'm just wondering why these claims are made and whether anybody here has actually heard both?


----------



## mourip (Jul 11, 2017)

yates7592 said:


> Have you actually heard a system with the Rednet PCI card? I'm not having problems with latency in my system but have read in at least 3 sites without axe to grind that SQ with the Rednet card is significantly superior to the DVS software. They are saying that it's basically not worth going the Rednet route without the PCI card. I'm just wondering why these claims are made and whether anybody here has actually heard both?



These are good questions. When I first started down the Rednet path I read up on that card but found that even the Focusrite site said that one only needed the card when using a very large number of channels. It can handle 128. They implied that sonics were no different from DVS. Of course in an audiophile system that is immensely resolving that might not be the case. At about $1k for the card one would hope for a pretty big improvement.

Regarding Rednet not really being not worth it without the card my experience is way, way contrary. A good network card with Rednet pretty much crushes USB. If you add optic fiber to at least the link to the Rednet device it pushes it up farther. Adding a Mutec USB for reclocking farther yet.

Please provide some links to those axe grinding sites. I am interested as I have heard no feedback from an audiophile yet. I have not heard the card.

BTW. Latency is only an issue if you get to the point of getting dropouts. With GB ethernet and a good switch you should not have issues. Dante does not support wireless in the signal path.


----------



## mourip

As long as we are on the topic of ethernet and fiber connections. Has anyone used a PCIe fiber card for making their ethernet connection? If so what is your setup?


----------



## mhamel

Looks like there are some new Dante interfaces that were announced, including a simple Dante->Digital (AES/Coax/Optical) box (max of 96KHz) for < $400.  There's also a small Dante-connected headphone amp and a few others.  Take a look at https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/oem-new-products/rdl? 

The SF-ND2 digital interface looks like it's tentatively shipping end of July - Markertek has it listed as selling for $383.

  -Mike


----------



## mourip

mhamel said:


> Looks like there are some new Dante interfaces that were announced, including a simple Dante->Digital (AES/Coax/Optical) box (max of 96KHz) for < $400.  There's also a small Dante-connected headphone amp and a few others.  Take a look at https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/oem-new-products/rdl?
> 
> The  digital interface looks like it's tentatively shipping end of July - Markertek has it listed as selling for $383.
> 
> -Mike



Thanks. Interesting stuff. Looks like we are headed in the right direction. Still hoping for 192K though.

The SF-ND2 uses "power over ethernet" (POE) though so we would need to ether have an ethernet switch that supported it or a POE adapter. There are some POE adapters that will accept DC input and also some simple injectors but it looks like the voltage is 48vdc which would rule out most of the LPSs that we commonly use.


----------



## Clemmaster

Looks like a competitor for the Attero Tech unDAES-O.
More outputs (coax + toslink) but no external power jack, only PoE.


----------



## gefski

mhamel said:


> Looks like there are some new Dante interfaces that were announced, including a simple Dante->Digital (AES/Coax/Optical) box (max of 96KHz) for < $400.  There's also a small Dante-connected headphone amp and a few others.  Take a look at https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/oem-new-products/rdl?
> 
> The SF-ND2 digital interface looks like it's tentatively shipping end of July - Markertek has it listed as selling for $383.
> 
> -Mike



Only two channels and price goes down; just what some audiophiles have been asking for. 

Don't know how difficult it is to do PoE though.

Great info, thanks!


----------



## Hifi Boy

Just to interject a bit.

Ref-10 seems to be out, seeing as how its on Mutec's homepage.

https://www.mutec-net.com/product_ref_10.php

So, is someone gonna buy it and compare it to Grimm CC1 now?


----------



## music_man

not to ruffle any feathers. I do not understand why this is such a big deal. very high end dacs need none of this and they can connect via 1gbps Ethernet. to be honest I may have missed something in these 300 pages. maybe on a $2,000usd dac yes. if you are going to spend all of this why not get the right $15k-$100k dac? I am currently using my qx-5 twenty upstairs and msb select custom downstairs. I had all of this on the qx-5 twenty. ayre told me just run a straight cardas hs clear cable right to the dac or an aq diamond to Ethernet input and I will be pleased that the sound has actually improved. I finally did so...........and ayre was crrect to my ears! I understand a budget but after you add all this aren't you up to a much beter dac that will hardly if at all benefit from this? it looks like some of you have spent much more on your usb chain than your dac. to me that seems like doing things backwards. that is just me though. I am not telling anyone they are wrong. not at all. I am merely suggesting if you can get a much better dac and you may be astonished at what it does with only a $3,000 usb cable or $5,000 Ethernet cable. I do not mind everyones passion for this I am merely making a suggestion. which, if you are able to implement I think you will find perhaps sounds better than all of this. or you may still want all of this on a $$$ dac. I don't know. personally just as they said I was happier with the sound. then I ripped it all off the $120,000usd msb and was also prompted with a better sound to my ears. this probably is very effective on a $2,000 dac but my point is haven't you then spent the amount of a better dac? if you are still going to do this you might as well just stick with a $2,000 dac. now I am sure someone is doing it with an msb,dcs and finds it to be another level. that is fine with me. I did not come here to insult anyone. just relate my experience. I originally read this when it was 3 pages and thought, great. ran out and bought it all just to later find it actually degraded the sound to me on ultra high end dacs. I mean no offense honestly. everyone is entitled to do exactly as they please in my eyes. there is no right or wrong in audio. if this sounds better to you, then all the more power to you! I honestly mean no harm here. if this all cost less I guess it would be easier for me to swallow. especially when used on a $2,000 dac. which the op I think at the time or still is using like a $500 dac. it does not add up to me that's all and that is just my opinion.i am glad this is changing your lives. I seriously am. I like to see people happy. so go right ahead! what do I know? the most important thing I wish to say is I am not trolling or crashing the party, I am simply inserting my opinion. I honestly wish each and every person in this hobby all the best. no matter how they feel they have achieved it.

I will say one thing on topic. the psa lanrover by psa's own admission and the icron/startech gigabit commonly used may not handshake with the new version of windows. so turn off update or if you got it I would reformat. having your music suddenly cut out will ruin your party I imagine. this is not a bogus post either just call the respective manufacturers. many of these other devices will continue to function as will rednet. I suppose you guy's have moved on from those devices already anyways. if so please disregard.

I am not here to judge, just do what makes you happy. I was just relating my experience. that's all.


----------



## gldgate (Jul 26, 2017)

Mentioned this on another site but thought I would comment here as well. Just purchased a Schiit Eitr for 2nd system but spent some time with it in my primary system  (Rednet D16>Mutec MC3+>Yggy with Antelope liveclock/Cybershaft external clocking). The Eitr did not usurp the tricked out Rednet rig but to be honest it was close. The Eitr is a Monster value. The sound of the Rednet gear sounded a bit more tonally rich and smooth. Eitr seemed a bit more lively.


----------



## johnjen

I too look forward to upgrading my Jggy with the Gen-5 board (when the self install option becomes available) so I can do a direct comparison between my version of AOIP and Gen-5 USB.

The indications thus far, indicate they should be close.
It will be interesting to figure what the differences are between these 2 transports.

JJ


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> Mentioned this on another site but thought I would comment here as well. Just purchased a Schiit Eitr for 2nd system but spent some time with it in my primary system  (Rednet D16>Mutec MC3+>Yggy with Antelope liveclock/Cybershaft external clocking). The Eitr did not usurp the tricked out Rednet rig but to be honest it was close. The Eitr is a Monster value. The sound of the Rednet gear sounded a bit more tonally rich and smooth. Eitr seemed a bit more lively.



Oh great! I can put a $125 board in my Yggy and come close to probably over $3000 worth of AOIP and fiber optic gear. Not sure whether to laugh or cry 

I too will buy the upgrade board just to see...


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Oh great! I can put a $125 board in my Yggy and come close to probably over $3000 worth of AOIP and fiber optic gear. Not sure whether to laugh or cry
> 
> I too will buy the upgrade board just to see...



Life on the bleeding edge of this nutty hobby. Roll with the punches and enjoy the journey...


----------



## mourip

The good news is that I am already really happy with my system but alas I am an experimenter at heart.

Not sure if I mentioned it here but I have seen a nice boost by using fiber optic for my ethernet links and even got a PCIe SC fiber NIC to replace the Intel NIC in my PC. Very quiet background and more detail...


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> The good news is that I am already really happy with my system but alas I am an experimenter at heart.
> 
> Not sure if I mentioned it here but I have seen a nice boost by using fiber optic for my ethernet links and even got a PCIe SC fiber NIC to replace the Intel NIC in my PC. Very quiet background and more detail...



I concur. Based on an old CA thread I hopped on the fiber optic train about a year and a half ago. Have a fiber optic switch, a bunch of FMC's and a few fiber NIC's.  I can relate to having the tinkering gene.


----------



## johnjen

Early Adopters Syndrome is alive and well in AudioPhoolery.  

But then we have been listening to this level of SQ for all this time while others could only hang on our every word…  hahahahahahaha…

And we all know that the rules of engagement for living on the bleeding edge involves being willing to have our wallets bleed, not to mention our brains, as we struggle with how to get it all to work.
And knowing full well that after we mod the gear, no one is going to want our gear when/if we are done with it.

So enjoy the fruits of (y)our efforts and know you were there 1st and 'encouraged' all those who followed.

JJ


----------



## johnjen

I too have a pair of FMC's betwixt my Mac and RN3.
It does make a difference, especially when the rest of the system is 'dialed in'.
But as we know it’s the cumulative results of many tweaks that really tells the tale.

In fact I'm writing up my results of yet another tweak to add to the growing heap of tweaks…

Yeah the tweak gene is running rampant around here.  

JJ


----------



## yates7592

What are the fibre optic cables people are using with their Rednet?


----------



## johnjen

The fiber optic connection won't work on the RN3 because they are in ADAT format (not SPDIF).
And the D16 has no fiber connectivity.

JJ


----------



## mourip

gldgate said:


> I concur. Based on an old CA thread I hopped on the fiber optic train about a year and a half ago. Have a fiber optic switch, a bunch of FMC's and a few fiber NIC's.  I can relate to having the tinkering gene.



Which fiber switch did you get. At my age I can use all of the fiber I can get


----------



## mourip

yates7592 said:


> What are the fibre optic cables people are using with their Rednet?



I am using this Startech card in my PC: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MZ2V3NY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This fiber cable: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000067SCF/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And these FMC's: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003AVRLZI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I have one fiber card in my PC and then the built in ethernet port. So here is the setup:

Starttech PCIe fiber card > SC fiber> FMC> CAT7> D16

PC ethrnet port > CAT7 > FMC(LPS powered) > fiber > FMC > CAT7 > LAN switch

I believe that the principle benefit is from great isolation for the signal and especially the grounds.


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> The fiber optic connection won't work on the RN3 because they are in ADAT format (not SPDIF).
> And the D16 has no fiber connectivity.
> 
> JJ



Sorry to confuse. We are using fiber for the ethernet input connections to the D16.


----------



## johnjen

The D16 has a fiber input?
I'm confused because the photo's don't show any fiber connectivity.

(headscratch smilie)

JJ


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> The D16 has a fiber input?
> I'm confused because the photo's don't show any fiber connectivity.
> 
> (headscratch smilie)
> ...



Correct. The D16 has an ethernet input.

I use a fiber optic to ethernet converter (FMC). So it goes: ethernet> FMC>fiber optic cable> FMC> ethernet.

The fiber is inserted in the ethernet path via the two FMC's. It cuts off any noise carried in a copper ground path i.e. isolation. In my system it made a nice difference.


----------



## gldgate

mourip said:


> Which fiber switch did you get. At my age I can use all of the fiber I can get



Essentially identical to this:

https://www.diablocable.com/18196.html


----------



## johnjen (Jul 27, 2017)

yates7592 said:


> What are the fibre optic cables people are using with their Rednet?


Ok one more time.

I use these FMC's from TP-Link
http://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-43_MC210CS.html
Amazon sells them in a bundle with a cable.

These FMC's (Fiber Media Converters) use a single mode fiber cable so make sure you have the correct cable for the devices that the cable plugs into.
And also make sure the bandwidth of the FMC device matches the ethernet capability of the computer feeding it, as in its rate of thruput.

JJ


----------



## mourip (Jul 27, 2017)

johnjen said:


> Ok one more time.
> 
> I use these FMC's from TP-Link
> http://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-43_MC210CS.html
> ...



I used the MC200CM which supports SC multi-mode fiber. I am using very short lengths: 1m and 3m. I know this works for me and although it is easily possible that what you mention will be fine I do not really have enough experience with fiber to recommend something else. If you buy from Amazon it is easy to return it!

FYI. There is a long thread on The Computer Audiophile that goes into this in depth.


----------



## johnjen

Yeah the CA thread goes into depth on this.
I instead just wanted to implement a fiber solution and this setup works on my Mac Pro with nary a glitch, hitch nor stumble.
And it was well under $150 for the whole setup, including shipping etc.

I even took it one step further and LPS'd the end point that feeds the RN3 instead of using the SMPS wall wart.

So the tweaker in me has had his say as well…  

JJ


----------



## mourip

Sorry JJ. I thought that you were asking how to do it. I did not realize that you were explaining how you have already worked it out!

It certainly is a worthwhile tweak.


----------



## johnjen

Say there.
Not a problem. 

And yeah 'isolating' the computer from the audio chain does make a difference, not to mention, NOT using those SMPS wall warts.

It seems like paying attention to these easily overlooked picky-picky details, provides us with significant steps up in SQ.

And they are 'fairly' easy to implement.

A tweakers paradise of sorts.

JJ


----------



## Yucca (Jul 30, 2017)

Hello there,
I can at last post on this terrific thread. I' m mainly a long time member on French forums, and also on computeraudiophile, and VERY interested with AOIP.
The price was way too high to test some devices in Europe till last months (rednet 3 and 16 are more than $1500 here...), The Attero tech is also much more expensive in my country than US (900 to 1000€ there vs 600$...), so no way to buy it for me.
...but the times are changing, and we can find now the RDL SF-ND2 at about 550€ (but still less than $400 for you I believe)...still need a small PoE injector, so let's say less than 600€ total.

There's another option also, which is the brand new Motu 8D, 192kHZ capable, world clock in and out, aes and spdif (no optical) at 750€/$600. It's an AVB based product, and I don't know if it's as good as Dante´s stuff...With the new firmware update, an AVB switch is no more needed with a Mac, so you can connect it directly to your ethernet output and it would work (but you still need to use USB or a 3-400€ switch if you have a windows pc). It's 12-18v DC powered, so also easily tweakable with a linear LPS.

Can someone tell me (us) how AVB Motu cards compare with Dante Ultimo cards (the one who are in the Attero tech and RDL stuff) for sound quality ?


----------



## yates7592

mourip said:


> I am using this Startech card in my PC: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MZ2V3NY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> This fiber cable: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000067SCF/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> ...



i'm interested in trying this fibre optic gear with my D16, but wondering how does it benefit if the audio signal still has to pass through an ethernet cable at some point in the chain?


----------



## mourip

yates7592 said:


> i'm interested in trying this fibre optic gear with my D16, but wondering how does it benefit if the audio signal still has to pass through an ethernet cable at some point in the chain?



I cannot answer that question definitively however it has always been my assumption that the fiber allows complete isolation of the signal ground from any upstream devices. Part of the success may be from also powering the downstream FMC with an LPS.

If you buy from Amazon you can always return the pieces if you do not hear a difference. 

Let us know how it goes it you decide to try!


----------



## mourip

Yucca said:


> Hello there,
> I can at last post on this terrific thread. I' m mainly a long time member on French forums, and also on computeraudiophile, and VERY interested with AOIP.
> The price was way too high to test some devices in Europe till last months (rednet 3 and 16 are more than $1500 here...), The Attero tech is also much more expensive in my country than US (900 to 1000€ there vs 600$...), so no way to buy it for me.
> ...but the times are changing, and we can find now the RDL SF-ND2 at about 550€ (but still less than $400 for you I believe)...still need a small PoE injector, so let's say less than 600€ total.
> ...



Sorry. I am not familiar with and have no experience with those devices. Let us know how it goes if you try them. Odd that the Focusrite devices are so expensive in France. I thought that they were made in Europe.


----------



## johnjen

yates7592 said:


> i'm interested in trying this fibre optic gear with my D16, but wondering how does it benefit if the audio signal still has to pass through an ethernet cable at some point in the chain?


Perhaps another way to think of this is, the ethernet data feed into the RedNet box is now  optically isolated from the computer and all of its self generated noise.  This essentially breaks the direct electrical connection, galvanically (electrostaticlly and electromagnetically), between the computer (source of noise) and the rest of the audio system, by severing any metal to metal connection.

So by not adding any additional noise to the digital audio stream gear, it has less to pass along to the dac etc, via AES, or SPDIF, or…

JJ


----------



## Ysound

I'l be listing my D16 soon, if anyone is looking for a mint unit look no further.


----------



## mourip

Ysound said:


> I'l be listing my D16 soon, if anyone is looking for a mint unit look no further.



I am curious about your findings when comparing the GEN5 USB to the D16. Do you have an internal card or the Eitr? Yggy or other DAC?

Did you find the results so close that you decided to sell the D16 to save money or did you find the SQ of the Gen5 to surpass in your D16 setup?

In my HP setup I have a D16 (with the SMPS replaced by an external LPS) and an Yggy using AES input. I have about 50 hours of music burn-in on my new GEN5 internal board. I would call the GEN5 a remarkable value but still prefer the D16 as having more air and clarity. I find the GEN5 to be a little on the warm side of neutral.


----------



## kazsud

Ysound said:


> I'l be listing my D16 soon, if anyone is looking for a mint unit look no further.



Moving to greener pastures?


----------



## JayNYC

mhamel said:


> Looks like there are some new Dante interfaces that were announced, including a simple Dante->Digital (AES/Coax/Optical) box (max of 96KHz) for < $400.  There's also a small Dante-connected headphone amp and a few others.  Take a look at https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/oem-new-products/rdl?
> 
> The SF-ND2 digital interface looks like it's tentatively shipping end of July - Markertek has it listed as selling for $383.
> 
> -Mike



Is it fair to conclude that absent proprietary desktop software from one of these other/new Dante product integrators, none will be able to offer Sample Rate Follow like Focusrite's Rednet Control?    Said differently, for those who prefer to always listen at native (non SRC'd) rates to their libraries which consist of tracks in assorted sample rates, Focusrite Rednet hardware is still the only option at the moment, right?


----------



## gefski

JayNYC said:


> Is it fair to conclude that absent proprietary desktop software from one of these other/new Dante product integrators, none will be able to offer Sample Rate Follow like Focusrite's Rednet Control?    Said differently, for those who prefer to always listen at native (non SRC'd) rates to their libraries which consist of tracks in assorted sample rates, Focusrite Rednet hardware is still the only option at the moment, right?



My understanding is that even with Rednet, there is no "set it and forget it" function for sample rate follow. In discussions about it with Rednet owning friends at meets, the answer has been that it "sort of" works. So IMO, Dante may not be ideal for those with lots of varied sample rate files. (Especially now that Schiit's Gen 5 USB interface hit the streets)

For me, with 99% Redbook, I'm all smiles with uDO/Yggy, changing manually on the rare occasion I play a "hi-rez" file.


----------



## Ysound

kazsud said:


> Moving to greener pastures?



Not at all, I have not found a better set up than the D16.
Selling 1 of the 2 units I have. Don't need for the 2nd. system.


----------



## Ysound

mourip said:


> I am curious about your findings when comparing the GEN5 USB to the D16. Do you have an internal card or the Eitr? Yggy or other DAC?
> 
> Did you find the results so close that you decided to sell the D16 to save money or did you find the SQ of the Gen5 to surpass in your D16 setup?
> 
> In my HP setup I have a D16 (with the SMPS replaced by an external LPS) and an Yggy using AES input. I have about 50 hours of music burn-in on my new GEN5 internal board. I would call the GEN5 a remarkable value but still prefer the D16 as having more air and clarity. I find the GEN5 to be a little on the warm side of neutral.



I only have the D16s, never tried any of the above mentioned pieces. 
I still have the Hydra USB and the JCat USB card but it's only for my headphone set up.


----------



## mourip

Sorry. I got my forums confused. I have been following the Schiit EITR thread also.

Actually _I am in your same shoes. I have two Yggy's and two D16's and may sell the D16 in my HP setup as I mainly listen to my speaker system these days and the Gen5 USB board does sound very good in my HP setup._


----------



## castleofargh

still nobody with some measurements? I can get the all subjective performance for headphones, sometimes even for amps, but for a digital path? are you guys really fine with some vague incomplete theories, and by ear opinions about what works best? I'm super curious about the all Ethernet path thing(no this is not sarcasm, I really am very interested), but in 200 pages I couldn't find one guy to even loop his signal and measure a few of his own solutions to check possible fidelity variations... please tell me it's because I suck at using the search functions.


----------



## gefski

castleofargh said:


> still nobody with some measurements? I can get the all subjective performance for headphones, sometimes even for amps, but for a digital path? are you guys really fine with some vague incomplete theories, and by ear opinions about what works best? I'm super curious about the all Ethernet path thing(no this is not sarcasm, I really am very interested), but in 200 pages I couldn't find one guy to even loop his signal and measure a few of his own solutions to check possible fidelity variations... please tell me it's because I suck at using the search functions.



Atomicbob may have something. He listens to and measures most everything we've tried.


----------



## mourip

castleofargh said:


> still nobody with some measurements? I can get the all subjective performance for headphones, sometimes even for amps, but for a digital path? are you guys really fine with some vague incomplete theories, and by ear opinions about what works best? I'm super curious about the all Ethernet path thing(no this is not sarcasm, I really am very interested), but in 200 pages I couldn't find one guy to even loop his signal and measure a few of his own solutions to check possible fidelity variations... please tell me it's because I suck at using the search functions.



Not much of that here. Mostly folks who report their happiness with the sound as compared with their previous complex USB chains. 

You could always be the first though


----------



## castleofargh

*beginning ancient magical spell casting chant*

  \o/   @atomicbob   \o/  

do you have some of the stuff? I've been going cold turkey for 214 pages, I need my fix of measurements. even hardly conclusive ones.


----------



## Muziqboy

castleofargh said:


> still nobody with some measurements? I can get the all subjective performance for headphones, sometimes even for amps, but for a digital path? are you guys really fine with some vague incomplete theories, and by ear opinions about what works best? I'm super curious about the all Ethernet path thing(no this is not sarcasm, I really am very interested), but in 200 pages I couldn't find one guy to even loop his signal and measure a few of his own solutions to check possible fidelity variations... please tell me it's because I suck at using the search functions.



IMO. measurements are good for the eyes.
But really, Music was created for the ears and through that part of the human body, it touches the soul.
Listening to music and the way that it takes you into that wild rollercoaster ride of emotions for me is the best measurement of all that no graphical charts can match.

AOIP gear like the Dante stuff that most folks are talking about in this thread has taken the enjoyment and emotional connection of listening to music up another notch when compared to other transport source.


----------



## joelha

I certainly agree with the last line of the above comment.

I hope we can keep the thread about the AOIP stuff and not measurements vs. hearing.

There are about 10,000 threads which have descended into that discussion for those who are interested.

This thread, sticking to the OP's topic, has been great as is.

Joel


----------



## castleofargh

Muziqboy said:


> IMO. measurements are good for the eyes.
> But really, Music was created for the ears and through that part of the human body, it touches the soul.
> Listening to music and the way that it takes you into that wild rollercoaster ride of emotions for me is the best measurement of all that no graphical charts can match.
> 
> AOIP gear like the Dante stuff that most folks are talking about in this thread has taken the enjoyment and emotional connection of listening to music up another notch when compared to other transport source.


rock on man! any time I wonder about some product or tech I see on the web, I'll just ask my soul to time travel to the moment I already bought the gear, and tell me how it's going to feel in the future. simple solutions are the best solutions.
and let's stop objectively quantifying stuff like fidelity, or time or money! peace&love dude. 




seriously though, if someone tried to measure a bunch of stuff, even conversions from usb to optical to ethernet and all the funky possibilities with a few specific gears, Archimago style, I'd like to know about it. on principle all those stuff should be pretty much perfect for all intent and purposes, and about the last thing to be concerned about in a playback chain. but the different protocols sure are interesting(to me at least).
 when and why in practice we don't get close to perfection, that's what I'm curious about and hope to see measured. but I'd be fine with close to perfection too ^_^. I have nothing against peace of mind.


----------



## Clemmaster

Smells like troll in here!


----------



## johnjen

There are only 2 posters I have ever put on ignore anywhere on the internet, in any forum, in my 20+ years of digital interaction.
And they both post here on HF.

After a while S/N is more important than reading every opinion available.
And I figure there are those who have me on their ignore list as well.
And so it goes.

And on to a more AOIP centered topic…
I am in the process of adding secondary regulators to key components in my AOIP chain, namely my 2 Mutecs and the downstream FMC device.
I don't really expect to hear any improvement but this is such a cheap and easy (relatively speaking) tweak to add, and I know it's a 'can't hurt' type of tweak, that I simply couldn't resist.
And who knows it may actually make a noticeable difference.

JJ


----------



## Golfnutz

My new digital source:

Jetway NF591-3160 (2 SATA ports, PCIe x1 2.0) using 12v LPS

Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz CL9

Intel X25-E SSDSA2SH064G1GC 64GB SLC SSD 2.5" SATA Drive (Windows 10, HQPlayer, Dante software) using 5v LPS

Samsung EVO 850 500gb (Music Library) using 5v LPS

JCAT NET Card FEMTO – using 5v LPS (big improvements all around)

Streacom F7C ALPHA HTPC Chassis (perfect for multiple SATA Drives and JCAT NET Card Femto)

Modified Rednet D16 using 5v LPS

Best sound I’ve experience with the Rednet yet. Only thing I can see improving would be the Linear Power Supplies to something like the Paul Hynes SR5/SR7. Pretty sure I’m done with this aspect of my system - finally!


----------



## joelha

Congratulations, Golfnutz.

That looks like a great front-end.

I'm envious of those of you who have modified their D16 to take an lps.

Any suggestions for those of us who should not come within 100 feet of a soldering iron?

Thanks for letting us know what you've put together.

Joel


----------



## mourip

On that note...

Selling one of my D16s with LPS. I have two and am selling the one in my headphone rig which is seeing very little use these days...


----------



## yates7592

Golfnutz said:


> My new digital source:
> 
> Jetway NF591-3160 (2 SATA ports, PCIe x1 2.0) using 12v LPS
> 
> ...



What were the improvements you noticed with the JCAT card?


----------



## Tand2016

joelha said:


> Congratulations, Golfnutz.
> 
> That looks like a great front-end.
> 
> ...



Hi Joel

I think modifying my Rednet 16 was only the 2. time I soldered. It was actually easyer than I feared.

If you want to I can send you some of the spare parts I have laying around. Then all you have to do is to solder a connector jack to the 2 cables, and insert the cables easy in the connector housing and ground the 3. cable. I also posted some pictures som pages back for inspiration.

If interested PM me 

Tommy


----------



## joelha

Hey Tommy,

If they ever create a thread listing the nicest guys on this site, I'm posting your name first.

Thanks very much for making such a kind offer.

PM definitely on the way.

I'm very grateful.

Joel


----------



## Tand2016

joelha said:


> Hey Tommy,
> 
> If they ever create a thread listing the nicest guys on this site, I'm posting your name first.
> 
> ...



Thanks and you are welcome  ! Here is some pictures of my converting:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-diyrs-cookbook.781268/page-70#post-13417165


----------



## Golfnutz

Tand2016 said:


> Hi Joel
> 
> I think modifying my Rednet 16 was only the 2. time I soldered. It was actually easyer than I feared.
> 
> ...


You could just remove the IEC plug on your D16, and use one of these to skip soldering a DC plug.


----------



## Golfnutz

yates7592 said:


> What were the improvements you noticed with the JCAT card?


Bigger soundstage, better imaging and separation, macro/micro details improved. What I probably like the most is the improvements I'm hearing in the clarity of the voices. I'm getting a better sense of natural voice pitch. It would be nice if someone compared the JCAT card with the Mutec MC3+ Reclocker.


----------



## joelha

Golfnutz,

I never thanked you for your excellent suggestion.

Between your suggestion and the parts that Tommy is graciously sending me, it seems I will be in good shape.

Thanks a lot.

Joel


----------



## Golfnutz (Sep 20, 2017)

joelha said:


> Golfnutz,
> 
> I never thanked you for your excellent suggestion.
> 
> ...



My pleasure, very kind of you, thanks.

Just a couple of additional comments (please disregard in case Tommy covered these with you).

1. If you don't already have a Multimeter, you should purchase one. Required to measure the voltages.
2. Take lots of internal pictures of your D16 after you've removed the lid, and before you start anything else.
3. After taking pictures, I suggest you measure the voltage to get an idea of what the SMPS is putting out. Mine was 4.94v (so I adjusted my LPS to this voltage). You can do this by putting one probe on the solder joints just in front of the JST 5v connector and the other probe on any grounding point.
4. Connect the DC jack to the LPS DC cable and test the voltage at the DC jack before attaching wires from the kit Tommy sent you. Basically, you are confirming 5v from the LPS.
5. Test the modification BEFORE removing/changing anything. By this I mean, connect everything by running the wires over and into the D16 (not through it yet). No point removing/disconnecting everything first if it doesn't work, or you don't like what you're hearing. You can do the cosmetic changes afterwards.
6. If you're going to remove the IEC at some point, you will need to cut the wires attached to the prongs (they are soldered, so you have no choice). Just try to feel were you can cut them as close to the prongs as possible - this will leave you lots of wire to reconnect later if you want. You'll only need a $15 crimping tool to reattach the wires back (female crimp connectors). The prongs will have to be cleaned up as well. You could just take the IEC to a repair shop and ask them to clean it up, should be pretty cheap - 2 minute job (or buy a new IEC plug).

It's pretty simple really. If you have any questions just ask. The attached photo is where to get the voltage reading.


----------



## Tand2016

Very nice "Go-through" Golfnutz! 

 Just take you time Joel and as Golfnutz says, just ask if you have any questions. 

Tommy


----------



## joelha

You guys are both great.

Thanks for the help and encouragement.

Joel


----------



## mourip

I have been wanting to try out the Mutec REF10 reference clock in my RedNet AOIP system after hearing such good things about it, especially after having found the Mutec 3+ USB to be such an excellent product. I contacted the US distributor to arrange for a trial purchase with the idea that I might do a review and post my findings. The distributor was extremely cooperative and only asked that they be allowed to fact check before I posted. They have done that and had no comments to add. I asked for the trial because I would be purchasing a piece of interface equipment that cost more than my DAC and adding it to a front end that was already over the edge. If it did not work out I wanted to be able to return it!

*The Short Version: *

I purchased the REF10. It is a keeper.

*The Long Version: *

I was hoping to get an improvement in sound quality but not to the extent that occurred. To add icing on the cake it has also allowed me to drop two pieces of equipment from my chain which had become extreme even by audiophool standards.

My system before adding the REF10 consisted of:

1.      “CAPS-like” server running Windows Server 2012R2 and Audiophile Optimizer. Powered by LPS.

2.      Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS) software which allows JRMC to send the audio stream out via an ethernet port instead of USB

3.      A PCIe fiber optic ethernet card with fiber running to a Fiber Media Converter(FMC) and then via CAT7 cable into the Focusrite RedNet D16 AES ethernet to AES/SPDIF converter.

4.      Antelope LiveClock as external wordclock to the D16

5.      AES cable out from D16 to Mutec 3+ USB interface acting as a re-clocker.

6.      AES cable out to a second Mutec 3+ USB interface acting as a second re-clocker.

7.      AES out to Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC.


This is the order in which I tested the REF10 and coincidentally the order in which I preferred the sound. The biggest jumps were step 2 and step 5. Adding the REF10 made an immediate improvement in refinement which increased as I simplified my chain.


1.      RedNet D16 using LiveClock as wclk/ M3USB#1 as re-clocker/ M3USB#2 as 2nd re-clocker


2.      RedNet D16 using LiveClock as wclk/ REF10 as 10M reference to both M3USBs and to the LiveClock/ M3USB#1 as re-clocker/ M3USB#2 as 2nd re-clocker


3.      RedNet D16 using M3USB#2 as wclk (LiveClock removed) / REF10 as 10M reference to both M3USBs / M3USB#1 as re-clocker/ M3USB#2 as 2nd re-clocker/


4.      RedNet D16 now using M3USB#1 as wclk / REF10 as 10M reference to both M3USBs/ M3USB#1 as re-clocker/ M3USB#2 as 2nd re-clocker


5.      RedNet D16 using M3USB#1 as wclk and with REF10 as 10M reference/ M3USB#1 as the only re-clocker/ (M3USB#2 removed)


Note: When you add an external 10M reference clock source to the Mutec 3+ USB it then allows you to use its wordclock output to clock another device like the D16.

**Warning:* Purely subjective observations to follow which may not be appropriate for all viewing audiences.

To my ears and in my system and in my room the overall effect of adding the REF10 was to create a much more natural, refined and realistic sound. Nearly all aspects of music were improved for me even dynamics, soundstage localization, and depth. It is basically a more engaging overall presentation with subtle notes and decay being more apparent with a very realistic tonal balance. Musical threads by individual instruments are now very easily followed. Music is much more like a living, moving tapestry.

I mostly listen to acoustic music, preferring classical and Jazz, from small ensembles to the over the top “big print” Russian Romantics. I now listen more to the music and less to the equipment. This is the highest praise that I can think of.

*Notes:* Originally adding the second Mutec USB had added a questionable improvement. Adding the LiveClock to the D16 added a clear improvement but adding the LiveClock to the M3USB degraded the sound. 

After adding the REF10 to the M3USB I found that the wclk output from the M3USB was now available and sounded much better than that of the LiveClock which I removed. Even by itself the RedNet D16 was an improvement over my previous USB chain which included a Regen run from LPS, the M3USB using its USB input, and AES out.

BTW. To my ears even the D16 by itself using AES out was better than the new GEN5 USB board in my Yggdrasil DAC.

It has been a long and winding road!


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> I have been wanting to try out the Mutec REF10 reference clock in my RedNet AOIP system after hearing such good things about it, especially after having found the Mutec 3+ USB to be such an excellent product. I contacted the US distributor to arrange for a trial purchase with the idea that I might do a review and post my findings. The distributor was extremely cooperative and only asked that they be allowed to fact check before I posted. They have done that and had no comments to add. I asked for the trial because I would be purchasing a piece of interface equipment that cost more than my DAC and adding it to a front end that was already over the edge. If it did not work out I wanted to be able to return it!
> 
> *The Short Version: *
> 
> ...



One of the things I like most about the D16 (other than it's not USB), is how well it responds to better sources upstream. Sounds like the Mutec combo is a real winner.

It's too bad you went the fiber optic route on your PC, since you wouldn't have any interest in the JCAT Net Femto Card. I've dropped Fiber Optic since I couldn't hear any differences with or w/o FMC's, so it just simplifies the chain (I'm using Belden 10GX Ethernet cable). After installing the JCAT card, I couldn't listen to my system without it - probably comparable about how you feel with the changes the Mutec combo is doing with your system (not comparing JCAT to Mutec, but rather the significant changes we're both hearing).


----------



## mourip

Thanks. And I thought that I had drained my wallet to the bottom 

I think that I need to get used to the new sound. Perhaps I will consider it later. 

I like the idea that there is no ground connection using fiber to the D16 but to be honest I am not sure that I heard a significant difference. I was going mostly on theory.

I had a Paul Pang USB card for a while when I was still using USB. I never heard much of a difference with that either. The big changes came with the D16, then the M3USB, and then adding the REF10. No guess work there!


----------



## Iving

Thanks mourip for the REF10 review



Golfnutz said:


> After installing the JCAT card, I couldn't listen to my system without it



l've been using an Intel X540-T2 PCIe card in preference to either of two Z270-WS onboard LANs. The price of the X540-T2 is highly variable. I have never seen an audiophile review of a RedNet PCIe card which presumably delivers very low latency. I can see the JCAT NET card FEMTO permits a LPS direct. I'd love to see a reliable audiophile shoot-out between these three PCIe card alternatives.


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> Thanks mourip for the REF10 review
> 
> 
> 
> l've been using an Intel X540-T2 PCIe card in preference to either of two Z270-WS onboard LANs. The price of the X540-T2 is highly variable. I have never seen an audiophile review of a RedNet PCIe card which presumably delivers very low latency. I can see the JCAT NET card FEMTO permits a LPS direct. I'd love to see a reliable audiophile shoot-out between these three PCIe card alternatives.



Yes, primary reasons for going the JCAT Net route was the external LPS option, and Femto clock. I wasn't looking to improve the latency. The only thing being powered on my motherboard is the CPU and memory, everything else is external with LPS.

I highly doubt the Rednet PCIe card can compete with JCAT Net card based sound quality. There might be some improvement with latency, but really who cares, as long as there are no dropouts. Obviously, the Rednet PCIe card was not designed for running a single Rednet box to a single PC as we're doing.

You say your preference is the X540, but you don't describe anything about the differences. If the changes aren't substantially obvious, than you might want to consider the JCAT Net card to improve in this area instead of latency (if that's the only difference).

As you can see, you don't need a lot of processing power to keep your latency under 1ms. After all, Ethernet usage is only 18.7 Mbps. Utilization is higher than my 6700K processer, but it's only running 6W TDP (externally powered LPS) vs 91W TDP (internal 650W power supply).




Not bad latency considering the lower powered motherboard I'm using. To be honest, the display is a bit skewed because it's normally 1.1ms for both Peak and Average.


----------



## Iving (Oct 16, 2017)

Golfnutz said:


> Yes, primary reasons for going the JCAT Net route was the external LPS option, and Femto clock. I wasn't looking to improve the latency. The only thing being powered on my motherboard is the CPU and memory, everything else is external with LPS.
> 
> I highly doubt the Rednet PCIe card can compete with JCAT Net card based sound quality. There might be some improvement with latency, but really who cares, as long as there are no dropouts. Obviously, the Rednet PCIe card was not designed for running a single Rednet box to a single PC as we're doing.
> 
> ...



I don't have any performance issues at all. I get good <1ms latency = 790-810μs whether onboard LAN or PCIe. Latency is neither a problem nor a top issue - the top issue of course being SQ. I'd say the X540-T2 is more stable and there is a slight reduction in unwanted "edge". It's not a great SQ margin over the onboard LANs. Perhaps it is true that the RedNet card may not present a SQ advantage - but who knows. We audiophiles may never turn over that stone (not even one of us to my knowledge?) as it costs somewhere 500-800 GBP. Similarly, one can't evaluate the JCAT without splashing out over 400 Euros say 400 GBP. I got the X540-T2 for barely over 100 GBP and could sell it for more instantly. It's a matter of bang for buck. To evaluate the JCAT I would have to invest 400 GBP on faith that the bang would be large enough - in comparison with the potential bang that cash spent elsewhere in the system would generate ...

(Incidentally do you run your CPU on low power or is it a 1.6 GHz - I run without SpeedStep in BIOS / at 100% / performance "High" in W10 at 3.4 GHz. Your other stats are good - are you using Fidelizer or AO or whatever. You have plenty RAM - I find playing from RAM using fb2k component an improvement.)


----------



## Golfnutz (Oct 16, 2017)

Iving said:


> I don't have any performance issues at all. I get good <1ms latency = 790-810μs whether onboard LAN or PCIe. Latency is neither a problem nor a top issue - the top issue of course being SQ. I'd say the X540-T2 is more stable and there is a slight reduction in unwanted "edge". It's not a great SQ margin over the onboard LANs. Perhaps it is true that the RedNet card may not present a SQ advantage - but who knows. We audiophiles may never turn over that stone (not even one of us to my knowledge?) as it costs somewhere 500-800 GBP. Similarly, one can't evaluate the JCAT without splashing out over 400 Euros say 400 GBP. I got the X540-T2 for barely over 100 GBP and could sell it for more instantly. It's a matter of bang for buck. To evaluate the JCAT I would have to invest 400 GBP on faith that the bang would be large enough - in comparison with the potential bang that cash spent elsewhere in the system would generate ...
> 
> (Incidentally do you run your CPU on low power or is it a 1.6 GHz - I run without SpeedStep in BIOS / at 100% / performance "High" in W10 at 3.4 GHz. Your other stats are good - are you using Fidelizer or AO or whatever. You have plenty RAM - I find playing from RAM using fb2k component an improvement.)


If the JCAT Net card was a waste of money, I would have said so (I spent more money on Fiber Optics, and that to me was a real waste of money. Same as my 6700k CPU system). However, IMO the changes the JCAT Net card brings is just as or even bigger than the D16 itself (in combination with modified LPS for D16, and low powered Celeron 1.6 CPU). I can't say how it would change anything with unmodified D16 and high powered CPU, but I would think there would still be a noticeable difference. There are no SMPS power supplies in my chain.

I have AO, and again, a total waste of money for AOIP. There was zero improvement in sound. Yes, less processes running which probably helps with a more stable system (less likely to have dropouts), but what I found with the low powered CPU is the "CPU Utilization" went up to 45-50%. There are other things about AO that I don't like as well, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

I get better results using these methods than AO, and it's all free - https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...ws-10-optimization-script-a-community-effort/

Edit: Sorry missed this in your post, the Intel Celeron can run up to 2.24GHz, but I have it set to always run at 1.6GHZ.


----------



## Iving (Oct 16, 2017)

Golfnutz said:


> If the JCAT Net card was a waste of money, I would have said so (I spent more money on Fiber Optics, and that to me was a real waste of money. Same as my 6700k CPU system). However, IMO the changes the JCAT Net card brings is just as or even bigger than the D16 itself (in combination with modified LPS for D16, and low powered Celeron 1.6 CPU). I can't say how it would change anything with unmodified D16 and high powered CPU, but I would think there would still be a noticeable difference. There are no SMPS power supplies in my chain.
> 
> I have AO, and again, a total waste of money for AOIP. There was zero improvement in sound. Yes, less processes running which probably helps with a more stable system (less likely to have dropouts), but what I found with the low powered CPU is the "CPU Utilization" went up to 45-50%. There are other things about AO that I don't like as well, but this isn't the place for that discussion.
> 
> ...



I have seen the W10 community effort thread. Even tho' I roll W10 back a great deal I confess I am tempted with Fidelizer having tried the Free version (I've had a chat with Keetakawee about demotion of Dante processes, giving him the necessary info to fix that + he'll update for Merging).

I have an HDPLEX now and could run the JCAT card easily from that I guess - if I get one I shall be sure to let you know what I think!


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> I have seen the W10 community effort thread. Even tho' I roll W10 back a great deal I confess I am tempted with Fidelizer having tried the Free version (I've had a chat with Keetakawee about demotion of Dante processes, giving him the necessary info to fix that + he'll update for Merging).
> 
> I have an HDPLEX now and could run the JCAT card easily from that I guess - if I get one I shall be sure to let you know what I think!



Just did a quick test with the Dante Background Processes. Looks like the first 2 on the list cannot be stopped (Dante stops working). The last 3 can be stopped, but you cannot use Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS), Dante Controller, or Rednet Controller.


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> If the JCAT Net card was a waste of money, I would have said so (I spent more money on Fiber Optics, and that to me was a real waste of money.



Glad that you like the JCAT in your system. I checked the price of the JCAT card and it is about $500 before shipping. What was your fiber optic setup?


----------



## Iving (Oct 16, 2017)

Golfnutz said:


> Just did a quick test with the Dante Background Processes. Looks like the first 2 on the list cannot be stopped (Dante stops working). The last 3 can be stopped, but you cannot use Dante Virtual Soundcard (DVS), Dante Controller, or Rednet Controller.



In Fidelizer, the vital thing is to *not demote* Dante processes (wrt priority). At present, Fidelizer doesn't "know" about Dante (or Merging) and demotes their priority "thinking" they are non-audio processes. Keetakawee is going to correct the matter for a future edition. I'm sure he would answer any questions by e-mail. I identified the processes to him (where OLD means before I updated DVS, RN Control and Dante Controller to current versions = NEW) as per ...






e.g. Dante Clock Synch (ptp.exe) runs at REALTIME by default but Fidelizer sets it below Normal! (It's easy to reset priority manually in Task Manager - and I'm told Process Lasso can maintain user-set priorities once re-established - although I haven't seen reversion during a playing session <24 hrs.)


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> In Fidelizer, the vital thing is to *not demote* Dante processes (wrt priority). At present, Fidelizer doesn't "know" about Dante (or Merging) and demotes their priority "thinking" they are non-audio processes. Keetakawee is going to correct the matter for a future edition. I'm sure he would answer any questions by e-mail. I identified the processes to him (where OLD means before I updated DVS, RN Control and Dante Controller to current versions = NEW) as per ...
> 
> 
> 
> e.g. Dante Clock Synch (ptp.exe) runs at REALTIME by default but Fidelizer sets it below Normal! (It's easy to reset priority manually in Task Manager - and I'm told Process Lasso can maintain user-set priorities once re-established - although I haven't seen reversion during a playing session <24 hrs.)


I know, I run HQPlayer in Real time.

But why bother setting those 3 programs to lower priority, you shouldn't be running them very often after initial setup. Therefore, why not just stop them manually if you're goal is to reduce the number of processes (under a minute to turn them off). If you were in a recording studio, it would be a different set of circumstances, but for our use running them or not isn't going to make a difference.


----------



## Iving

Golfnutz said:


> I know, I run HQPlayer in Real time.
> 
> But why bother setting those 3 programs to lower priority, you shouldn't be running them very often after initial setup. Therefore, why not just stop them manually if you're goal is to reduce the number of processes (under a minute to turn them off). If you were in a recording studio, it would be a different set of circumstances, but for our use running them or not isn't going to make a difference.



I don't set them to lower priority - Fidelizer does - and that is what needs to be corrected in Fidelizer - Fidelizer needs to deem them audio processes and leave them alone. For myself I have tried *promoting* any Dante / RedNet processes - but I don't hear any difference to write home about. I don't bother trying to switch any Dante or RedNet processes off (except the two that stop automatically if you close the DVS or RedNet Control Windows).


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> Glad that you like the JCAT in your system. I checked the price of the JCAT card and it is about $500 before shipping. What was your fiber optic setup?



TP-Link MC220L (x4), Genuine Cisco SFP (x4), separate LPS (x2 - double 9v output on each), Battery packs (x2) Cables (too many), Shipping costs.

I've mentioned it earlier in this thread, when I have my laptop in my listening room, there are times I can hear noise through my speakers when I remote into my music server. Adding the second Fiber Optics to the Router helped somewhat, but there were still times it was audible when using RDC. It's completely gone now that I'm using a Belden 10GX bonded pairs Ethernet cable (CA21109002). There's information about reduced alien crosstalk on there website.


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> I don't set them to lower priority - Fidelizer does - and that is what needs to be corrected in Fidelizer - Fidelizer needs to deem them audio processes and leave them alone. For myself I have tried *promoting* any Dante / RedNet processes - but I don't hear any difference to write home about. I don't bother trying to switch any Dante or RedNet processes off (except the two that stop automatically if you close the DVS or RedNet Control Windows).



Sorry, I thought you were implying they would set them to lower priority in a future release.
I agree with you, leave them alone and let the user decide if they want to do anything with them.


----------



## Iving

Golfnutz said:


> Sorry, I thought you were implying they would set them to lower priority in a future release.
> I agree with you, leave them alone and let the user decide if they want to do anything with them.



Well the whole point of Fidelizer is (inter alia) to relegate unnecessary = non-audio processes. It's just not yet up to speed with ethernet (cf. USB etc) audio. Of course an audiophile would prioritise audio highly whether in Windows or life at large! But I don't want to seem an apologist for Fidelizer for AOIP since I've not yet bought Pro. There are at least a couple of other threads dedicated to Fidelizer at this Forum.

Going back to what started the present conversation, I *am* convinced that I can hear the difference between different LANs/NICs, and would love to hear an audiophile's assessment of the RedNet PCIe card. What made you buy the JCAT? Do you know of any other RedNet users with a JCAT?

What a pity we are all so dispersed. I'd just love a PCIe card bake off right now


----------



## WindowsX

Thank you @Iving for your cooperation. I'll update Fidelizer with Dante and Merging in next release with some other fixes. It's been merged in main system now. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> Well the whole point of Fidelizer is (inter alia) to relegate unnecessary = non-audio processes. It's just not yet up to speed with ethernet (cf. USB etc) audio. Of course an audiophile would prioritise audio highly whether in Windows or life at large! But I don't want to seem an apologist for Fidelizer for AOIP since I've not yet bought Pro. There are at least a couple of other threads dedicated to Fidelizer at this Forum.
> 
> Going back to what started the present conversation, I *am* convinced that I can hear the difference between different LANs/NICs, and would love to hear an audiophile's assessment of the RedNet PCIe card. What made you buy the JCAT? Do you know of any other RedNet users with a JCAT?
> 
> What a pity we are all so dispersed. I'd just love a PCIe card bake off right now



I saw it on JPlay, where RedNet AOIP was first pioneered for 2 channel stereo - including modifying the SMPS (sorry, this thread wasn't the first to discover it).

http://jplay.eu/forum/index.php?/to...usb-audio-pcie-cards-usb-to-spdif-converters/

Since the JCAT Net card has an option to power it externally, and an upgraded Crystek CCHD-957 clock (Ultra-Low Phase Noise Oscillator), it seemed like it would be a good fit for a low powered mini-itx system. My goal was to externally power as many devices as possible from the motherboard.

Too bad the Rednet D16/3 don't have a PCIe slot (users can add their own upgraded Ethernet ports). Maybe that could also be included along with an optional DC power input in the next generation Dante Audio Interfaces.


----------



## mourip (Oct 17, 2017)

In the well over a year since the AOIP thread started I have found not one person who has opted for the RedNet PCIe card. It might be due to the information on the Focusrite site itself that basically says that sonically it holds no advantage but just offers more channels for availability.

The hard part of comparing equipment is to isolate the variables by trying everything in just one system. This gives you a shot at comparing "apples to apples". Otherwise you just get anecdotal evidence from folks who have seen an improvement to their ears in their system. Best case is one user with a good system and is methodical and compares each method without making any other changes.

When deciding to make changes the best I can usually do is to find several users who all seem to agree that a product or method gives an improvement. Even so that might not happen in my own system depending on other choices I have made. In my mind what we are doing is a bit more like cooking and not just science.

OK. So who is going to buy the $1000 Dante card?


----------



## Iving

Golfnutz said:


> (sorry, this thread wasn't the first to discover it).
> 
> http://jplay.eu/forum/index.php?/to...usb-audio-pcie-cards-usb-to-spdif-converters/



rb2013 used to credit mhamel as the pioneer - thanks for the link


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> OK. So who is going to buy the $1000 Dante card?



Exactly!


----------



## Golfnutz

Interesting this company is including the JCAT Net card as an option with their low powered Celeron board - http://www.mojo-audio.com/deja-vu-music-server/

"Our Deja Vu Music Server is optimized for 24-bit 192KHz PCM, DSD, and MQA music streaming. Built around a low-noise ultrahigh-efficiency 6 watt main board with an integrated Intel N3150 quad-core processor. Powered by our Illuminati v2 ultralow-noise ultrahigh-dynamic linear power supply and Internal Regulator Modules. Optional high-performance JCAT Femto USB and/or optional JCAT Femto Ethernet cards. Comes with Audiophile Optimizer and your choice of Windows Server 2016 or Windows 10 operating system".

Everything about this server is designed around low power and low noise. The fact they are including the JCAT Net/USB cards as options should speak for itself.

I'm not really trying to push the JCAT card itself, it's more about the importance of low noise (a result of low power) feeding the Rednet device to get the best results. To me, anything that avoids the voltage regulators on the motherboard has to be a good thing (done better by external low noise LPS). At least you would think....


----------



## mourip

This is not a comment about the card itself and I have not dealt with Mojo Audio but you might want to look through some of the MicroZotl threads for Mojo Audio before committing to a purchase. Not everyone was pleased...


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> This is not a comment about the card itself and I have not dealt with Mojo Audio but you might want to look through some of the MicroZotl threads for Mojo Audio before committing to a purchase. Not everyone was pleased...



It was just an example...

For members of this thread, it would be far cheaper to build something more tailored towards AOIP.


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> It was just an example...
> 
> For members of this thread, it would be far cheaper to build something more tailored towards AOIP.



Agreed. Both my headphone and speaker systems use fanless PCs made from HDPlex or Streacom cases and use HDPlex LPSs to power them. Be sure to get a case and system board that can accommodate a PCIe card if you want to go the JCAT route. The Computer Audiophile is a great source for building one of these. 

Unfortunately on CA they seem to have very little interest in exploring AOIP. Go figure!


----------



## Marcin_gps

Hi Guys,

FYI: there is sth like return policy - you can check how the product works in your system and if you don't like it, return it within 2 weeks for a refund. Shipping is only 10EUR worldwide 

Best regards,
Marcin


----------



## mourip

Marcin_gps said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> FYI: there is sth like return policy - you can check how the product works in your system and if you don't like it, return it within 2 weeks for a refund. Shipping is only 10EUR worldwide
> 
> ...



Hi Marcin. Nice to see you here. Have you been following audio over IP?


----------



## Marcin_gps (Oct 23, 2017)

Hi mourip,

Thanks!

Yes, I follow everything related to hifi, especially computer audio related. But I haven't tried AoIP in my setup yet. I hear from my customers who purchased the JCAT NET Card that it improves SQ in their AoIP setups.

Before JCAT NET Card was developed, I've been using 2x syn1588 PCIe NICs with OCXO clocks in my JPLAY dual PC setup. I believe these cards would improve AoIP playback as well as they utilize IEEE1588 (PTP) hardware support. I liked the sound a lot, but JCAT NET /w linear PSU is just better, at least for my purposes. The syn1588 PCIe NIC /w OCXO retails for 1220EUR. If anyone is interested, PM me 

Best regards,
Marcin


----------



## Marcin_gps

That's my system's diagram. As you can see it's Ethernet->Ethernet->USB Audio. JPLAY uses UDP for transmission.


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> One of the things I like most about the D16 (other than it's not USB), is how well it responds to better sources upstream. Sounds like the Mutec combo is a real winner.
> 
> It's too bad you went the fiber optic route on your PC, since you wouldn't have any interest in the JCAT Net Femto Card. I've dropped Fiber Optic since I couldn't hear any differences with or w/o FMC's, so it just simplifies the chain (I'm using Belden 10GX Ethernet cable). After installing the JCAT card, I couldn't listen to my system without it - probably comparable about how you feel with the changes the Mutec combo is doing with your system (not comparing JCAT to Mutec, but rather the significant changes we're both hearing).



So I decided to try moving back to my Intel PCIe card and removed my optical ethernet card and associated FMC just to see if It had really made a difference or if I was just hopeful and working on what I thought was logical. As it turns out I prefer my Intel card with regular ethernet cable. It also pulled the last SMPS out from my audio chain. 

This does leave me open to the option of the JCAT however I am still hemorrhaging from buying the Mutec REF10 so it could be a while.

Thanks for the push...


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> So I decided to try moving back to my Intel PCIe card and removed my optical ethernet card and associated FMC just to see if It had really made a difference or if I was just hopeful and working on what I thought was logical. As it turns out I prefer my Intel card with regular ethernet cable. It also pulled the last SMPS out from my audio chain.
> 
> This does leave me open to the option of the JCAT however I am still hemorrhaging from buying the Mutec REF10 so it could be a while.
> 
> Thanks for the push...



If it wasn't for the Belden 10GX Ethernet cable I might still have them plugged in. I found this cable did a better job than the FMC's.
Only reason I tried one is because I happened to see them at this Surplus store I went into. The price was pretty cheap, so I figured why not buy some. For my setup the length was a bit too much, so I ended up buying a shorter one (2' unshielded) from a different place. The cables at the Surplus store are shielded, but I can't hear any difference between shielded or unshielded - http://www.fcsurplus.ca/shopping/products/468918-15-foot-cat-6a-network-cables/


----------



## 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...


----------



## Iving

Leaving Brand/Model aside for a sec ...
STP vs UTP? (Pros & Cons both)
Cat?
Length a SQ issue?

I have 45' (integral to my set-up) BJ Cat 6 UTP - very happy with it!


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> 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...


Do you have any cross talk issues (I did with Windows Remote Desktop)? This is one area of improvement I can attest to.


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> Leaving Brand/Model aside for a sec ...
> STP vs UTP? (Pros & Cons both)
> Cat?
> Length a SQ issue?
> ...


Sorry Lving, nothing I would comment on, other than to say I can't tell any difference between the two.
Lots of technical info via google. Also, lots of opinions both ways on the various audio forums. If someone could measure the differences in our application (if any), would be the only way to win this argument/discussion...


----------



## Iving (Oct 28, 2017)

I feel like a "winner" since abandoning USB for RedNet (and marrying my wife etc). Saw mourip's review of the REF10 on CA - my that's quite an outlay! I'd like one - but I'd need the Mutec reclocker too - and I'm not sure I could or would spend that much even if I had a few thousand to drop on Hi- Fi right now. Something has suddenly gone "right" with my system last few days, and I'm not 100% sure what it is. Could be the Intel X540-T2 breaking in . Or a fresh reinstall/roll back of W10 Pro - that could be it. Yep - seen Google and misc audio forums on_ inter alia _shielded vs. unshielded. Often I identify with mourip's " journey" and wondered whether shielded a deliberate choice. Yeah - course it was!


----------



## astrostar59

Hi Guys
I haven't posted here for a while. I use the Rednet 3 with LPS fitted internally following the instructions on this thread. I am delighted with the sound quality and loosing USB.

My thoughts right now are although the results are all good, the level of effect may be throttled by the design of the DAC receiving the data. There is jitter introduced in most inputs to a DAC, for example SPDIF creates it's additional jitter. And most connections in the DAC will have a receiving system with it's own clock. I am wondering if a direct to chip? i2S would avoid that.

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.


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Guys
> I haven't posted here for a while. I use the Rednet 3 with LPS fitted internally following the instructions on this thread. I am delighted with the sound quality and loosing USB.
> 
> My thoughts right now are although the results are all good, the level of effect may be throttled by the design of the DAC receiving the data. There is jitter introduced in most inputs to a DAC, for example SPDIF creates it's additional jitter. And most connections in the DAC will have a receiving system with it's own clock. I am wondering if a direct to chip? i2S would avoid that.
> ...



Getting an even better AN?


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> Do you have any cross talk issues (I did with Windows Remote Desktop)? This is one area of improvement I can attest to.



If by cross talk you mean noise generated through my speakers when using my mouse in an RDP session that seems consistent regardless of which system I use to connect between my PC and D16. My guess is that it has more to do with my system board and USB than the ethernet connection. Oddly when I use my iPad to control JRMC I do not get that noise.



Iving said:


> I feel like a "winner" since abandoning USB for RedNet (and marrying my wife etc). Saw mourip's review of the REF10 on CA - my that's quite an outlay! I'd like one - but I'd need the Mutec reclocker too - and I'm not sure I could or would spend that much even if I had a few thousand to drop on Hi- Fi right now. Something has suddenly gone "right" with my system last few days, and I'm not 100% sure what it is. Could be the Intel X540-T2 breaking in . Or a fresh reinstall/roll back of W10 Pro - that could be it. Yep - seen Google and misc audio forums on_ inter alia _shielded vs. unshielded. Often I identify with mourip's " journey" and wondered whether shielded a deliberate choice. Yeah - course it was!



I am with you RedNet and marrying my wife are perfect examples of my genius...or good fortune 

I am using an inexpensive Intel single port NIC. I have been looking online at the X540T2 cards and prices vary widely. The ones from China on eBay are a lot cheaper but I am suspicious about knockoffs. Those in the US are a bit expensive at ~200+ USD so that brings one closer to the JCAT card. I need to explore this a bit more.

Regarding shielding I have mostly been working on logical theory and have not really experimented. My assumption was that with all of the digital circuitry in my cabinet there must be a lot of generated noise that needs to be avoided. I could be wrong of course because within the past couple of weeks I have removed my second Mutec USB and reverted back to CAT6 from optical having found that neither was really helping especially with the REF10 now in my system.

BTW. I am selling my Antelope LiveClock here as the REF10 is better. As an interim the LC did improve over the internal wordclock of the D16.


----------



## Iving

> I am with you RedNet and marrying my wife are perfect examples of my genius...or good fortune



Genius - definitely Genius



> Regarding shielding I have mostly been working on logical theory and have not really experimented.



My thinking mainly unshielded for isolation. Especially as the PC (being at the listening position) requires a spur from the Topaz transformer, and ethernet cable is the only loop back to the otherwise "everything plugged into a single strip" (credit John Swenson). I doubt it makes much difference at all (U vs. S I mean - same re length - even brand).


----------



## yates7592

astrostar59 said:


> 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

yates7592 said:


> 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

astrostar59 said:


> 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?



astrostar59 said:


> direct to chip? i2S



in prospect?
know of any rednet/dante instances?


----------



## astrostar59

Iving said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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

joelha said:


> An interesting message from Focusrite:
> 
> *Jack Cole* (Focusrite )
> 
> ...



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

mourip said:


> 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

mourip said:


> 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

Iving said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## peteAllen

Whatever Rednet say, IMO there is a significant audible improvement when using the rednet pcie card over a normal nic. Also, the best sound possible is when the D16 has no secondary ethernet cable attached: only a single one to the PC with PCIE card. The tricky thing is that to connect/configure the Rednet network, you will need to connect the secondary to your router, but once any config changes are done, you can pull out that plug. I leave the d16 & pc on 24/7.


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Whatever Rednet say, IMO there is a significant audible improvement when using the rednet pcie card over a normal nic. Also, the best sound possible is when the D16 has no secondary ethernet cable attached: only a single one to the PC with PCIE card. The tricky thing is that to connect/configure the Rednet network, you will need to connect the secondary to your router, but once any config changes are done, you can pull out that plug. I leave the d16 & pc on 24/7.



Hi Pete,
We've been waiting for a first hand account of the RedNet PCIe card! Please - can you describe the SQ difference, what NIC(s) you compared it with - and also confirm what latency improvements are achievable? Thank you


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> Hi Pete,
> We've been waiting for a first hand account of the RedNet PCIe card! Please - can you describe the SQ difference, what NIC(s) you compared it with - and also confirm what latency improvements are achievable? Thank you


Apologies, I should have posted this back in June when I got it installed & working. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact differences now, but it was a much freer, alive sound. Adding an Audioquest Diamond ethernet cable was also significant. Previously I was using the normal, built in NIC, and I experimented with startech optical ethernet from a pcie card with native optical ethernet, as well as an el cheapo ethernet pcie card (so that I could use that to connect to the router while the built-in NIC connected directly to the d16).
It is possible that something like the jcat pcie card could accomplish the same sort of improvement, but the rednet card certainly has some unique Dante features wrt latency etc. I was trying to figure out how to power the rednet pcie card from an external LPS but Life intervened


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Apologies, I should have posted this back in June when I got it installed & working. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact differences now, but it was a much freer, alive sound. Adding an Audioquest Diamond ethernet cable was also significant. Previously I was using the normal, built in NIC, and I experimented with startech optical ethernet from a pcie card with native optical ethernet, as well as an el cheapo ethernet pcie card (so that I could use that to connect to the router while the built-in NIC connected directly to the d16).
> It is possible that something like the jcat pcie card could accomplish the same sort of improvement, but the rednet card certainly has some unique Dante features wrt latency etc. I was trying to figure out how to power the rednet pcie card from an external LPS but Life intervened



Thank you Pete
If you can remember or report the latency figures in Dante Controller - and/or any recommendations or tips regarding buying one (UK?) - much obliged again.


----------



## jelt2359

Thanks! I'll try that.


----------



## peteAllen (Nov 20, 2017)

Iving said:


> Thank you Pete
> If you can remember or report the latency figures in Dante Controller - and/or any recommendations or tips regarding buying one (UK?) - much obliged again.


I'm getting an average of 20usec with peak 28usec on the 250usec setting (streaming 176/24). For some reason the 150usec latency option is not possible for me on the d16 - it is on the pcie device but I guess it falls back to 250. Comparing 5msec with 250usec, the latter is finer, with better imaging and a bit more holographic


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> I'm getting an average of 20usec with peak 28usec on the 250usec setting (streaming 176/24). For some reason the 150usec latency option is not possible for me on the d16 - it is on the pcie device but I guess it falls back to 250. Comparing 5msec with 250usec, the latter is finer, with better imaging and a bit more holographic



Thanks
That's a heck of an improvement on the lowest I have seen thru DVS - about 650-700us.
I thought the 150 us setting was available with the PCIe - so wonder about that then. You could call Focusrite. They are Ace at help. It could be it makes no difference anyway.
And music sounds more "alive" you say. 
@mourip you hear that


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> Thanks
> That's a heck of an improvement on the lowest I have seen thru DVS - about 650-700us.
> I thought the 150 us setting was available with the PCIe - so wonder about that then. You could call Focusrite. They are Ace at help. It could be it makes no difference anyway.
> And music sounds more "alive" you say.
> @mourip you hear that


PCIE has 150usec option selected but the d16 can't go lower than 250usec because to be able to configure it I have to use the secondary ethernet and then of course there are technically more than one routers on the network because the rednet acts as a switch. The rednet pcie cannot be used as a normal ethernet card, it doesn't show up under network devices etc. Anyway, the improvement from 5msec to 250usec is good, although not as significant as it was to swap from a normal (realtek) nic to the rednet pcie. My guess is that the other factors (better quality nic, hardware vs software implementation, optimisations for dante only communication) are at play


----------



## Golfnutz

peteAllen said:


> PCIE has 150usec option selected but the d16 can't go lower than 250usec because to be able to configure it I have to use the secondary ethernet and then of course there are technically more than one routers on the network because the rednet acts as a switch. The rednet pcie cannot be used as a normal ethernet card, it doesn't show up under network devices etc. Anyway, the improvement from 5msec to 250usec is good, although not as significant as it was to swap from a normal (realtek) nic to the rednet pcie. My guess is that the other factors (better quality nic, hardware vs software implementation, optimisations for dante only communication) are at play



I had nothing but problems with the realtek nic in my system. Never had a single issue with the intel nic in my other 2 systems. I'm not so sure the improvements your hearing are related to latency, as I would think it's more about NOT using the realtek nic anymore.


----------



## peteAllen

Golfnutz said:


> I had nothing but problems with the realtek nic in my system. Never had a single issue with the intel nic in my other 2 systems. I'm not so sure the improvements your hearing are related to latency, as I would think it's more about NOT using the realtek nic anymore.



From what I remember the other two nics I used (one by startech) didn't noticably change the sound for the better or worse compared to the realtek, with which I've had no problems. I'm confident the improvements are due to the rednet card, one way or the other, and the fact that I can switch between the 5ms and 250usec settings and hear a positive difference means that latency is a factor


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> I had nothing but problems with the realtek nic in my system. Never had a single issue with the intel nic in my other 2 systems. I'm not so sure the improvements your hearing are related to latency, as I would think it's more about NOT using the realtek nic anymore.



I use the builtin card for LAN activity and use fiber media adapters to help isolate that connection for ground noise. I use an Intel PCIe NIC for connection to the first ethernet port of my D16 and do not use the second D16 port. I certainly believe those who say that the Dante PCIe card makes an improvement but in terms of bang for the buck I am working on a few other things first. 

Keep the posts flowing. It still stuns me that Rednet/AOIP has not been more popular.


----------



## astrostar59

Maybe it is your PC working overtime? Are you up sampling then sending?


----------



## astrostar59 (Nov 21, 2017)

As an aside, I just read an admission from Steve Nugent of Emperical Audio fame (OffRamp USB boxes) on the What's Best Forum ethernet thread . He is a genuine top guy in the world of best USB audio. His convertors were the top of the tree a few years back.

He said finally he has found Ethernet beats USB. Ha, nice. I tried to tell the guys over at Head-case way back but got slagged off.


----------



## mhamel

Not sure if anyone has seen these or not, but there are some new Dante "maker boards" available with several different I/O options - AES, SPDIF, headphone amp, 20w/ch power amp, analog XLR, and analog RCA.

http://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=dante-aoip-stereo-maker-boards

I've reached out to them and the bare DIO board (2ch AES in/out) is $295 and requires external 12v power, or $359 for a cased version that uses PoE.  I'm awaiting a reply on how to order the bare board.

It uses the Ultimo X chip, max of 24/96, 2-channels.

I'll update when I get some additional info.

   -Mike


----------



## kazsud

mhamel said:


> Not sure if anyone has seen these or not, but there are some new Dante "maker boards" available with several different I/O options - AES, SPDIF, headphone amp, 20w/ch power amp, analog XLR, and analog RCA.
> 
> http://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=dante-aoip-stereo-maker-boards
> 
> ...



$295 aoip


----------



## mhamel

I just heard back from the manufacturer - surprising given the time of day there.

He is going to get me a quote for a single board for now with shipping to the US.  He's also going to get me some board specs on Friday so that I can look into case and panel options to enclose it.

If this works out well, I may look into putting in a group order... I'll update here as the experiment progresses.  

   -Mike


----------



## Muziqboy

Good find Mike! 

This may well be the best entry point for those in the sidelines waiting for a cheaper way to experience the AOIP sound.

Thanks and keep us updated.


----------



## davidland

I love the horse


----------



## ferenc

It is very interesting development: 

*Audinate releases Dante IP Core for Xilinx FPGAs*

*A single FPGA may now host both product software and Dante audio networking

PORTLAND, OR. Dec. 13, 2017 — Audinate, developer of the industry-leading Dante® media networking technology, has announced the availability of Dante IP Core, a soft IP solution for audio manufacturers. It allows OEMs working with FPGA-based designs to add Dante audio connectivity to AV products at a lower cost and with greater flexibility than ever before.

Development teams can save time, reduce BOM costs and minimize their internal footprint by using a single FPGA to implement both product applications and Dante audio networking. Dante IP Core efficiently runs alongside OEM product applications such as ASRC, audio encryption, and signal processing on a range of Xilinx FPGAs, providing channel counts up to 512x512 with ultra-low latency and sub-microsecond synchronization.

Dante IP Core reduces the marginal costs of incorporating Dante in FPGA-based products, offering OEMs greater flexibility in aligning product families. Dante IP Core runs on the widely used Xilinx family of FPGAs. and provides all the interfaces required to be a fully functional Dante endpoint, including SiLabs clock synthesis, serial and parallel audio, DDR2 and SRAM, and a variety of standard control interfaces including UART, SPI and I2C.

“Dante IP Core gives savvy manufacturers something they’ve been requesting for a long time.,” says Chris Ware, Senior VP of Engineering at Audinate. “By integrating Dante IP into FPGA based product designs, they can save costs, reduce board space, and more easily manage thermal constraints while adding features their customers demand.”

Audinate is now a member of the Xilinx Alliance Program, a global community of qualified vendors that offers IP cores, tools and support for system designers who are developing innovative products using Xilinx FPGAs.

Dante IP Core is available for the Xilinx Spartan 6 family of FPGAs. Support for the Artix 7 FPGA is expected Q1 2018. Contact your Audinate representative for information about other platforms. For additional information please visit  http://www.audinate.com/dante-ip-core.
*


----------



## ferenc

https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-ip-core

*Dante IP Core*
*Dante IP Core is a soft IP solution that implements high-performance Dante endpoints on Xilinx FPGA platforms. It enables you to add Dante audio networking flexibly and cost-effectively to FPGA-based AV products, minimizing footprint and reducing BOM expenditures.*

Dante IP Core runs efficiently alongside OEM product applications on a range of Xilinx FPGAs, providing channel counts up to 512x512 with ultra-low latency and sub-microsecond synchronization, enabling unprecedented levels of integration and flexibility.

Dante IP Core is the clear choice for manufacturers looking to build best-of-breed Dante solutions with total control over cost, platform, features and performance.

*Cost-effective*
Get more out of your FPGA expenditures and resources by integrating Dante IP Core alongside your product applications on the same chip. The lower total solution cost of the single-FPGA model returns significant BOM savings that can be used to drive sales, boost margins, or deliver extra features.

*Compact*
By reducing designs to a single FPGA, products can be built with a smaller footprint and lower total power consumption. ASRC, audio encryption, signal processing modules – your choice of additional functionality can be built directly into the FPGA alongside the Dante core, simplifying your design process and enabling a huge range of unique and disruptive products.

*Flexible*
Dante IP Core runs on the Xilinx Spartan-6 FPGA family and several 7-series FPGA families, allowing you to choose the optimal part for your product needs, space constraints, and power requirements.

With support for up to 512x512 channels and 128x128 audio flows at sample rates up to 192kHz, Dante IP Core packs the same mighty punch as Audinate’s flagship Dante HC module – and is also available with lower channel-count configurations to enable cost-effective products for all segments of the industry.

*Future-proof*
Dante IP Core gives you the flexibility to upgrade your design with newer FPGA parts as they become available, allowing you to keep pace with the industry and stay on point with class-leading products that pass even the most demanding performance benchmarks.

*Feature-packed*
The Dante IP Core solution includes all the interfaces required for a complete and fully-functional Dante endpoint, including network, SiLabs VCXO clock, serial audio, DDR2 or DDR3 and SRAM, plus a variety of standard control interfaces including UART, SPI and I2C.

Segregated from the audio processing engine, system management is handled by an integrated Microblaze soft-core CPU, which supports custom user code for your own embedded Dante API applications.

*Responsive Support, Extensive Resources*
The Dante IP Core license includes a substantial technical support package, and access to a comprehensive repository of mature development resources to help you design and implement host integration, embedded applications, and remote control and monitoring systems.

*Specifications*
*Audio*


Sample rates up to 192 kHz in multiples of 44.1/48kHz with pull-up/down
Bit depths: 24, 16 and 32 bits per sample
Up to 512x512 channels at 44.1/48kHz, 256x256 channels at 88.2/96kHz and 128x128 channels at 176.4 /192kHz
Up to 128x128 simultaneous audio packet streams for transmit and receive
Up to 1024 samples audio buffering per channel
Flexible synchronous serial audio interface, up to 32 x SDIN and 32 x SDOUT audio lines
Hardware audio metering
*Network*


Standard RGMII/MII interface for Ethernet PHY or switch chip
Software and firmware are upgradable over network
*Clock*


High-quality, low jitter clock with companion Silicon Labs clock generator
External word clock sync input
*




*
*What’s Included*

Reference Project for ISE / Vivado
NG￼C / encrypted ED IF netlists
Top Level example file and constraints
Supporting files

Build scripts
Testbench with encrypted source files (Modelsim)
Reference schematics
Layout guidelines
Reference BOM
Activation dongle
*Supported Platforms*

Spartan 6
Artix 7 (available Q1 2018)
Contact sales for information about additional Xilinx platform support
*Download the Dante IP Core Datasheet*



dante-ip-core-datasheet-12-dec-2017-v1.1.pdf


----------



## mourip

ferenc said:


> https://www.audinate.com/products/manufacturer-products/dante-ip-core
> 
> *Dante IP Core*
> *Dante IP Core is a soft IP solution that implements high-performance Dante endpoints on Xilinx FPGA platforms. It enables you to add Dante audio networking flexibly and cost-effectively to FPGA-based AV products, minimizing footprint and reducing BOM expenditures.*



This could be the real breakthrough for AOIP.

Boy I hope that Schiit Audio looks into it. An Yggy with integrated AOIP would be killer.


----------



## Golfnutz

mourip said:


> This could be the real breakthrough for AOIP.
> 
> Boy I hope that Schiit Audio looks into it. An Yggy with integrated AOIP would be killer.



Schiit would be one of the very few that might have interest (no DSD), but I have my doubts about that (cost increase, might still require minor complexity setup, just to name a few cons).

Looks like it's still focused towards professional audio since it's still only capable of 192Khz upsampling, and nothing mentioned about WiFi.

The fact that it would eliminate an AOIP enabled box (ie. Rednet), is a good thing I suppose, but I don't think it's enough to influence consumer audio.


----------



## joelha

As someone who owns Schiit product and who has talked to some of the folks at Schiit, they seem to be intent on continuing to offer a pure value proposition.

I believe AOIP would be viewed by them as a bell or whistle. They don't even believe in spending extra money for cables telling me they use Monoprice cable for their equipment.

No judgement from me about the merits of using that cable. It's only a way of saying that if a consumer company is going to do AOIP, I don't think they're the one.

If I had to guess, someone is going to try to milk (price-wise) this capability in a consumer device for all they think its worth.

And it will likely stay that way until other manufacturers decide to do the same, assuming they ever do.

Just one audiophile's speculation.

Joel


----------



## gefski

I don't see anything about sample rate following. (Unless I missed it) That's a must for any mainstream consumer use.

Also, Schiit's transformer coupled Gen 5 USB is getting close to the pristine Dante file delivery according to @johnjen.


----------



## mourip

gefski said:


> I don't see anything about sample rate following. (Unless I missed it) That's a must for any mainstream consumer use.
> 
> Also, Schiit's transformer coupled Gen 5 USB is getting close to the pristine Dante file delivery according to @johnjen.



I found that my D16 was better but once you start adding a Mutec USB with an LPS you are way past it.

Even just using a Mutec USB with AES out sounded better to me.

I really wanted it to sound as good so I could sell off some gear but it did not make it.


----------



## Tand2016 (Jan 3, 2018)

Solved!

Had to use Word Clock Out from the Mutec, not from Ref10 

Hi

Just got my new Mutec Ref10 connected to my Mutec MC3+USB and Rednet 16R. The problem is that I can not get my Rednet to lock on External Clock. The status in Rednet Control 2 shows amber. Any ideas?



Amber: Illuminates when external clock is selected but not locked.


----------



## ferenc

There are few effects of this development.
It helps to provide 2 channel interfacing on a more price sensitive way (_"available with lower channel-count configurations to enable cost-effective products for all segments of the industry"_).

It makes it easy to add Dante as an option to an existing DAC _("The Dante IP Core solution includes all the interfaces required for a complete and fully-functional Dante endpoint, including network, SiLabs VCXO clock, serial audio, DDR2 or DDR3 and SRAM, plus a variety of standard control interfaces including UART, SPI and I2C."). _

It will make higeh-end multi-room solution a very exciting opportunity as well.
I can imagine companies like Chord, Devialet, Wadia, etc will be very happy with it as they have extensive knowledge of using FPGAs.
I would be very much surprised if they would not provide Dante (or AES67 or Ravenna) options midterm.

Merging has ZMan. It is an OEM RAVENNA circuit board, which affords the advantages of a networked solution to audio components of all sizes. Fully AES67 compliant, the ZMan can cut development time for manufacturers wanting to enter the expanding world of AoIP.

So I think AOIP is happening. Once a developer familiar with Dante, it will be easy to add Ravenna as well.




joelha said:


> As someone who owns Schiit product and who has talked to some of the folks at Schiit, they seem to be intent on continuing to offer a pure value proposition.
> 
> I believe AOIP would be viewed by them as a bell or whistle. They don't even believe in spending extra money for cables telling me they use Monoprice cable for their equipment.
> 
> ...


----------



## ferenc (Jan 3, 2018)

It is mentioned on the product page:

_"Segregated from the audio processing engine, system management is handled by an integrated Microblaze soft-core CPU, which supports custom user code for your own embedded Dante API applications."_

It could mean that a developer can integrate the Dante API with her/his application, so sample rate switching could be solved this way as well.



gefski said:


> I don't see anything about sample rate following. (Unless I missed it) That's a must for any mainstream consumer use.
> 
> Also, Schiit's transformer coupled Gen 5 USB is getting close to the pristine Dante file delivery according to @johnjen.


----------



## johnjen

gefski said:


> I don't see anything about sample rate following. (Unless I missed it) That's a must for any mainstream consumer use.
> 
> Also, Schiit's transformer coupled Gen 5 USB is getting close to the pristine Dante file delivery according to @johnjen.


Yeah the Gen-5 USB implementation is MUCH closer to the AOIP I now have.  It's good enough that I consider it a viable secondary digital audio source.

But with my latest tweak (dual voltage regulators) the gap has widened still further.
Gen-5 is still viable, but the differences are more pronounced now.

The thing is I could run the SPDIF output from the Eitr into my dual stack of tweako 3+'s.
That will be an experiment for another day.

JJ


----------



## ferenc

I really hope there will be companies to develop Dante/Ravenna to I2S interfacing, would be interesting option for quite a few existing DACs.


----------



## mourip

Tand2016 said:


> Solved!
> 
> Had to use Word Clock Out from the Mutec, not from Ref10
> 
> ...



First you need to make sure that you have the REF10 hooked up properly to the M3USB then you can use the wclk out from the M3USB to the 16R. In RedNet Control you need to go into the settings and choose external clock for the 16R.

On the M3USB are you getting the blue sync lights? Are you using the M3USB to re-clock?

Also make sure that the output you chose on the front panel of the REF10 really corresponds to the jack you chose on the back.


----------



## Tand2016

mourip said:


> First you need to make sure that you have the REF10 hooked up properly to the M3USB then you can use the wclk out from the M3USB to the 16R. In RedNet Control you need to go into the settings and choose external clock for the 16R.
> 
> On the M3USB are you getting the blue sync lights? Are you using the M3USB to re-clock?
> 
> Also make sure that the output you chose on the front panel of the REF10 really corresponds to the jack you chose on the back.




I had to do some head scratching, thats for sure - especially since I set wrong outputs of my Ref10 to my Mutec and Rednet, and turning all other off. 

Both AES3/11 lights under REFERENCE are on. Is this correct? 

External og and Recloking blue lights are on and so is the blue sync lights.

Yes, the M3USB is re-clocking.


----------



## johnjen (Jan 4, 2018)

mourip said:


> This could be the real breakthrough for AOIP.
> 
> Boy I hope that Schiit Audio looks into it. An Yggy with integrated AOIP would be killer.


 A ways back Mike mentioned an alternative digital audio path that would be as good if not better than I2S.  No license fees, no permissions required etc.  I forget his 3 letter acronym but it sounded like an elegant solution, potentially that would eclipse I2S's limitations and my guess is it would far less expensive as well.  Sorta more in keeping with the Schiit mantra.

JJ


----------



## mourip

Tand2016 said:


> I had to do some head scratching, thats for sure - especially since I set wrong outputs of my Ref10 to my Mutec and Rednet, and turning all other off.
> 
> Both AES3/11 lights under REFERENCE are on. Is this correct?
> 
> ...



Your M3USB looks like it is connected properly. When I get a chance today I will take a photo of my M3USB front panel so you can compare the lights.


----------



## mourip

Tand2016 said:


> I had to do some head scratching, thats for sure - especially since I set wrong outputs of my Ref10 to my Mutec and Rednet, and turning all other off.
> 
> Both AES3/11 lights under REFERENCE are on. Is this correct?
> 
> ...



Here is a shot of my M3USB using REF10. I am upsampling using JRMC to 24\192 and re-sampling using the M3USB.


----------



## Tand2016

Hi Mourip

Thank you for the picture. Mine is almost the same, only the sample rate is at 44.1 instead. That picture would probably have saved me for hours of truble searching during my setup  

The Rednet and Mutec Combo with MC3+USB and Ref10 is sounding really good now. Especially after contecting the Ref10. I am only using Ghents 75 ohm, 0,5 m clock cable (at 15 USD pcs). Later on it will be interesing to try out some other alternativs, maybe the Habst or others when my wallet is back from recovery  .

Initialy after set up my new Ref10 with the Rednet connected to Mutecs Word Clock out and the Mutec connected to the Ref10s 10 mhz out.  I heard a major improvement, the sound is more airy and with more defined bass, the sound stage seems expanded too. After about 1 day warmup the initial sound quality has still improved. I feel that the Ref10 gives a  better timing in the music, 

The pencil that paints the sonic sceneries has now gotten sharper!

Tommy


----------



## mourip

I am glad that you have it sorted out. My subjective experience of the improvements mirrors your own. The effects are somewhat subtle but really make a difference in terms of realistic musicality..

So what ended up being the solution for the initial lack of sync?


----------



## Tand2016 (Jan 8, 2018)

It did not sync because  I used the 50 ohm output fist and should have connected to # 3 - the first 75 ohm output


----------



## yates7592 (Jan 10, 2018)

I know a lot of people here are already re-clocking their D16 but I thought I would report my very recent experience. I had been looking for a Grimm CC1 for over a year and actually ordered a new one last May 2017 but production had stalled and I had a long wait. Just after Christmas this year I found a used CC1, so cancelled the new one, and it arrived 4 days ago. At the time I was still waiting for my BNC cable, so to start I excitedly used the CC1 in AES thru mode to reclock the signal to my DAC (Terminator). I was very disappointed, especially after waiting 8 months with high hopes, I could not detect any improvement whatsoever (I guess the clock in my Terminator is already pretty good). Plans for a hasty re-sale of the CC1 were already in place by the following day. Then just yesterday my BNC cable arrived, so straight away I put the D16 into slave mode, the Grimm CC1 as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in. My, what a major difference! This has to be the biggest and most obvious sonic upgrade I have ever heard. I can't just say 'bass is better' or 'highs are better', they are, but just everything is. The biggest improvement is that music is much more dynamic, with better PRaT, more coherent (or cohesive) and just more seamless throughout, with a marked bass weight increase. A totally integrated audio signal, with all instruments beating as one. The BNC cable is 'el cheapo' and has only a few hours on it so things should improve even further. BNC cable upgrade plans are now in full swing. If you can re-clock your D16 or D3, I would very strongly recommend that you do, you will not be disappointed.


----------



## mourip

Is anyone here running Windows Server 2012r2 and Audiophile Optimizer with a Rednet device and successfully gotten it to work in Core Mode?


----------



## Iving

yates7592 said:


> I know a lot of people here are already re-clocking their D16 but I thought I would report my very recent experience. I had been looking for a Grimm CC1 for over a year and actually ordered a new one last May 2017 but production had stalled and I had a long wait. Just after Christmas this year I found a used CC1, so cancelled the new one, and it arrived 4 days ago. At the time I was still waiting for my BNC cable, so to start I excitedly used the CC1 in AES thru mode to reclock the signal to my DAC (Terminator). I was very disappointed, especially after waiting 8 months with high hopes, I could not detect any improvement whatsoever (I guess the clock in my Terminator is already pretty good). Plans for a hasty re-sale of the CC1 were already in place by the following day. Then just yesterday my BNC cable arrived, so straight away I put the D16 into slave mode, the D16 as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in. My, what a major difference! This has to be the biggest and most obvious sonic upgrade I have ever heard. I can't just say 'bass is better' or 'highs are better', they are, but just everything is. The biggest improvement is that music is much more dynamic, with better PRaT, more coherent (or cohesive) and just more seamless throughout, with a marked bass weight increase. A totally integrated audio signal, with all instruments beating as one. The BNC cable is 'el cheapo' and has only a few hours on it so things should improve even further. BNC cable upgrade plans are now in full swing. If you can re-clock your D16 or D3, I would very strongly recommend that you do, you will not be disappointed.



Presume "I put the D16 into slave mode, the D16 as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in" should read "I put the D16 into slave mode, the *Grimm* as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in"?
My question for those without a clock would be: Which clock? Grimm? Antelope? Mutec? Bearing in mind bang for buck?
Secondly - looking around the corner especially info supplied by @mhamel  supra, why not wait (a little while?) for a DAC with integrated AOIP instead?


----------



## yates7592

^ correct, I've made the change!


----------



## mourip (Jan 10, 2018)

Iving said:


> Presume "I put the D16 into slave mode, the D16 as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in" should read "I put the D16 into slave mode, the *Grimm* as master, with Word Clock BNC out and BNC in"?
> My question for those without a clock would be: Which clock? Grimm? Antelope? Mutec? Bearing in mind bang for buck?
> Secondly - looking around the corner especially info supplied by @mhamel  supra, why not wait (a little while?) for a DAC with integrated AOIP instead?



In order of preference and cost I would re-clock with the Mutec USB first and then add a master clock later as funds and opportunity arise.

Regarding the second question. There is no way to tell how long it could take to find a good quality DAC that incorporates AOIP in a price range less that what these separate components cost.

This thread is a year and a half old and some of the first comments were about hoping that a DAC with integrated AOIP would come soon. Some of us even contacted manufacturers suggesting it. There is one DAC with AOIP, the Burl Bomber but it has not received much love, just folks immediately wanting to mod it to get rid of the SMPS.

Great sound is available here and now. Buying separates gives you better upgrade choices later. You can get "best of breed" instead of "one size fits all". Besides something new and better is always be coming soon


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> In order of preference and cost I would re-clock with the Mutec USB first and then add a master clock later as funds and opportunity arise.
> 
> Regarding the second question. There is no way to tell how long it could take to find a good quality DAC that incorporates AOIP in a price range less that what these separate components cost.
> 
> ...



Clear as ever Paul - Thanks for your thoughts
What about the respective SQ/£ returns on the Mutec MC-3+ (GBP 800) vs. REF 10 10MHz (GBP 2700)?


----------



## mourip

Two different devices. The Mutec can re-clock which gives a nice uptick but I believe requires an external reference clock before it can offer wclk out to another device. The REF10 is strictly a reference clock and only works with a device that accepts a reference signal. The M3USB can take a reference input but the RN3/D16 can only accept wclk in. So you cannot use the REF10 with those without an intermediate device.


----------



## Iving (Jan 10, 2018)

mourip said:


> Two different devices. The Mutec can re-clock which gives a nice uptick but I believe requires an external reference clock before it can offer wclk out to another device. The REF10 is strictly a reference clock and only works with a device that accepts a reference signal. The M3USB can take a reference input but the RN3/D16 can only accept wclk in. So you cannot use the REF10 with those without an intermediate device.



OK as per https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...-computer-audio.806827/page-215#post-13781334


----------



## mourip

Yup. That is the long version


----------



## yates7592

Iving said:


> Clear as ever Paul - Thanks for your thoughts
> What about the respective SQ/£ returns on the Mutec MC-3+ (GBP 800) vs. REF 10 10MHz (GBP 2700)?



(Used) CC1 is approx £1000 GBP, so very good in SQ/£ terms.


----------



## mourip

I am starting to think about subscribing to Tidal to broaden my musical exposure. Is anyone here using it with their Rednet setup? Can it be set to use DVS like JRiver or do you need to use a work-around like Virtual Cable?


----------



## gefski

mourip said:


> I am starting to think about subscribing to Tidal to broaden my musical exposure. Is anyone here using it with their Rednet setup? Can it be set to use DVS like JRiver or do you need to use a work-around like Virtual Cable?



I can't answer your specific question, but will comment on my use of Tidal. I have an iMac - Dante Ethernet - unDAES-O - AES - Yggy. Purchased Tidal through Audirvana+, my player, so everything is synced through A+ and I don't use the Tidal app.

I just wi-fi Tidal files from my router. SQ is terrific. So good that I can forget it and jump into the huge catalogs they've got on most artists and listen for hours. If I really love an album, I can get the cd and rip. Direct comparison, rip vs. streamed, will (usually) favor my cd rip. (Though you never know what master their file and my cd is) When listening to my files, I of course turn off my iMac's wifi connection.

Mainly, I can't say enough about the value of Tidal's huge pool of files to me, miles beyond the $20 per mo. Hope they keep it going, I keep reading how much $ they're losing.


----------



## mourip

Thanks for the reply. Good to know that it works well with a MAC. Sounds like I better research Tidals viability!


----------



## mhamel

Another new development... max of 96KHz and pricing remains to be seen, but take a look:   https://www.audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio?link=h-car 

PoE powered dongle Dante endpoints, AES3, USB, analog in, and analog out.


----------



## gefski

mhamel said:


> Another new development... max of 96KHz and pricing remains to be seen, but take a look:   https://www.audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio?link=h-car
> 
> PoE powered dongle Dante endpoints, AES3, USB, analog in, and analog out.



Interesting.

Did you ever get your hands on a RDL 2 channel box?


----------



## ferenc

https://audinate.com/products/devic...oiolsj77MnSdcncRWItwEvDv6AI8_A&_hsmi=60119637



From 129 USD. 



Dante AVIO Adapters let you use your favorite legacy audio gear with any Dante-connected system, delivering the interoperability, performance and scalability that only networking can bring. Cost effective, compact and built for the road, Dante AVIO adapters bring the modern connectivity that every audio pro needs in their toolbox. 

*Analog Input* *Analog Output* *AES3* *USB* 


*Analog Inputs*






Dante AVIO Analog Inputs let you use analog audio line-level source gear you already own to feed any Dante-connected system. Don’t abandon trusted mixing consoles, wireless mics and other analog sources - adapt them to the world of audio networking with Dante AVIO. Available in 1- and 2-channel versions.




Connect legacy mixers and consoles to a Dante network
Patch DSPs, analog compressors and equalizers into a Dante system using a combination of Dante AVIO Input and Output adapters
Connect stage DI boxes and keyboard instruments directly to a Dante network








*Analog Outputs*





Dante AVIO Analog Outputs let you drive analog line-level products you already own from any Dante-connected system. Bring your amplifiers, powered speakers and more to the world of audio networking with Dante AVIO. Available in 1- and 2-channel versions.




Send audio to analog power amplifiers and powered speakers over a Dante audio network
Patch DSPs, analog compressors and equalizers into a Dante system using a combination of Dante AVIO Input and Output adapters
Create easy drop-points for connecting overflow areas to a Dante network







*AES3*





The Dante AVIO AES3/EBU Adapter lets you use your favorite digital audio gear on a Dante audio network. Don’t abandon great AES3-connected amplifiers, DSPs and mic preamps - adapt them to the world of audio networking with Dante AVIO.




Send audio to analog power amplifiers and powered speakers over a Dante audio network
Patch DSPs, analog compressors and equalizers into a Dante system using a combination of Dante AVIO Input and Output adapters
Create easy drop-points for connecting cry rooms and overflow areas to a Dante network







*USB*





The Dante AVIO USB Adapter lets you connect any computer to a Dante audio network with zero software installation, and can be used with any audio application for playout or recording. Ideal for conference rooms and presentation events.




Easy audio drop-point for laptops in conference settings, no need to reconfigure your Dante network for different computers
Record or playout 2-channel audio from any PC or Mac with no additional software at all
Connect mobile devices to a Dante network (with USB adapters)







*Specifications*
Four types of Dante AVIO Adapters will be available, including one- and two-channel versions of the analog input and analog output adapters.


----------



## mourip

ferenc said:


> https://audinate.com/products/devic...oiolsj77MnSdcncRWItwEvDv6AI8_A&_hsmi=60119637



Looks like it would require a POE switch or at least a POE adaptor/injector.  An injector might make it easy to use an LPS to power. I thought that on a Dante network you might be limited to the bit rate of the slowest device on your network so if you are running at 24/96 to one device you could not also run another at 24/192. However on the site Biamp.com I found this:

"Dante supports the use of mixed 100Mbps and Gigabit hardware, audio *with mixed sample rates and bit depth*, and allows the design of network zones with different latencies. Biamp recommends using Gigabit hardware throughout the network."


----------



## One and a half

The AES3 version of Dante AVIO maxes out at 96. What a waste of effort with the best of intentions, at least drive it with 192.


----------



## Iving

Just to post that I upgraded my PC's LPSU from (HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX adapter) to Larry's new 400W LPSU. The difference is phenomenal. The enhancement may have to do with now supplying dedicated PCIe (6-pin) power for the Intel Ethernet Converged Network Adapter X540-T2. The sound is really mellifluous. Digital edge is like a good girlfriend (or boyfriend): you don't know what you've got till it's gone. More detail too. Proper Hi-Fi


----------



## johnjen

I've found that reducing the spurious noise that any SMPS generates, which is in the vicinity of, or is used by any gear that is in the audio chain, results in audible changes for the better.  Even if an LPS is used to drive an all digital load (like a computer etc.) which generates its own spurious noise, there are benefits.

So it appears that reducing this noise, regardless of how it is accomplished, can have beneficial effects upon the SQ of a tweaked system.

JJ


----------



## kazsud

Iving said:


> Just to post that I upgraded my PC's LPSU from (HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX adapter) to Larry's new 400W LPSU. The difference is phenomenal. The enhancement may have to do with now supplying dedicated PCIe (6-pin) power for the Intel Ethernet Converged Network Adapter X540-T2. The sound is really mellifluous. Digital edge is like a good girlfriend (or boyfriend): you don't know what you've got till it's gone. More detail too. Proper Hi-Fi



Can you link Larry's LPSU?


----------



## Iving

kazsud said:


> Can you link Larry's LPSU?



Here: https://www.hdplex.com/hdplex-fanless-400w-atx-linear-power-supply-with-modular-atx-output.html + tabs
Suggest e-mail Larry. He's rather to the point but you get quick replies. He's efficient if you want questions answered or to buy ...


----------



## bexi

I am having problem with RedNet D16 AES. After the computer has been up over 24 to 48 hours the RedNet Control 2 and Dante Controller software lost connection. RedNet Control 2 says "Not present on the network" and Dante Controller is unable to show any info. Still music plays fine after this, but I can't change sample rate or monitor latency etc. After rebooting D16 AES from power button the device works normally. There were few people complaining same thing before, so I know I am not totally alone.
I have contacted Focusrite customer service about this already a year ago. They have been very helpful to investigating this problem, but no luck. They have not been able to reproduce the problem, so there are no fix for this.
Focusrite customer service has posted about this in this thread to contact them, but there has not been anyone else. So if anyone has this problem, please contact customer service. 

This problem is driving me crazy. Sound quality is still great!


----------



## mourip

I had this exact same issue for a while but then it stopped. I am pretty sure I contacted Tech Support at the time.

To be honest I was never sure what actually fixed it but I think that  I uninstalled Rednet Control and installed the newest version which also included a firmware update. Are you at the latest version of RC?


----------



## bexi

mourip said:


> I had this exact same issue for a while but then it stopped. I am pretty sure I contacted Tech Support at the time.
> 
> To be honest I was never sure what actually fixed it but I think that  I uninstalled Rednet Control and installed the newest version which also included a firmware update. Are you at the latest version of RC?


Yeah, that is what they told me. Using the latest 2.1.0 with device firmware upgraded. I have tried to reinstall the software and with three different computers.


----------



## johnjen

So the system works fine, for a while, then 'hiccups' and the ethernet data link goes down until a re-boot?
And there is no other 'quirky' behavior from any of the host computers?

What is the latency set at?
And what does the recording of the actual latency look like?
Have you cleaned the ethernet cable's connections, and or swapped it out with another cable?
Are you using a cat 7 cable?
Have you tried re-routing the cable?

That should be enough for a starter.

JJ


----------



## bexi (Feb 16, 2018)

johnjen said:


> So the system works fine, for a while, then 'hiccups' and the ethernet data link goes down until a re-boot?
> And there is no other 'quirky' behavior from any of the host computers?
> 
> What is the latency set at?
> ...


System works fine. There are no hiccups or anything like that. Music plays fine even after when the "Not present on the network" error occurs. On previous computer there was high DPC latency problem every now and then - music stuttered for a while. My current desktop computer and laptop is just fine.

Latency is set at 6ms, Buffer Size 128 samples, Encoding 24 bits and Asio Latency 10ms. No late packets.

Previously used some old Cat5e but now I have been using individually tested Belkin CAT6A 7.6m. No difference there. I don't think that Cat7 would help. Shielding would just add possibility to ground loop.

I doubt that there is nothing wrong with my setup - just some bug in software.


----------



## Iving

Network Adapter Settings
In particular - DISABLE INTERRUPT MODERATION in Control Panel/Device Manager/Network Adapter/Advanced
Flow Control off too if tolerated


----------



## bexi (Feb 16, 2018)

Iving said:


> Network Adapter Settings
> In particular - DISABLE INTERRUPT MODERATION in Control Panel/Device Manager/Network Adapter/Advanced
> Flow Control off too if tolerated


Yep, I have tried these before. Maybe latency is more constant. Forgot to set these on new Intel NIC so thank you for reminder.

I have not heard difference in sound but I think that Belkin CAT6A cable is great. It is cheap and they give similar cable test report as Blue Jeans Cable. Great alternative for europeans since that BJC cable is not available here.

Some warning about fake Intel NICs too! I bought two counterfeit Intel i350-t2v2 from Amazon. They were missing YottaMark stickers and some chips were different. Third time I bought the real deal at local shop.


----------



## Iving

I know it's a chore, but trailing this whole thread thru from the beginning would be quite a (re-)education for any of us, even if not precipitating the solution needed.


----------



## mourip

bexi said:


> System works fine. There are no hiccups or anything like that. Music plays fine even after when the "Not present on the network" error occurs. On previous computer there was high DPC latency problem every now and then - music stuttered for a while. My current desktop computer and laptop is just fine.
> 
> Latency is set at 6ms, Buffer Size 128 samples, Encoding 24 bits and Asio Latency 10ms. No late packets.
> 
> ...



In my case the music never stopped playing. JRMC worked as usual. I could start and stop music but in RC the D16 just stopped showing. Seemed like a bug in RC. In my case it started working again and has been fine ever since.

Regarding cables, I have tried several brands and also fiber with FMC's and also an internal PCIe fiber card but the red cable that came with my D16 sounds as good as anything. Took the fiber out and got a SQ improvement. I thought that the fiber would improve isolation but it seems to have a downside that more than offsets that. Jitter perhaps?


----------



## johnjen

bexi said:


> System works fine. There are no hiccups or anything like that. Music plays fine even after when the "Not present on the network" error occurs. On previous computer there was high DPC latency problem every now and then - music stuttered for a while. My current desktop computer and laptop is just fine.
> 
> Latency is set at 6ms, Buffer Size 128 samples, Encoding 24 bits and Asio Latency 10ms. No late packets.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the update.
So it's only the appearance of the dante box that drops…  hmmmmm

I only mentioned the cat 7 cable because it can in some instances create a ground loop, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Your latency is fine but it would seem it's just a bit high, but then I don't know the setup well enough to know either way, and your system's latency shouldn't make any difference.  Unless there were late or many packets that were 'delayed', which isn't the case.

Is there a router in the path from the pc to the dante box?
Is the dante network on its own hardware layer network, or is it shared on the same hardware that is used for internet traffic?

JJ


----------



## bexi

johnjen said:


> Thanks for the update.
> So it's only the appearance of the dante box that drops…  hmmmmm
> 
> I only mentioned the cat 7 cable because it can in some instances create a ground loop, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
> ...


Latency could be better indeed - 4ms is not stable enough and creates sometimes late packets. I have not heard difference in sound quality. Noticed that there is some problem with video lip sync if latency is set too low. Of course I could set some delay in media player..

Direct connection from PC. Using that two port Intel i350-T2V2 with one port on Internet and second on D16 AES.


----------



## johnjen

Say there.
In my setup (I too have dual ethernet ports with one dedicated to the Dante network) my latency is under 1ms (997µs).
Have you swapped the ports (yeah, a PIA for sure) just to see what happens?
And have you re-routed your ethernet cables so it is away from any other cables/gear etc?

Another thought was to yank your NIC out, clean both the edge connector and it's mating connector slot on the M/B, just to make sure no dust bunnies or any foreign material is crammed in there.
And the same goes for the RJ-45 ports, make sure it's not got cruddlies buried deep in the recesses.

The thing is, if there are no dropouts in the music, something is mess'n with the commands strings (where the info about the availability of the dante box gets communicated) vs the bits that comprise the musical data.  
And since there is no router/switch/hub in the way they (especially a router that is mis configured) are out of the picture, so something is treating these 2 data protocols differently.

This is the source of your conundrum.  And I would suspect that on those occasions where the data stream 'stutters' (you may not even notice) and has to be resent, it's only the streaming musical data that gets re-sent, and not the command strings. 
And even though nothing shows up on the latency meter, except it's not as low as it should be, which could be masking the resent data.
Which in turn would make the dante box disappear, but the music just keeps on play'n.

At least that is a possible scenario that fits the behavior, and actually may have a shred of truth to it.

So do a thorough inspection and clean up of ALL the connections from connector to cable and back.
Sometimes it those pesky details which can be all to easily overlooked that'll getcha.
Or not!  hahahahahahahaha

JJ
ps remote diagnosis is always hit or miss but this might just help.


----------



## bexi (Feb 17, 2018)

Hehe.. Yeah, I should check those dust bunnies.
Noticed that @joelha had similar problem too, is it working now?

About latency problems with Windows 10. Seems to be that problem is with in memory handling. Luckily there is VB-Audio! Team got their hands dirty and really tried to get something about it. Maybe next build is fixing the problems.They make really useful software for RedNet users anyway since we really can't use WASAPI or DirectSound without ASIO Bridge software.

You can also download new Stress Test Program to detect Memory Management stuff..

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vb-a...dio/1646244165445117/?qid=6523440172603318415


----------



## Golfnutz

bexi said:


> Hehe.. Yeah, I should check those dust bunnies.
> Noticed that @joelha had similar problem too, is it working now?
> 
> About latency problems with Windows 10. Seems to be that problem is with in memory handling. Luckily there is VB-Audio! Team got their hands dirty and really tried to get something about it. Maybe next build is fixing the problems.They make really useful software for RedNet users anyway since we really can't use WASAPI or DirectSound without ASIO Bridge software.
> ...



If your latency is only 4ms, there's something else going on here you ain't explaining. Nothing posted about your PC (or the rest of your system). Are you just hoping someone else had this issue and 'this' is what I did to resolve it? You may very well have to start from scratch, and reformat your hard drive and re-install windows as a fresh starting point.


----------



## bexi (Feb 17, 2018)

Golfnutz said:


> If your latency is only 4ms, there's something else going on here you ain't explaining. Nothing posted about your PC (or the rest of your system). Are you just hoping someone else had this issue and 'this' is what I did to resolve it? You may very well have to start from scratch, and reformat your hard drive and re-install windows as a fresh starting point.



Latency is not an issue. Just something "fun" to play and tweak. It was a problem with older configuration, after that I bought a new computer. As I said, this is my third PC configuration with the same error and it only occurs after 24 hours uptime - everytime and always on every configuration. I have re-formated and re-installed windows from scratch few times and I am not doing it again. Also tried different network interfaces, network cables, power cables and DACs.

Jriver 23.0.102 32bit, Foobar2000 v1.3.9, VB-Audio ASIO Bridge 1.0.0.7

EAR Acute III, Densen FabelDAC (Tellurium Q Black Digital)
Densen B-175
ATC SCM50

My PC:
Gigabyte GA-Z270X-UD5
Intel Core i7-7700k
16GB (2x 8GB) G.Skill Trident Z DDR4 3600 CL16-16-16-36
Samsung 960 Evo M.2 NVMe 500GB
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 AORUS Xtreme
Seasonic PRIME 600W Titanium Fanless
Intel I350-T2V2
Windows 10 build 1079

Previous PC:
Asus P8P67 EVO
Intel i5-2500k
ASUS GeForce GTX 970 Strix 4GB DirectCU II
16GB (2x 8GB) DDR3
Crucial MX100 512GB
Seasonic X-660
Dual integrated Intel NIC
Windows 10

Laptop:
Lenovo X230
16GB
160GB
Intel NIC
Windows 10

I am hoping to that the people with the same problem to would make contact with Focusrite tech support. The same people who has written in this same thread.

This is what Focusrite tech support told me:
"We've run countless tests here and we've never been able to reproduce the issue that you seem to be experiencing. As you've noted, one or two other people have mentioned it in forums - my colleague joined the forum you mentioned and requested that anyone having this issue should contact us directly but I'm not aware that we've heard from anyone else."

I know this "Not present on the network" is not problem with everyone since many people won't keep computer up all night and day or need to change sample rate that often.


----------



## Iving (Feb 17, 2018)

bexi said:


> Latency is not an issue. Just something "fun" to play and tweak. It was a problem with older configuration, after that I bought a new computer. As I said, this is my third PC configuration with the same error and it only occurs after 24 hours uptime - everytime and always on every configuration. I have re-formated and re-installed windows from scratch few times and I am not doing it again. Also tried different network interfaces, network cables, power cables and DACs.
> 
> Jriver 23.0.102 32bit, Foobar2000 v1.3.9, VB-Audio ASIO Bridge 1.0.0.7
> 
> ...



You've got a nice PC there. Your Latency in DC should average less than 1 msec. If you just ran W10, fb2k/DVS and Rednet Control that's what you'd get. I don't use JRiver or anything else and all is flac at 192. There's much on settings etc earlier in this thread. Focusrite are brilliant but their mindset is Pro Audio not audiophile. They "couldn't" reproduce on their bench a definite problem I had with an Yggy. I would trawl thread, reinstall starting simple. P.S. I am going for an Optane o/s next and you have the perfect machine for hd caching too ...


----------



## bexi (Feb 17, 2018)

Iving said:


> You've got a nice PC there. Your Latency in DC should average less than 1 msec. If you just ran W10, fb2k/DVS and Rednet Control that's what you'd get. I don't use JRiver or anything else and all is flac at 192. There's much on settings etc earlier in this thread. Focusrite are brilliant but their mindset is Pro Audio not audiophile. They "couldn't" reproduce on their bench a definite problem I had with an Yggy. I would trawl thread, reinstall starting simple. P.S. I am going for an Optane o/s next and you have the perfect machine for hd caching too ...


Average latency is 1,8msec. I would not recommend that Gigabyte motherboard to anyone wanting good DPC latency performance. It works just enough though. Kaby Lake architecture is not that good on those things on average. Nvidia GeForce is not that good for audio either, but that card have some things that I want to have. Like properly working video accelerations performance - Intel GPU is very poor. I have tried those all those HPET etc BIOS & SpeedStep settings. No luck.
I don't think Optane would give any benefit. I am loading decoded file into memory with Jriver. Still interested on how it goes. Music playback is disk(network),cache, memory and CPU job, so sure there is many things to go wrong (and right). 

I play FLAC files from QNAP TS-453A-4G and using HP 1810-8G v2 switch between. Both could be upgraded to linear PSU, haven't done that. 

I have tried some power cables too. Now I am using Essential Audio Tools Current Conductor cable. Works ok. Not sure if any better than standard black thing. Neotech NEP-3003 wasn't any better either. Then tried Oyaide Tunami with different plugs (079,004,046,GPXe,GPX-Re) and those really made a difference! Really great performance. I have to make some tests again..
There were some recommedation in this thread about power cables but those are not really available here in europe (Finland). So please if you have something to recommend, tell. 

Edit: Qnap and power cables..


----------



## Golfnutz

Have you tried removing the GPU card and running music files locally from hard drive?

I only get 1.8ms when resampling rate is 44.1. When running at 176.4 it drops below 1ms.

My machine runs at 1.6ghz with 8gb of ram. Have never had an issue running months and months 24/7.

Are you using your PC for multipurpose use? My previous comments were meant to get you to a starting point with just Windows and Dante software to see what happens (no external devices with the exception of D16).

Typically, when I change any of the Dante settings, I reboot the D16 via the software.


----------



## Golfnutz

Since my system has been up for awhile now, I tried going into RNC/Dante/Audinate (Stop/Start) a couple of time and eventually ended up getting the error.

No way to fix it, other than reboot my PC. So your right, there is a bug. However, this isn't something that bothers me (not sure about anyone else). I very rarely use RNC since I use the same sample rates for everything.

You'd think Focusrite should be able to troubleshoot this...


----------



## bexi (Feb 18, 2018)

Golfnutz said:


> Have you tried removing the GPU card and running music files locally from hard drive?
> 
> I only get 1.8ms when resampling rate is 44.1. When running at 176.4 it drops below 1ms.
> 
> ...


My PC is for multipurpose use. Using RedNet to youtube-videos(ASIO Bridge), music(ASIO) and videos(MPC-HC, ASIO Bridge - WASAPI Exclusive). 44.1kHz for youtube and music and 48kHz for movies. There is not that much of high-res music.. but it really bugs off when playlist hits those 96kHz files and all I got is silence.
Yes, I have tried to use just integrated Intel GPU and play FLAC files locally. Definitely there were small difference in DPC latency, but not much in real playback performance quality/dante latency nor there were any affect in that bug.

When running at 192kHz latency is below 1ms too. My DAC(s) just do not support over 96kHz so I am not resampling anything. So there is constant need for changing sample rate. ..First I though that there were something wrong with RedNet when 176.4/192kHz didn't work. Just gave some weird static electric noise. Contacted Focusrite tech support but they didn't found any solution to problem.. It is hard when manufacturer won't give any specs for supported sample rates (EAR & Densen). Borrowed Audiolab M-DAC once and tadaa.. 192kHz works great. Learned that hard way.


Golfnutz said:


> Since my system has been up for awhile now, I tried going into RNC/Dante/Audinate (Stop/Start) a couple of time and eventually ended up getting the error.
> 
> No way to fix it, other than reboot my PC. So your right, there is a bug. However, this isn't something that bothers me (not sure about anyone else). I very rarely use RNC since I use the same sample rates for everything.
> 
> You'd think Focusrite should be able to troubleshoot this...


Thank you for confirming this. Rebooting the RedNet device from power button works too, but yeah rebooting PC is one solution.


----------



## Iving (Feb 18, 2018)

bexi said:


> My PC is for multipurpose use. Using RedNet to youtube-videos(ASIO Bridge), music(ASIO) and videos(MPC-HC, ASIO Bridge - WASAPI Exclusive). 44.1kHz for youtube and music and 48kHz for movies. There is not that much of high-res music.. but it really bugs off when playlist hits those 96kHz files and all I got is silence.
> Yes, I have tried to use just integrated Intel GPU and play FLAC files locally. Definitely there were small difference in DPC latency, but not much in real playback performance quality/dante latency nor there were any affect in that bug.
> 
> When running at 192kHz latency is below 1ms too. My DAC(s) just do not support over 96kHz so I am not resampling anything. So there is constant need for changing sample rate. ..First I though that there were something wrong with RedNet when 176.4/192kHz didn't work. Just gave some weird static electric noise. Contacted Focusrite tech support but they didn't found any solution to problem.. It is hard when manufacturer won't give any specs for supported sample rates (EAR & Densen). Borrowed Audiolab M-DAC once and tadaa.. 192kHz works great. Learned that hard way.
> ...



Just a few peripheral thoughts:
Your machine is doing a lot more than mine - mine is stripped right back in every way to play flac only and, so, I am tempted to think that bells and whistles do not help. 
Re audio, have you thought of re-sampling everything to 96 (or some other value) in fb2k so that only 96 goes thru DVS/RC2 - no constant fluctuation of sample rate. 
Are you sure you have settings in DVS, RC2 and DC all optimised. 
Finally - although some are obsessed with low power in the mobo/CPU I have tended to disable Speedstep etc in BIOS running "High" power (CPU = 100%) in Windows/CP - if I permit Speedstep in BIOS and run "Low" power in Windows/CP then DC Latency definitely increases - I do not notice any SQ enhancement with Low power - so I take the Latency improvement.


----------



## bexi (Feb 18, 2018)

Iving said:


> Just a few peripheral thoughts:
> Your machine is doing a lot more than mine - mine is stripped right back in every way to play flac only and, so, I am tempted to think that bells and whistles do not help.
> Re audio, have you thought of re-sampling everything to 96 (or some other value) in fb2k so that only 96 goes thru DVS/RC2 - no constant fluctuation of sample rate.
> Are you sure you have settings in DVS, RC2 and DC all optimised.
> Finally - although some are obsessed with low power in the mobo/CPU I have tended to disable Speedstep etc in BIOS running "High" power (CPU = 100%) in Windows/CP - if I permit Speedstep in BIOS and run "Low" power in Windows/CP then DC Latency definitely increases - I do not notice any SQ enhancement with Low power - so I take the Latency improvement.


Dedicated machine would be ideal for sure. I have tried 96kHz resampling but meh, it would be downgrade in quality.. 192/176.4kHz would work better I guess.. EAR Acute III DAC is already doing internal 192kHz resample so that would double resampling. I have thought buying EAR DACute 192 though, same stuff inside but 192kHz works too.
Settings in DVS,RC2 and DC should be optimized. Just trying to reduce buffer size to 64 samples.. less latency-candles on right side of the window, so it's better I guess.

Tech support asked about network config, it is configured with manual IP address. That gives faster initialization speed than Automatically setting. No change in bug. Device latency is set to 0,25msec. Can't think any other settings to matter. Logs have been checked by Focusrite too, many times.

One single constant CPU speed would be optimal. Since I am running this machine semi-passive and needing power for high CPU intensity applications - that SpeedStep is ok compromise. I have finetuned some voltages down to keep it cool.


----------



## Iving (Feb 18, 2018)

bexi said:


> Dedicated machine would be ideal for sure. I have tried 96kHz resampling but meh, it would be downgrade in quality.. 192/176.4kHz would work better I guess.. EAR Acute III DAC is already doing internal 192kHz resample so that would double resampling. I have thought buying EAR DACute 192 though, same stuff inside but 192kHz works too.
> Settings in DVS,RC2 and DC should be optimized. Just trying to reduce buffer size to 64 samples.. less latency-candles on right side of the window, so it's better I guess.
> 
> Tech support asked about network config, it is configured with manual IP address. That gives faster initialization speed than Automatically setting. No change in bug. Device latency is set to 0,25msec. Can't think any other settings to matter. Logs have been checked by Focusrite too, many times.
> ...




OK well I do not set IP (or mobo voltages) manually and my machine does not multi-task. ?"high CPU intensity applications" - Maybe Windows is just getting its knickers in a twist - you know how easily that can happen ...

Also my DAC (Convert-2) follows - no internal resampling.

In case it helps here are my some misc. settings:

foobar2000
ASIO/64-bit/High Priority
Output Buffer Length - min = 50ms [250ms for gapless]
      Sox @ 192000/Best

DVS:
      Dante Latency: 4ms
      ASIO Buffer: 32
      ASIO Encoding: 32 bits
      ASIO Latency: 1ms

RedNet Control:
      SR: 192000
      ASIO Buffer: 32

Dante Controller:
      SP3 Device Config
              Sample Rate: 192k
              Encoding: PCM 32
      D16 Device Config
              Sample Rate: 192k
              Latency - 250us (150us is greyed out)

All this said - I don't leave my machine on 24/7 although I know it has run 24-48 hrs no problems and very stable Latency. I don't recognise the phenomenon you are describing in my own experience -  but I am so used to all IT being so perverse and fussy that it would not surprise me if I had but don't remember.

I wouldn't contemplate digital music but for AOIP.           And sheer armchair convenience.


----------



## mourip

bexi said:


> This is what Focusrite tech support told me:
> "We've run countless tests here and we've never been able to reproduce the issue that you seem to be experiencing. As you've noted, one or two other people have mentioned it in forums - my colleague joined the forum you mentioned and requested that anyone having this issue should contact us directly but I'm not aware that we've heard from anyone else."



Having used a D16 for about a year and a half I am surprised to hear that they are monitoring this thread. They certainly have not identified themselves nor do I know of any forum where they have a declared presence. I looked at my email and found a thread exactly one year ago where I sent them information and screen shots regarding the "Not present of network issue" and also the unreliability of rate switching. My guess is that they are hesitant to cater much to audiophiles since Pro Audio folks probably have a set rate for a given project/system and seldom switch. In fact they may even lock down their system to avoid possible conflicts between various devices. This is just a guess.

Do you keep the RC interface running all of the time or do you close it one you have your settings determined?


----------



## bexi (Feb 18, 2018)

mourip said:


> Having used a D16 for about a year and a half I am surprised to hear that they are monitoring this thread. They certainly have not identified themselves nor do I know of any forum where they have a declared presence. I looked at my email and found a thread exactly one year ago where I sent them information and screen shots regarding the "Not present of network issue" and also the unreliability of rate switching. My guess is that they are hesitant to cater much to audiophiles since Pro Audio folks probably have a set rate for a given project/system and seldom switch. In fact they may even lock down their system to avoid possible conflicts between various devices. This is just a guess.
> 
> Do you keep the RC interface running all of the time or do you close it one you have your settings determined?


That's my guess too.
I have RedNet Control 2 open all the time and using Sample rate follow function on "Auto". Works fine on Jriver with direct ASIO connection. Sometimes with ASIO Bridge and WASAPI Exclusive mode I have to click ASIO ON/OFF few times and do start/stop on Jriver and again start ASIO ON which resets all things. This is more related to Windows audio stack unable to release hooks on application and drivers. Normal stuff.


----------



## bexi (Feb 18, 2018)

New version of Dante Virtual Soundcard has been released.

https://www.audinate.com/content/dante-virtual-soundcard-v4031-windows

Bug Fixes:

DVS-531: When enrolled in a Dante domain, renaming the DVS device was not reflected in the DDM UI.
DVS-540: After installation, DVS would appear to start with no network selected.
Known Issues:

DVS-354: With only one hardware Dante device on the network, and DVS subscribed to that device, audio from the device to DVS is not restored when the device is rebooted. Workaround: Restart the audio after rebooting the hardware device.
Just installed, works ok.


----------



## Iving

bexi said:


> New version of Dante Virtual Soundcard has been released.


Thanks!


----------



## mourip

bexi said:


> New version of Dante Virtual Soundcard has been released.
> 
> https://www.audinate.com/content/dante-virtual-soundcard-v4031-windows
> 
> ...



Did it have any effect on your issue?


----------



## bexi (Feb 19, 2018)

mourip said:


> Did it have any effect on your issue?


Nope.

No fix here. Attached a screenshot from VB-Audio software test and Dante Controller software. Biggest processing frame 49.36ms. At the same time Dante Controller Latency window shows 10msec peak. Some correlation. Not heard in sound, so not that big problem still.


----------



## mourip

Anyone here running Windows 2012R2 with Audiophile Optimizer in Core Mode in their AOIP setup. My OS has crashed trying to switch to Core Mode and I am looking for solutions...


----------



## mourip

mourip said:


> Anyone here running Windows 2012R2 with Audiophile Optimizer in Core Mode in their AOIP setup. My OS has crashed trying to switch to Core Mode and I am looking for solutions...



I got my desktop back by using Safe Mode but would be interested if anyone was working in Core Mode and if there are any "gotchas".


----------



## Tand2016 (Feb 26, 2018)

Hi

Has anyone considered or even installed a SOtM sCLK-EX clock with a Master Clock (10 MHz input) in your Rednet?

I recently bought a Mutec Ref10 and connected this to my Mutec MC3+ USB. This gave a very nice improvement in sound quality, Recently I came in dialoge with May at SOtM regarding my interest in a clocked switch and she said they could probably install a sCLK-EC in my Rednet 16 R - if there was space enough internaly. My Rednet 16 is LPS converted with a UpTone LPS-1 so the original PSs could be removed.

I have read with interest Romaz "digital" journey and this is something I like to dive into  

Any feedback is much appreciated.


----------



## JayNYC

bexi said:


> Nope.
> 
> No fix here. Attached a screenshot from VB-Audio software test and Dante Controller software. Biggest processing frame 49.36ms. At the same time Dante Controller Latency window shows 10msec peak. Some correlation. Not heard in sound, so not that big problem still.



@bexi  I feel your pain.  I've put dozens of hours into configuring Dante for 3 different multi-use Windows environments experimenting with many of the same strategies you are trying and experienced many of the same challenges you are having.  If you follow @mourip's 'big picture' guidance he is correct in my opinion.  It's really hard to resolve/dissect/strategize these issues via forums posts though. If you'd like, as crazy as it sounds, I can do a VOIP conf call with you (and @mourip if he wants to join) to talk thru potential troubleshooting/workarounds/changesinstrategy.  we can move this to PM if you want to coordinate.


----------



## astrostar59

Hi Guys
I haven't been in this thread for a while, though I still use and enjoy my Rednet 3 and LPS feeding my DAC via SPDIF. 
*
My question*
Are we still ahead on this for SQ or has the MicroRendu (for example) caught up? I am thinking the SPDIF output on my Rednet 3 may be the bottle neck here. I have a new DAC incoming which has a very good USB input inc 2 x super clocks, better than SPDIF I am told. So if that proves the case, it may be the end of my Rednet 3, and will relegate it t my second system instead. Thoughts?


----------



## johnjen

For me in my system the AOIP using AES cables and a pair of Mutec3's are 'better' than both of my Gen-5 digital paths (Eitr and internal card in my Jggy).
And as I have posted before while the Gen-5 implementation took a major step up, so did my AOIP when I removed all SMPS's from the AOIP chain (and elsewhere).

I still have 2 Wyrds which sit on the shelf from my previous USB explorations.

JJ


----------



## gefski

astrostar59 said:


> Hi Guys
> I haven't been in this thread for a while, though I still use and enjoy my Rednet 3 and LPS feeding my DAC via SPDIF.
> *
> My question*
> Are we still ahead on this for SQ or has the MicroRendu (for example) caught up? I am thinking the SPDIF output on my Rednet 3 may be the bottle neck here. I have a new DAC incoming which has a very good USB input inc 2 x super clocks, better than SPDIF I am told. So if that proves the case, it may be the end of my Rednet 3, and will relegate it t my second system instead. Thoughts?



Will be interested in your findings with the new dac fed via USB vs. fed via Dante.


----------



## astrostar59

Indeed. The designer of the DAC is saying USB will beat SPDIF, so will be intersting. My chain with the Rednet outputs to SPDIF which is another format, so in 'theory' sending data by USB to then go i2S in the DAC seems like one less process of conversion. My foray with USB, I ran out of patience with it after many add-on boxes and fixers inc the TotalDAC USB cable. Adding the Rednet it instantly went liquid and smooth, more analogue. I had the M2 Tech full stack, also tried an Offramp 5 and others. Steve Nugent (Offramp) is now saying USB is not as good as Ethernet no matter what you do to it. We shall see.....

In the Lampizator Golden Gate, they guys who use that seem to rate the USB on it. It is the Amanero 384 with latest XMOS clocks. The big advantage if I can go back to USB would be playing tidal high-res, not having to mess with clock rates in Dante. I'll post back my findings here in a couple of weeks. Even if the Rednet is beat or proves the same, I won't sell it as it can feed my second system which has a DAC with no USB.


----------



## Iving

Prior to the inspiration obtained in this thread, I found USB so aversive both musically and otherwise (cf. CA) that I will not go back to it. I will wait for another paradigm shift even if Thunderbolt 3. I'll still be interested in any relevant first hand experience and look forward to your reflections astro. Meantime, I have installed an Optane Drive for both o/s and music and have a RedNet PCIeR card coming. I am re-establishing my PC with both at once and, so, won't be able to report "scientifically" about the relative contribution of each. I recommend Optane anyway - see here https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...q-nirvana/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-789200 and here http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2850#p8582. The only audiophile report of the RedNet PCIe(R) card I know of is here https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...-computer-audio.806827/page-219#post-13862319 and I look forward to adding to it.


----------



## johnjen

I'm curious.
Why are you using the Rednet PCIe card?

JJ


----------



## Iving

johnjen said:


> I'm curious.
> Why are you using the Rednet PCIe card?
> 
> JJ


super low latency
super h/w compatibility
probable SQ advantage


----------



## Iving

Iving said:


> super low latency
> super h/w compatibility
> probable SQ advantage


+ just to emphasise - with Optane in PCIe Slot 1 and RedNet Card in PCIe Slot 3 everything is PCIe/CPU with no switches/PCH. With a dedicated 6-pin PCIe LPS spur it's about as "pure" a config. on the mobo as possible.


----------



## astrostar59

Iving said:


> Prior to the inspiration obtained in this thread, I found USB so aversive both musically and otherwise (cf. CA) that I will not go back to it. I will wait for another paradigm shift even if Thunderbolt 3. I'll still be interested in any relevant first hand experience and look forward to your reflections astro. Meantime, I have installed an Optane Drive for both o/s and music and have a RedNet PCIeR card coming. I am re-establishing my PC with both at once and, so, won't be able to report "scientifically" about the relative contribution of each. I recommend Optane anyway - see here https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...q-nirvana/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-789200 and here http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2850#p8582. The only audiophile report of the RedNet PCIe(R) card I know of is here https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...-computer-audio.806827/page-219#post-13862319 and I look forward to adding to it.



Hi Iving!
I think this can come down to the exact system specs. My current DAC has an SPDIF as input, no USB. It is an old school tube DAC NOS, though excellent sound. My spare AMR DAC has both USB and SPDIF, but the built in USB card is rubbish. So all my tests were based on my Audio Note DAC 5 which is purely SPDIF. My previous USB debacle thus had to go Mac Mini > USB out > USB to SPDIF convertor > DAC input SPDIF. The Rednet goes Mac Mini > Ethernet out > Rednet 3 > SPDIF to DAC. So the Rednet is using ethernet which could be better than USB for data transfer, but also converting to SPDIF in the Rednet and feeding with it's own clock to my DAC which then uses that clock for it's timing (jitter). Remember SPDIF HAS to follow the incoming clock. In other words my DAC 5 is old school and a bit thick, it has no internal clock and has to use the CDPs clock. At Audio Note they swear by their own CDPs that are crazy money of course, but use a Philips Pro mech which has it's own board with it, and I suspect a decent on board clock on there. 

Now my new DAC has a well designed galvanically isolated USB board, with good power supply to it. It has a clock on the input, and clock on the output which is i2S format to the chip array. The clocks are super close to the digital board. So in that situation we have digital stream from my Mac Mini to the USB interface then i2S and 2 x clocks. The Rednet is 1 x clock and conversion to SPDIF, then fed to my DAC 5 with no clock. I can understand how the USB board in this new DAC 'could' be better than the Rednet. It also can do 384 with no manual adjustment for clock rates.

So IMO the Rednet could beat a USB chain but may depend on the DAC input itself and how that DAC is designed. We all know how many DACs had terrible USB inputs a few years back, almost an after sight. Those DAC used a weak USB to SPDIF internal convertor board, some with USB power! I am wondering if things have moved on a bit. My DAC is the Aries Cerat Kassandra Ref II, which I think uses the Amenero 384 board like the Lampizator Golden Gate, but need to check that to be sure.

Another reason many manufactures push USB and tend to drop interest in SPDIF is the sample rate, and it's support for DSD input rates. There is a lot of users who like the sound of PCM to DSD in HQ Player and that means they have to use USB.

I think Ethernet to i2S is the way ultimately, but what do I know?

I'll post here with my findings guys.


----------



## johnjen

It would be an interesting 'experiment to also try a secondary 'standard' ethernet port to see if there are any audible differences.

Currently I'm running at just under 1ms latency on my secondary network port, on my MacPro.
And that is thru a fiber optic isolation link between the rednet 3 and Mac.
It makes me wonder if latency this low (or lower) for such simple systems that we setup and use, would really benefit by reducing it to as close to 0 latency as is possible.

I kinda doubt it but then you never really know unless you try…

An interesting experiment indeed!

JJ


----------



## Iving

johnjen said:


> It would be an interesting 'experiment to also try a secondary 'standard' ethernet port to see if there are any audible differences.
> JJ


Yep - Could do that - but I would have to install DVS and I want RC[/DC] only ...


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> ... have a RedNet PCIeR card coming... and I look forward to adding to it.


Great, I hope you enjoy the sound improvement as much as I did. I did have some trouble getting it set up. The latest firmware is necessary (install from the Rednet app). It can work direct to the d16, the only catch I found is that I needed both ends connected via ethernet so that they could "see" each other. I think there was some improvement after setting it up and removing the second ethernet cable from the d16, but as I often make changes to dante, I now keep the d16 connected to ethernet


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Great, I hope you enjoy the sound improvement as much as I did. I did have some trouble getting it set up. The latest firmware is necessary (install from the Rednet app). It can work direct to the d16, the only catch I found is that I needed both ends connected via ethernet so that they could "see" each other. I think there was some improvement after setting it up and removing the second ethernet cable from the d16, but as I often make changes to dante, I now keep the d16 connected to ethernet


Thanks Pete,
I have my PC connected direct to the D16. No switch. I stay offline but if I need the internet it is connected via the PC. There is no ethernet connection at the D16 except the incoming audio signal. I intend to keep it that way. That is, I will install the card, update firmware if necessary via internet connected to standard ethernet on the PC, and then remain offline with an ethernet connection direct from the RedNet PCIeR card to the D16. Do I understand you OK? Thanks


----------



## mourip

Iving said:


> Thanks Pete,
> I have my PC connected direct to the D16. No switch. I stay offline but if I need the internet it is connected via the PC. There is no ethernet connection at the D16 except the incoming audio signal. I intend to keep it that way. That is, I will install the card, update firmware if necessary via internet connected to standard ethernet on the PC, and then remain offline with an ethernet connection direct from the RedNet PCIeR card to the D16. Do I understand you OK? Thanks



That is how I am doing it except that I have a dedicated Intel NIC with DVS for the connection to the D16 rather than using a PCIeR card. I do use fiber from my second built-in NIC out to my router for ground isolation.

Looking forward to more reports on SQ using the PCIeR.


----------



## peteAllen

The difference I'm referring to between using the rednet pcie card and a normal card, is that the rednet card cannot be used for anything apart from dante duties - it won't function as a (normal) ethernet card, so you can't use the d16 feature to act as an ethernet adapter.

Iving, in your setup, you may find that when you're setting up dante, you'll have to have both d16 and pc separately connected to the same network at the same time as the direct connection between them (ie both have two ethernet cables connected). Otherwise, when you open up Rednet or Dante app, it won't see the endpoints, so you won't be able to connect the pcie endpoint to the d16 one in the app. After setup, you can remove the second dante network cable. I'm not sure how you can remove the second network cable from the pc unless you are controlling the playlist directly on that pc. I have a second network cable always on the normal nic of the pc that allows me to control Roon over wifi


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> The difference I'm referring to between using the rednet pcie card and a normal card, is that the rednet card cannot be used for anything apart from dante duties - it won't function as a (normal) ethernet card, so you can't use the d16 feature to act as an ethernet adapter.
> 
> Iving, in your setup, you may find that when you're setting up dante, you'll have to have both d16 and pc separately connected to the same network at the same time as the direct connection between them (ie both have two ethernet cables connected). Otherwise, when you open up Rednet or Dante app, it won't see the endpoints, so you won't be able to connect the pcie endpoint to the d16 one in the app. After setup, you can remove the second dante network cable. I'm not sure how you can remove the second network cable from the pc unless you are controlling the playlist directly on that pc. I have a second network cable always on the normal nic of the pc that allows me to control Roon over wifi



Thanks Pete,
I got that the RedNet card is for Dante not www from your earlier posts. I'll try to digest the "endpoints" problem and thanks for the pointers if I need them. I don't use anything except fb2k/ASIO to play flac. I don't use Roon, HQPlayer, any online service - no streaming - no commercial anything. Just my flac offline from fb2k. I hope that this simplicity works in my favour!


----------



## peteAllen (Mar 8, 2018)

Iving said:


> Thanks Pete,
> I got that the RedNet card is for Dante not www from your earlier posts. I'll try to digest the "endpoints" problem and thanks for the pointers if I need them. I don't use anything except fb2k/ASIO to play flac. I don't use Roon, HQPlayer, any online service - no streaming - no commercial anything. Just my flac offline from fb2k. I hope that this simplicity works in my favour!



That should work well. I'm sure you'll figure it out. Just in case, I will spell it out, as I probably won't be responding to this forum quickly at the point at which you may need help....

The dante/rednet app on the audio-pc doesn't use www or ip (tcp on port 80), but it does a network scan for dante devices (I think it scans for a certain dante-specific port on every network device). For this network scan, it requires a way of reaching the d16 excluding the connection via rednet pcie. You will notice in Network Connections that the pcie device is not even listed as a network adapter - nothing can see or use it apart from the Rednet PCIe ASIO endpoint itself, which is what I have selected in hqplayer as the output device.

So for setting up, I have to have this network topology in place:

d16 (primary ethernet socket) - ethernet cable - audio-pc (rednet pcie ethernet socket)
and
d16 (secondary ethernet socket) - ethernet cable - switch - ethernet cable - audio-pc (normal ethernet socket)

Now, opening the dante app, you should be able to see just the d16 and rednet pcie card (probably also your old DVS software endpoint - i suggest stopping / uninstalling this). Configure the network. I have mine set to 24/192 and upsample using hqplayer. If you need to have sample rate following enabled, I believe that requires the rednet app running on the background.

After setup and testing that the audio plays fine, you can remove all but the direct ethernet link between the d16 & audio-pc.
If you have sample rate following enabled, I expect this won't work well because the Rednet app will at some point realise that it can't see the d16. This is probably the one issue with using the pcie card and direct connection. With DVS and a normal nic network connection, I believe the rednet app can still see the d16 through the direct connection. If you find a solution for this, please let me know!


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Just in case, I will spell it out ... If you find a solution for this, please let me know!


Thanks for creating these notes Pete.
I will have a fresh Windows installation (no DVS).
My flacs are upsampled to 192 in fb2k/Sox. Everything is at that rate. So I have no need for follow.
The relevant Focusrite resources are here: https://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-pcie-card/downloads. The installation guide reads: "RedNet PCIe is not a standard network card. If the computer which RedNet PCIe is installed in is required to run Dante Controller or RedNet Control, a second Ethernet cable will need to be connected between the computer’s onboard Ethernet port and the Ethernet switch" ... "Connect a vacant Ethernet port on your computer to a port on your Gbit Switch with a Cat6 Ethernet cable. If you have installed a RedNet PCIe card, connect its Ethernet port to a port on the Gbit switch with a second Cat6 Ethernet cable. Connect the Ethernet ports on the rear of each RedNet I/O interface in the system to further ports on the Gbit switch with Cat6 Ethernet cables.The recommended order of powering the components in a RedNet system is as follows: Power up the Gbit switch; Power up all RedNet units on the networks one by one (power-on sequence takes approx.40 s per unit) Boot the host computer."
I don't use a switch. I'll be interested to see how convoluted it is to set up a direct PC - D16 signal route.
I was expecting the card today. It didn't arrive. Long story. Retailer hadn't kept on top of things. Focusrite out of stock (!) for at least another week. Another retailer with stock promised price match but wouldn't. In short I'll have to wait a week - at least.


----------



## Iving

I've sent the following to support:

Dear Focusrite,
A domestic audiophile, I play music via DVS on a PC direct to a D16 AES. In addition to DVS, I have RedNet Control (/Dante Controller) installed on the PC. Aside from updating firmware/software, I have no need whatsoever to be online. I do not use a switch. The only ethernet connection required during play is between my PC and the D16 AES.
I intend to buy a RedNet PCIeR ethernet card. I will reinstall Windows and will have no need for DVS. I understand that the RedNet PCIeR card is not a network card. I would like to set up an "all other things equal" direct connection between the PCIeR card and the D16 AES with the minimum of fuss.
1. Will I be able to do this with no switch?
2. Will I able to to do this with a direct ethernet connection between the RedNet PCIeR Card and the D16 AES only?
3. If not, will an additional hard connection to the internet from my PC (standard LAN/NIC) suffice?
4. Or will I require another, separate ethernet connection from the D16 AES to any other point on the network?
I ask because I am unclear reading the RedNet Installation Guide etc here https://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-pcie-card/downloads,and because of the shared experience of fellow audiophiles (although they have different systems and so their experience mightn't necessarily apply).
I presume that no matter the setup requirements, I will be able to play music post setup with no ethernet connection except that between the PC and the D16 AES.
I look forward to hearing from you.
P.S. An utterly secondary question: Does the sample rate follow capacity of the RedNet system depend on the answers to any of the questions 1-4 (supra). Thanks


----------



## Iving

This document: https://d2zjg0qo565n2.cloudfront.ne...downloads/8289/rednet-system-user-guide_0.pdf

seems to suggest that DVS and Soundcard work differently wrt RedNet Control:

"The computer into which the card is attached will require RedNet Control to be installed. The Ethernet port/ ports on the PCIe/ PCIeR card should be connected to the network via a Gigabit Ethernet switch, and the host computer’s native Ethernet port should be connected to another port on this same switch. In this arrangement, the PCIe/ PCIeR card’s Ethernet port handles all the audio and the native port handles the control data between RedNet Control and the remote RedNet I/O units."


----------



## Iving

I'm beginning to understand Pete's notes better now. Unlike with DVS, RC won't be able to see/supervise the D16 without a switch using a RedNet PCIe Card. I'm not willing to use a switch. I'll sleep on it and see what Focusrite say, but right now thinking I am glad for the stock issue and will cancel. I can still use my Intel Card in PCIe_3 retaining the Optane-related advantages described earlier.


----------



## peteAllen (Mar 8, 2018)

Iving, I don’t see any reason your configuration won’t work. I can pull out the extra network cables from my pc and d16 and it will continue playing the track to the end and then plays the next track. I just can’t control it with Roon on my ipad. I also keep the d16 and pc on permanently- if you do this you also won’t need the extra connection. It’s only for setup and for when either is restarted

Btw when I had trouble with this, I also emailed Focusrite and after not initially getting it (their main customer base is definitely not computer audiophiles!), they simply insisted that what I was trying to do was impossible...!


----------



## Iving (Mar 9, 2018)

Thoughts on waking today:

- RedNet Control (RC) cannot see/supervise the D16 AES under the only playing conditions I could tolerate; i.e., a single, direct ethernet connection between PC (PCIeR Card) and D16 AES;

- peteAllen is confident - even tho' Focusrite will deny it - and I believe Pete! - that music will play after disconnection of any other network plugs/cables required for initialisation;

- I could create a tidy enough cabling arrangement that would permit such initialisation/disconnection - and I would be willing to do the work if it were the right approach for me - but it would feel like a "fudge" in which RC cannot do what it's supposed to do during play unlike with DVS (advising me btw that DVS must be a channel for RC and not merely an audio path);

- The only setting I alter in RC when sparking up my system is my DAC as WC as I prefer my DAC's WC to the D16's - there's not much in it - but I wonder about whether RC is needed to maintain that WC setting over time - I have not found that to be so - but I don't leave my system on 24/7;

- As I tend to spark up and down fairly frequently, I would have to initialise/disconnect every time - more of a pain than for someone who leaves things on 24/7;

- The cabling arrangement I would probably employ would be one in which I just run a cable from D16 to router - disconnecting that cable at the router after setup - and also disconnecting the internet connection at the PC - all more of a palaver than just starting DVS without having to touch a single cable or plug - and I do just wonder whether a direct secondary cable from a PC NIC/LAN to the secondary port on the D16 could be used for initialisation and put in a drawer afterwards (still more awkward than starting DVS) - till next time I start the system ... and the next ...;

- I've started wondering about what level of SQ advantage could accrue after all this - I dare say Focusrite would say "none" on the one hand (if I referred to latency) but then they promote the Card for "best performance" (not merely # channels) - Pete says "more alive" - I suspect that the ultra low latency would help - but I've got to wondering whether how things might be affected if I don't have access to all the advanced Network Adapter settings that Intel permits in PROWIN - I mean - presumably RedNet concretises these - possibly including power saving settings etc - so there is a (theoretical) risk that SQ could suffer!;

- For the price of a RedNet Card I could get a Mutec Reclocker (give or take) - or a nice DAP like the Astell & Kern Kann to use weekending in the van or out walking so that I can have more listening time - furthering my personal ambition to explore deeper into classical music - all of which tempts me to defer getting the Card till things are clearer - but I got a quote for the RedNet Card I would probably not achieve again and am reluctant to let it go;

- Finally - I suspect that Focusrite will not send a helpful answer - they will mean well - but they will say - as reported by Pete already - that RC needs to see RedNet units on a network and uses a different method to do that compared with DVS - and that no direct music play is even possible- but that networks are good and latency doesn't matter (we audiophiles being all rather silly about things).

I guess I'm talking myself into cancelling?
If I've missed anything - please chime in!


----------



## Iving (Mar 9, 2018)

Cancelled - My adventure with RedNet PCIe(R) stops here - at least for now.
I'll install my Intel X540-T2 and DVS instead.

I'll be able to comment about Optane. It isn't just about Optane. It's about PCIe/CPU only with no switches/PCH-H involved when use of SATA even M.2 NVME (not to mention the dreaded banshee USB) and also onboard LANs eliminated. Optane AIC in PCIEX16_1, Intel X540-T2 in PCIEX16_3 - no other h/w on mobo except RAM and ice-pipe (copper no moving parts) cooler:


----------



## peteAllen

Iving, I think your reasoning is sound. One other thought is that I suspect that it would also be possible to connect the d16 secondary network card to the pc nic directly to enable the Dante or Rednet Controller app to see the d16. I haven’t tested this because I use Roon and because I need remote desktop to access the audio server. Good luck with the Optane and I’d definitely recommend delving more into the world of classical. My favourite recent discovery is Bartok’s Romanian Folk Dances


----------



## johnjen

I'd bet that the "Best Performance" relates directly to a complex network spread out with many, many channels and nodes where a dedicated network card would make a difference.

But for us using only 2 channels, in close proximity, and with very low transfer rates to boot.
I mean right now while playing music as I type this my data rate is 580KB/s transmit and 1.7KB/s receive, on a gigabit port.
And granted that is at 44.1KB/s, even so, if I max out to 192KB/s the transmit jumps up to whopping 2.4MB/s / 3.8KB/s (up/down transfer speeds).

IOW our specific use, uses so little of the available bandwidth let alone the proximity can all contribute to exceptionally low latency and stability.

JJ


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Iving, I think your reasoning is sound. One other thought is that I suspect that it would also be possible to connect the d16 secondary network card to the pc nic directly to enable the Dante or Rednet Controller app to see the d16. I haven’t tested this because I use Roon and because I need remote desktop to access the audio server. Good luck with the Optane and I’d definitely recommend delving more into the world of classical. My favourite recent discovery is Bartok’s Romanian Folk Dances



Hi Pete,
Yes - The second part of my "Thoughts on waking" #6 contemplated a direct ethernet cable for inititialisation, but that would still be a "fudge" (for me) and a manual inconvenience. Thanks for the Bartok tip


----------



## Iving

johnjen said:


> I'd bet that the "Best Performance" relates directly to a complex network spread out with many, many channels and nodes where a dedicated network card would make a difference.
> 
> But for us using only 2 channels, in close proximity, and with very low transfer rates to boot.
> I mean right now while playing music as I type this my data rate is 580KB/s transmit and 1.7KB/s receive, on a gigabit port.
> ...


----------



## astrostar59

I have some thoughts on my Rednet installation. It is very very good, and the sound is so undigital, the best I have heard into my DACs so far. But in my situation I am unsure if it is partly the better external clock doing its work on jitter, rather than predominately ethernet is better? My love then hate relationship with USB finalised end 2016 when I bought the Rednet 3.

The thing is, SPDIF and I think AES by it's very nature forces the receiving DAC to follow the clock. Even though USB can be sent out of the PC or Mac as Asyncronious i.e. don't follow the PC. So in other words, the Rednet is a glorified USB - SPDIF convertor dictating the timing (jitter) and by the fact it's input is Ethernet possibly avoids a lot of the noise issues inherent in raw USB feeds.

So I am going to try USB input as well as the Rednet 3 on my incoming DAC to continue my investigations which technically stopped after the Rednet landed.

The other interesting device may be the MicroRendu which sits between the Mac and is Ethernet in > USB out. That device could allow the DAC to dictate it's own clock. I am not sure, but many DAC, manufactures state the nearer the clock to the chip in the DAC the better. The MicroRendu has good feedback on this forum I noticed.

Lastly, quite possibly the performance we are getting and different results, could also be down to the weakness of a USB input in said DAC, and the strengths of the SPDIF input which has been establish for years as the go to CDP input, and is normally of good quality.

I am hoping USB can be as good or even better than my Rednet, mainly is it simplifies my setup and I can not worry about fiddling with clock rates. In my setup I am on a NON Oversampling DAC so don't upsample before sending the data.

One last idea. On latency, I wonder iof it is as important as we think? In most music software, they load the track into RAM then drip feed that to the DAC, and that is well within the data limits of our Ethernet. I am wondering if it actually affects anything? 

Anyway, I am not a techie, only a part time audiophile, so please point out if any of these thoughts are technically incorrect guys.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Iving

Heads Up
Latest version of DVS 4.0.3.1 [February 16th, 2018]: https://www.audinate.com/content/dante-virtual-soundcard-v4031-windows
Also RedNet Control 2.2 at Focusrite [26/02/2018]: https://us.focusrite.com/downloads?product=RedNet+D16+AES


----------



## johnjen

I just did a comparison of sample rate up/down conversions into my Jggy.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-diyrs-cookbook.781268/page-82#post-14093469

And USB can certainly be improved (Eitr is one example) but I've found that USB still lags behind, but not as far behind anymore.
And another big influence I've found is the use of SMPS's plugged in anywhere in the audio chain.

But then I've got a different setup than your's so there's that as well.

JJ


----------



## mourip

- The only setting I alter in RC when sparking up my system is my DAC as WC as I prefer my DAC's WC to the D16's - there's not much in it - but I wonder about whether RC is needed to maintain that WC setting over time - I have not found that to be so - but I don't leave my system on 24/7;

_I thought that I was the only one whose DC16 reverted to internal for wclk when it was power cycled. I leave my system on 24/7 and when I reboot it I have to go into RC and set it to external each time. Based upon what others have reported I am seeing SQ benefits from rebooting my server+Mutec+D16 more often however._​
- For the price of a RedNet Card I could get a Mutec Reclocker (give or take) - or a nice DAP like the Astell & Kern Kann to use weekending in the van or out walking so that I can have more listening time - furthering my personal ambition to explore deeper into classical music - all of which tempts me to defer getting the Card till things are clearer - but I got a quote for the RedNet Card I would probably not achieve again and am reluctant to let it go;

_I can vouch for the benefit of using the Mutec +3 USB for re-clocking. I have experimented with and without and the benefits with it in the system are not small. Consider getting a used one and replacing the internal SMPS with an external LPS if you are DIY handy._​


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> I just did a comparison of sample rate up/down conversions into my Jggy.
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-diyrs-cookbook.781268/page-82#post-14093469
> 
> And USB can certainly be improved (Eitr is one example) but I've found that USB still lags behind, but not as far behind anymore.
> ...



I found that in my HP rig even just using a Mutec +3 USB via AES into my Yggy sounded better than the GEN5 USB input that I added. This is without RedNet in the picture as I am not using it in my HP rig any longer, just in my speaker rig now. I am using my speaker system much more and so scaled down my HP system to buy a Mutec Ref10.


----------



## Iving (Mar 9, 2018)

mourip said:


> I found that in my HP rig even just using a Mutec +3 USB via AES into my Yggy sounded better than the GEN5 USB input that I added. This is without RedNet in the picture as I am not using it in my HP rig any longer, just in my speaker rig now. I am using my speaker system much more and so scaled down my HP system to buy a Mutec Ref10.



Thanks for all the Mutec ads Paul!
If my present system is PC > D16 > DAC where D16 > DAC is AES and WC is DAC > D16 (having to set in RC frequently like you)
and I wanted to add a Mutec, retaining AES/balanced up to DAC
would I just insert it between D16 and DAC thus: D16 > Mutec > DAC using a second identical AES cable?
How does WC work then?


----------



## peteAllen (Mar 9, 2018)

On my system, whenever I've introduced the mutec +3 USB - aes in aes out, between the d16 and my Metronome/Totaldac - it made music sound artificially enhanced, more "digital". Also tried using it as a clock and using the d16 as its external clock, neither of which seemed to change the sound much. Also tried it as a usb-spdiff converter at the office with a chord hugo - similarly disliked the sound compared to the yellowtec. I know lots of people rave about the mutec, but I just didn't like it.


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> On my system, whenever I've introduced the mutec - aes in aes out, between the d16 and my Metronome/Totaldac - it made music sound artificially enhanced, more "digital". Also tried using it as a clock and using the d16 as its external clock, neither of which didn't seem to change much. I know lots of people rave about the mutec, but I just didn't like it.



Eww!


----------



## mourip (Mar 9, 2018)

Iving said:


> Thanks for all the Mutec ads Paul!
> If my present system is PC > D16 > DAC where D16 > DAC is AES and WC is DAC > D16 (having to set in RC frequently like you)
> and I wanted to add a Mutec, retaining AES/balanced up to DAC
> would I just insert it between D16 and DAC thus: D16 > Mutec > DAC using a second identical AES cable?
> How does WC work then?



Exactly. AES in and out using the Mutec.

The way I have it now my Ref10 provides reference clock to my M3USB which in turn provides wclk back to my D16 and also re-clocks it's output to my Yggy using AES.

I am not sure that the M3USB can re-clock and provide an external wclk without being provided an external master clock signal for itself.

PS. If I am starting to sound like a fanboy feel free to cut me off. It is just that in my system the Mutec devices have been very beneficial, improving dynamics and providing a more natural sound. YMMV.

Disclaimer: I do not work for Mutec. In fact I do not work for anyone. I retired recently


----------



## peteAllen

In my experience on my system, the biggest improvements (in very rough decreasing order) were yielded by:
- using rednet d16
- power cable upgrade to the d16
- rednet pcie card instead of other nics
- psu upgrade to the pc (paul hynes)
- aes cable upgrade
- ethernet cable upgrade to audioquest diamond

More subtle but worthwhile:
- ethernet filters
- separating out music onto separate pro ssd
- tweaks to the pc os

I'm still waiting for a splitter pci cable to enable me to run the rednet pcie network card off the uptone js2 psu...


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> Exactly. AES in and out using the Mutec.
> 
> The way I have it now my Ref10 provides reference clock to my M3USB which in turn provides wclk back to my D16 and also re-clocks it's output to my Yggy using AES.
> 
> ...



If I do not have a Ref10 (or equiv.), a Mutec would reclock to my DAC via AES. Would the WC in my DAC that I use presently (BNC to D16) still be of benefit if the Mutec is reclocking?

I always appreciate *all* of your contributions!


----------



## mourip

Iving said:


> If I do not have a Ref10 (or equiv.), a Mutec would reclock to my DAC via AES. Would the WC in my DAC that I use presently (BNC to D16) still be of benefit if the Mutec is reclocking?
> 
> I always appreciate *all* of your contributions!



I am not sure about that. One possibility would be to buy from a vendor like Sweetwater with a good return policy and try it out...


----------



## mourip

peteAllen said:


> In my experience on my system, the biggest improvements (in very rough decreasing order) were yielded by:
> - using rednet d16
> - power cable upgrade to the d16
> - rednet pcie card instead of other nics
> ...



What AES cable did you settle on?

Thanks!


----------



## astrostar59

Iving said:


> If I do not have a Ref10 (or equiv.), a Mutec would reclock to my DAC via AES. Would the WC in my DAC that I use presently (BNC to D16) still be of benefit if the Mutec is reclocking?
> 
> I always appreciate *all* of your contributions!



I would check that. With SPDIF protocol the DAC has to follow the source no matter. That changes with other types of inputs, and where AES stands I am unsure. If AES means your DAC has to follow, then upstream gear is crucial.


----------



## Iving (Mar 10, 2018)

Just a few notes on Optane/PCIe then - please see recent posts inc. Z270-WS block diagram:

- This is an A/B with a confound.
- All PC components (24-pin, 12V CPU,  6-pin PCIe and SATA 5V) powered independently from Larry's new 400W HDPLEX.
- A is o/s W10 Pro on M.2_1 (PCIe NVME) / flac on a SATA SSD.
- B is o/s and flac both on a single Optane AIC in PCIE_1 (no switch/CPU-direct) ...
- In both A and B Intel X540-T2 is also in a no-switch (CPU-direct) PCIE slot.
- The essential difference is Optane vs. Allcomers (M.2/SSD).
- NB: Both M.2 and SATA go thru the chipset. This is the confound - B involves no traffic thru chipset (PCH-H) - it's ostensibly all PCIE/CPU.
- Therefore any difference could be attributable to Optane per se or to an ultra-simple mobo configuration - or both.
- My system is cold and I only had an hour at things after set up.
- There is an unmistakeable elevation of SQ:
            - the music breathes
            - it is cleaner
            - it flows
            - it is enjoyable
            - voices (Sandy Denny!) have extra layers
            - the delivery is relaxed
            - the delivery is deliberate
            - micro-instances of music that are exquisite tell me that they are so
                        - even on something like Byrds 'Nashville West'.
- As the system warmed up a bit there is more detail, openness and thud.
- The music is fluid. Johhny Burnette's 'Lonesome Train' is not so much more Lonesome as more - well - Train.
- My "go to" track for digititis evaluation is Emmylou 'Boulder to Birmingham' - her voice sounds more the beautiful voice that it is than an edgey annoyance.

So - I recommend Optane. If you get tempted make sure of PCIe AIC (although you could visit Larry aka lmitche on CA for alternatives). In parallel fashion I recommend avoidance of the chipset and other switches. I can't say which of the two recommendations is sweeter.

Talking of partnerships - me and the RedNet Card didn't work out this time around. Perhaps she'll wait for me. I'm a happy bunny anyway.


----------



## Iving

Here is Focusrite's reply to my support enquiry (see a few posts back) ...

Reminder of enquiry:

Dear Focusrite,
A domestic audiophile, I play music via DVS on a PC direct to a D16 AES. In addition to DVS, I have RedNet Control (/Dante Controller) installed on the PC. Aside from updating firmware/software, I have no need whatsoever to be online. I do not use a switch. The only ethernet connection required during play is between my PC and the D16 AES.
I intend to buy a RedNet PCIeR ethernet card. I will reinstall Windows and will have no need for DVS. I understand that the RedNet PCIeR card is not a network card. I would like to set up an "all other things equal" direct connection between the PCIeR card and the D16 AES with the minimum of fuss.
1. Will I be able to do this with no switch?
2. Will I able to to do this with a direct ethernet connection between the RedNet PCIeR Card and the D16 AES only?
3. If not, will an additional hard connection to the internet from my PC (standard LAN/NIC) suffice?
4. Or will I require another, separate ethernet connection from the D16 AES to any other point on the network?
I ask because I am unclear reading the RedNet Installation Guide etc here https://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-pcie-card/downloads,and because of the shared experience of fellow audiophiles (although they have different systems and so their experience mightn't necessarily apply).
I presume that no matter the setup requirements, I will be able to play music post setup with no ethernet connection except that between the PC and the D16 AES.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Martin
P.S. An utterly secondary question: Does the sample rate follow capacity of the RedNet system depend on the answers to any of the questions 1-4 (supra). Thanks


Reply:
Hi,
Thanks for contacting us.
The advantage of using the Rednet PCIeR Card over DVS is the additional audio channels it provides as well as the better latency performance. Is that what you are trying to accomplish? Any additional information you can provide regarding your intended use of your RedNet system will help give me an idea of what you require.
I believe that a switch is not necessary for the setup you are describing. However, we will need to be connected to your computer's ethernet port in order to communicate with Dante Controller.
I suggest plugging in your D16 to your computer's ethernet port and then using the secondary port to connect it to your PCIeR card.
One thing to keep in mind is that you will need to be sure to install the driver for your PCIeR card when installing RedNet Control. There will be an option to checkmark the PCIeR driver during the installation of Rednet Control, so be sure to follow that step.
After that, you will be able to select the PCIeR card as your audio device in your computer's playback settings, and then configure routing to the D16 in Dante Controller.
Best regards,
Technical Support Engineer


----------



## Iving (Mar 9, 2018)

deleted


----------



## Golfnutz (Mar 9, 2018)

Iving said:


> Here is Focusrite's reply to my support enquiry (see a few posts back) ...
> 
> Reminder of enquiry:
> 
> ...



One thing I found with Focusrite support is you need to be very specific in telling them you are using your RN in an audio system with only 2 channels, and no DAW software, or recording studio.
I think they probably just glazed over 'domestic audiophile' with a mindset of something bigger happening here because you're asking about the PCIeR card.


----------



## motberg

Iving said:


> Just a few notes on Optane/PCIe then - please see recent posts inc. Z270-WS block diagram:
> 
> - This is an A/B with a confound.
> - All PC components (24-pin, 12V CPU,  6-pin PCIe and SATA 5V) powered independently from Larry's new 400W HDPLEX.
> ...



I think it would be very helpful if you could please try with the flac off the optaine card. That would allow a smaller optaine drive and more storage options, if successful.... 

thanks for the detailed evaluation, i have not seen many repprts on this, but have copied a lot of limtche ideas on my new computer.


----------



## astrostar59

I was thinking. The Rednet units are primarily designed for a DAW situation. So routing digital to a mixing desk I imagine. The function of an AES and SPDIF output from my Rednet 3 (for example) is possibly for monitoring purposes and a bit of an after thought, not mastering tracks as such. So would it be possible for Rednet to make a dedicated unit that extracts the absolute best sound possible as SPDIF output? In other words, design the unit with that end use as the first priority. It may then only need 4 connections and could have the SPDIF circuits more isolated from the rest of the board. Possibly it could also have auto clock tracking as well, maybe a better internal clock. Just a thought to throw out there. It is probably fantasy as the amount of audiophile users on the Rednet products is probably tiny, mores the pity.

I looked at the MicroRendu as an option to compare to the Rednet but I don't want to add another router. Really I just want one box max between my Mac Mini and the DAC, as got totally fed up with my previous USB fixer / decrapifier chain. Any thoughts?


----------



## johnjen

Have you considered the Eitr as a possibility?

It's not quite up to AOIP SQ but depending upon how good is good enough it may fit the bill as "I just want one box max between my Mac Mini and the DAC".
And you can try it at home with a cost of only a 10% return charge (plus shipping) if it doesn't measure up.

Granted it isn't an ethernet to spdif converter but the only other option I know of is SR limited to 96KHz.
This works out well for the Jggy dac, but it's sorta unique in that way.

JJ


----------



## flyte3333

astrostar59 said:


> I looked at the MicroRendu as an option to compare to the Rednet but I don't want to add another router.



Hi, why would you need another router? If you have a router near your Mac already, then both your Mac and microRendu would connect to the same router. Apologies if I missed something obvious.


----------



## peteAllen

mourip said:


> What AES cable did you settle on?
> 
> Thanks!



An MIT oracle ma-x digital aes


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> So - I recommend Optane. If you get tempted make sure of PCIe AIC (although you could visit Larry aka lmitche on CA for alternatives). In parallel fashion I recommend avoidance of the chipset and other switches. I can't say which of the two recommendations is sweeter.



Any chance of a photo of the optane and mobo?


----------



## astrostar59

Doing some more research on the subject of Rednet v USB, I found a good review of the PS Audio Ethernet Bridge card, that fits into there DACs. Quote:

_Ethernet is a one-way set of data without clock information–just a bunch of packets sent to anything that simply has to put it back in order (re-assemble it). USB, on the other hand, is a two-way communication with timing involved. That timing with USB causes problems for audio streaming that have to be remedied. That is why, when one uses (say) a Mac Mini with USB, various upgrading and peripherals are required to get optimal sound: a high-end separate linear power supply, an expensive short in length USB cable, and superior sounding player software (such as JRiver) for example. The Mac Mini (or any computer) when using USB struggles to access memory allocations, and has to deal with serious timing and jitter issues. More generally, that is why stand-alone high-end USB based music servers are expensive (they can be well over $5000).

But when using ethernet it makes no difference. To send out ethernet data (via a PC or a MAC or a NAS), little expense is required beyond ensuring the device used has enough speed, enough disk space and appropriate sofware: Once the data is sent, it does not matter what device sent it, it will have no eaffect on the quality of the sound at the other end (DAC).

And the quality of the cable is irrelevant too (I am using a $3.00 ethernet cable). As PS Audio CEO Paul McGowan told me via email when I asked him related questions:

Ethernet data can be sent without any change in sound quality around the world or two feet away. That is because the packets haven’t any timing information associated with them. They are just chunks of data that can come slowly or quickly without affect. The data is unremarkable and agnostic as to how it is delivered. And likewise the quality of the cable that carries the data matters not. The same cannot be said for any other type of data transmission. USB, S/PDIF, Coaxial, even TOSLINK are susceptible to sound differences according to the media they travel through.
_



 
I am unsure of this part of the statement '*USB is a two way connection with timing information*' I was under the impression Asyncronous USB output sends the data without a clock, i.e. the DAC dictates the clocking speed and jitter reduction. The Rednet uses it's own clock (if set that way) and thus is the master, as SPDIF dictates the DAC has to follow.

If PS Audio built another version of the device but in a standalone box, with Ethernet in and i2S out, that could be a game changer I think. That would probably take out the need for a 5K music server right there, kill that market. It would also allow anyone with a Laptop to potentially have a world class music player. Well , that is my little theory for today. 

http://www.audiophilia.com/reviews/2016/1/16/ps-audio-perfectwave-network-bridge-ii


----------



## astrostar59

Em2016 said:


> Hi, why would you need another router? If you have a router near your Mac already, then both your Mac and microRendu would connect to the same router. Apologies if I missed something obvious.



I was thinking a router just for the music network, no internet access or other devices, or phone connections. i.e. not add more polluting items to the audio system.


----------



## Iving

I have replied to the Focusrite support response here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...-computer-audio.806827/page-228#post-14094431 as follows:

Thanks [],
We (audiophiles conversing on a forum) have figured out that RedNet Control (RC) needs an ethernet/network view of a RedNet interface (D16 AES, RedNet 3) in order to supervise it. In the case of DVS, RC can see the interface through the same ethernet port that conveys the audio signal; accordingly a single ethernet cable between PC and interface is sufficient - and desirable in audiophile terms for both isolation and listening environment reasons. This is untrue of PCIe(R) where the audio signal is transmitted with super-low latency but RC cannot see/supervise the interface without an additional ethernet channel (switch or possibly direct). It is possible to initialise after starting up the equipment via such a channel, disconnect and continue to enjoy music through the remaining PCIe(R) - interface route, but RC is then blind and that can have repercussions*. The disconnection process is also a manual inconvenience. Accordingly I have put on hold my purchase.
*If you can feedback to the relevant (software) technicians, we would like that an (external) WC setting in RC remains permanent unless changed so that we do not have to start RC/adjust to the preferred setting every time we start the computer.
You didn't answer the question about SR follow, but we can do some educated guessing!


----------



## Iving

motberg said:


> I think it would be very helpful if you could please try with the flac off the optaine card. That would allow a smaller optaine drive and more storage options, if successful....
> 
> thanks for the detailed evaluation, i have not seen many repprts on this, but have copied a lot of limtche ideas on my new computer.



Sure
I had disabled SATA on the mobo leaving everything PCIe/CPU as explained.
For a simple comparison at your request, I enabled SATA and put in fb2k the "same" flac/track (Silver threads and golden needles from Fotheringay 2 - not the one on Youtube) on Optane on the one hand and on the SSD on the other (all LPS).
The Optane instance sounds better. It breathes. It has depth. The SSD instance is thinner - more like a transistor radio. Less subtle. Fewer layers to voice.
Just to be clear - Larry's smaller Optane cards are M.2/chipset hinged.
Thanks for prompting me. I had planned to check this anyway. I can relax now


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Any chance of a photo of the optane and mobo?



Sure


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> Sure
> I had disabled SATA on the mobo leaving everything PCIe/CPU as explained.
> For a simple comparison at your request, I enabled SATA and put in fb2k the "same" flac/track (Silver threads and golden needles from Fotheringay 2 - not the one on Youtube) on Optane on the one hand and on the SSD on the other (all LPS).
> The Optane instance sounds better. It breathes. It has depth. The SSD instance is thinner - more like a transistor radio. Less subtle. Fewer layers to voice.
> ...



So having sata disabled is the key? If you have it using Optane and no ssd or anything on sata, but still have sata enabled, then does it still sound inferior?

Not sure if it's feasible for me - I use an old small factor fanless pc - I think I'd need to upgrade to a 7th gen small factor mobo, buy an optane for the OS, and use my 2tb music ssd somehow (it's almost full!)


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> Sure



Very cool!


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> So having sata disabled is the key? If you have it using Optane and no ssd or anything on sata, but still have sata enabled, then does it still sound inferior?
> 
> Not sure if it's feasible for me - I use an old small factor fanless pc - I think I'd need to upgrade to a 7th gen small factor mobo, buy an optane for the OS, and use my 2tb music ssd somehow (it's almost full!)



I don't suppose SATA Enabled or Disabled is material. I just disable everything I don't need in a spirit of parsimony. One gets into that habit trying to rein in Windows! It is playing the flac file on Optane vs. playing the same file on the SSD that makes the difference. 

I understand Optane requires a 270 series mobo. HD caching requires a 7th gen Intel CPU. I have a 6th but that's OK because I'm not using Optane for HD caching. The first few pages of Larry's thread on CA explain all this. It's all a money-hungry iterative process - but the returns per £ are good. The Optane drive cost £338 but I got one from Ballicom with Star Citizen and sold that code for £70 net. I sold the M.2 drive which had my o/s for about the same. So I'm looking at £200 for a 280Gb Optane upgrade. Not complaining.


----------



## peteAllen (Mar 10, 2018)

Maybe having the music files on ssd wouldn't matter so much as I use Roon & hqplayer on the os drive. The samsung pro ssd is way faster than roon/hqplayer need, so it won't cause any latency limitation. Of course the other big factor in computer audio is noise, and I can imagine if sata is disabled that would reduce noise / extra power, even though I have the ssd powered by the uptone js2.


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Maybe having the music files on ssd wouldn't matter so much as I use Roon & hqplayer on the os drive. The samsung pro ssd is way faster than roon/hqplayer need, so it won't cause any latency limitation. Of course the other big factor in computer audio is noise, and I can imagine if sata is disabled that would reduce noise / extra power, even though I have the ssd powered by the uptone js2.



Optane is mega fast and uses a different technology cf. SSD. SSD requires the chipset - my Optane PCIe AIC and Intel X540-T2 are both PCIe CPU-direct and don't. Both Optane and SSD get an LPS spur but one is 5V direct (SSD) and the other PCIe 6-pin to mobo. These are the differences in descending order of importance as I would interpret things.


----------



## motberg

Iving said:


> Sure
> I had disabled SATA on the mobo leaving everything PCIe/CPU as explained.
> For a simple comparison at your request, I enabled SATA and put in fb2k the "same" flac/track (Silver threads and golden needles from Fotheringay 2 - not the one on Youtube) on Optane on the one hand and on the SSD on the other (all LPS).
> The Optane instance sounds better. It breathes. It has depth. The SSD instance is thinner - more like a transistor radio. Less subtle. Fewer layers to voice.
> ...



Thanks a million...
(I already bought the PCIe-> M.2 Optane adapter card, but not yet the Optane module.. so not out much cash currently)
I did not know that integrated Optane PCIe/SSD thing you are using even existed until I just looked it up... 

BTW, I have been using the larger NOFAN cooler for about 3 years on my current i5 build and works perfectly..
The i7 I am working on now is 35W, so I have assembled with the same NOFAN as in yours
Thanks for the photos, nice power cables routing..... I also will be using the HDPLEX 400W so very helpful to see an example of the assembly.


----------



## Iving

motberg said:


> Thanks a million...
> (I already bought the PCIe-> M.2 Optane adapter card, but not yet the Optane module.. so not out much cash currently)
> I did not know that integrated Optane PCIe/SSD thing you are using even existed until I just looked it up...
> 
> ...



Welcome 
Yep - https://www.ballicom.co.uk/intel-ss...MIxbn18IPi2QIVzLXtCh1stwoeEAYYASABEgIO8_D_BwE
There is a 480Gb version too.
I bought from Ballicom even if a few £ more expensive because they were able to supply Star Citizen instances. The codes are still worth about £70 net.
Yep - No cooling issues with NOFAN (with my config. anyway)
Thanks for sharing


----------



## lmitche (Mar 10, 2018)

Iving said:


> Just to be clear - Larry's smaller Optane cards are M.2/chipset hinged.


Irving,

True yes, but like your system, my signal path DOES NOT go through the PCH as the only user of the Optane drive is Windows. Roon and Hqplayer pull music in from the USB NIC(Tidal) or USB HDD and push music out to the USB dac. All this happens from the same lt3045 powered cpu direct USB card. The system sounds wonderful.

I'm currently contemplating an upgrade to a new motherboard with at least two direct to cpu pcie slots. Choices include your Asus z270 ws motherboard $$$$, an Asus Z270 ROG Gaming G, an Asus P10S-M,  or a Supermicro x11ssl. The goal is to move the m.2 Optane to a pcie adapter card in the second direct to cpu slot. With the first two choices my current 6700k processor and memory can be re-used. In the second two, a Xeon processor and ecc memory needs to be purchased. The Supermicro board is the only one wired x8+x8 without use of a plx or Asmedia switch. I don't need 3 direct PCie slots, and the purity of the Supermicro solution is tempting.


----------



## peteAllen

lmitche said:


> Irving,
> 
> True yes, but like your system, my signal path DOES NOT go through the PCH as the only user of the Optane drive is Windows. Roon and Hqplayer pull music in from the USB NIC(Tidal) or USB HDD and push music out to the USB dac. All this happens from the same lt3045 powered cpu direct USB card. The system sounds wonderful.
> 
> I'm currently contemplating an upgrade to a new motherboard with at least two direct to cpu pcie slots. Choices include your Asus z270 ws motherboard $$$$, an Asus Z270 ROG Gaming G, an Asus P10S-M,  or a Supermicro x11ssl. The goal is to move the m.2 Optane to a pcie adapter card in the second direct to cpu slot. With the first two choices my current 6700k processor and memory can be re-used. In the second two, a Xeon processor and ecc memory needs to be purchased. The Supermicro board is the only one wired x8+x8 without use of a plx or Asmedia switch. I don't need 3 direct PCie slots, and the purity of the Supermicro solution is tempting.



That supermicro board looks tempting but there are some negative reviews online. I’ve had three non-asus boards and had troubles with all of them. Personally I would stick with Asus where possible


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> That supermicro board looks tempting but there are some negative reviews online. I’ve had three non-asus boards and had troubles with all of them. Personally I would stick with Asus where possible


Agreed re Asus - for the BIOS if nothing else - I see the 300 Series is current - but there doesn't appear to be a Z370-WS.


----------



## lmitche

peteAllen said:


> That supermicro board looks tempting but there are some negative reviews online. I’ve had three non-asus boards and had troubles with all of them. Personally I would stick with Asus where possible



Links to any negative (or postive) reviews would be helpful thanks.


----------



## peteAllen

Apparently the cheap Asus Prime Z270M-Plus supports Optane with the latest bios

We should probably leave this thread dedicated to dante and rednet tho!


----------



## lmitche (Mar 12, 2018)

peteAllen said:


> Apparently the cheap Asus Prime Z270M-Plus supports Optane with the latest bios
> 
> We should probably leave this thread dedicated to dante and rednet tho!



Actually I'm just using Optane as a boot SSD and it works great on my z170 motherboard. A z270 or z370 mb with Optane support for caching is not required.


----------



## Iving

Windows taming strategies are of interest presently, especially after the Fall Creators Update which seems to have spawned numerous additional svchost processes and other "we know what you want better than you know what you want" non-options.

(I don't mean to divert too much but I *loathe* Apple for this perverse approach to personal computing and prefer Microsoft as the lesser of the two evils.)

There was minor consideration hereabouts: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...-computer-audio.806827/page-216#post-13788088.

Any relevant experience to share - from uninstalls, to closing down services, to use of third party apps such as AO, Fidelizer, Process Lasso etc?

I ask particularly because AoIP is a special case owing to _inter alia_ network issues.

Ideally - is anyone using a single app/script which doesn't FUBAR everything at the beginning of each listening session and getting unambiguous positive SQ results?


----------



## mourip

I have been using AO for several years. When I first started using AOIP I thought that it might be immune to server tweaks but have found that to not be the case.

I use AO for my Win10 Pro headphone build and for my Win2012R2 speaker build. I believe that it improves SQ.

It has a free trial so you could give it a try...


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> I have been using AO for several years. When I first started using AOIP I thought that it might be immune to server tweaks but have found that to not be the case.
> 
> I use AO for my Win10 Pro headphone build and for my Win2012R2 speaker build. I believe that it improves SQ.
> 
> It has a free trial so you could give it a try...



Thanks mourip
I agree - To me Windows taming is all part of "The PC does make a difference."
I have not used AO. If you install/run it, are there any hiccoughs? RedNet doesn't mind?


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> Thanks mourip
> I agree - To me Windows taming is all part of "The PC does make a difference."
> I have not used AO. If you install/run it, are there any hiccoughs? RedNet doesn't mind?


Personally I've had lots of trouble with AO and Dante/Roon stability. It did make a positive audible difference though. Worth trying out. (I also didn't like the fact that when I had trouble he essentially required me to pay more to upgrade to the latest version)


----------



## Iving

peteAllen said:


> Personally I've had lots of trouble with AO and Dante/Roon stability. It did make a positive audible difference though. Worth trying out. (I also didn't like the fact that when I had trouble he essentially required me to pay more to upgrade to the latest version)


What sort of trouble Pete? The type that is manageable with a little attention, or the type that makes you want to cry and so you reinstall Windows and start all over?


----------



## Iving (Mar 13, 2018)

Iving said:


> What sort of trouble Pete? The type that is manageable with a little attention, or the type that makes you want to cry and so you reinstall Windows and start all over?


... talking of which (i.e. reinstalling Windows) - anyone been bothered by restrictions on # DVS activations - I've been moaning at Dante about how an audiophile mucking about tweaking on a Friday afternoon could wind up the whole w/e with no music (and, more frustrating, being just totally brick-walled on a new installation) if nobody is in the office to add some extra allowance ... Dante policing isn't required for we virtuous, law-abiding and non-profit-making audio hobbyists ...


----------



## peteAllen

Iving said:


> What sort of trouble Pete? The type that is manageable with a little attention, or the type that makes you want to cry and so you reinstall Windows and start all over?


It's been a while... Dante problems with the services stopping / not being able to see endpoints... I ended up leaving AO in its least invasive form. When I reinstalled windows i didn't reapply AO.

No problems with dvs reinstalls. I think I've done it about 5 times. Until I got the pcie card


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> ... talking of which (i.e. reinstalling Windows) - anyone been bothered by restrictions on # DVS activations - I've been moaning at Dante about how an audiophile mucking about tweaking on a Friday afternoon could wind up the whole w/e with no music (and, more frustrating, being just totally brick-walled on a new installation) if nobody is in the office to add some extra allowance ... Dante policing isn't required for we virtuous, law-abiding and non-profit-making audio hobbyists ...



Exact same issue at one point (testing various SSD's). However, after explaining I'm a home user, with a single computer, no recording studio, etc., I got this reply.

"


----------



## Iving

Golfnutz said:


> Exact same issue at one point (testing various SSD's). However, after explaining I'm a home user, with a single computer, no recording studio, etc., I got this reply.
> 
> "


I've had to go back - they only add a couple at a time it seems ...


----------



## JayNYC

Focusrite support pages link to this site

http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/


----------



## mourip

Iving said:


> Thanks mourip
> I agree - To me Windows taming is all part of "The PC does make a difference."
> I have not used AO. If you install/run it, are there any hiccoughs? RedNet doesn't mind?



AO has been very solid for me. The only issue I have found is that one of the settings disabled a service or function that was network related that DVS needed. If you restart DVS after running AO then DVS will ask if you want that service turned back on. Just say yes and then it will ask for a reboot. Otherwise it has been smooth for me.

I guess one other issue is that I had trouble getting it to work in Core Mode with Win2012R2 but to be honest I did not spend a lot of time trying. I run in minimal server mode and let JRMC be the shell.

With AOIP and the Mutec clocking I find myself less compelled to tweak and more interested in listening.


----------



## InsanityOne

Just wanted to pop in here and say that I am looking to pickup a used Rednet 3 or Rednet D16, I would prefer a modded one, but I don't mind if it's stock, so if anyone is considering selling theirs, we could probably work something out. Thanks!


----------



## JayNYC

Windows users-- I'm curious to your opinion of using this fanless Atom mini pc for Foobar-->DVS ASIO playback to Ethernet-->RedNet_D16
https://www.amazon.com/x5-Z8350-Processor-1000Mbps-Fanless-Computer/dp/B075SS1YX4/ref=sr_1_1
It includes a 12V 2A SMPS.

Is a fanless design with the ability to add a high quality external power supply an asset for AOIP or not really?

thx


----------



## mourip

Do you need remote control or will you just use a monitor/keyboard/mouse for control? If you wanted to remote control or had a reason to connect to your network for NAS music files or updates then you would have to either use the second ethernet port on the D16 for network access, use WiFi, or get a USB ethernet dongle.

Since it is probably optimal to only have audio between your D16 and your PC I would choose the dongle. WiFi evidently does not mix well around audio equipment and using the second D16 port will allow network traffic to travel alongside audio back to your PC. Just my 2 cents!

Hard to say about the PC itself. Might work great. Consider asking the question over on The Computer Audiophile as someone there may have already tried it.

Regarding the SMPS, one of the issues with them is that they can also inject noise back into the AC and pollute other audio devices that are more susceptible such as a preamp or amp. I remove as many as I can including modifying my D16 and also my Mutec USB to take an LPS .


----------



## Golfnutz

JayNYC said:


> Windows users-- I'm curious to your opinion of using this fanless Atom mini pc for Foobar-->DVS ASIO playback to Ethernet-->RedNet_D16
> https://www.amazon.com/x5-Z8350-Processor-1000Mbps-Fanless-Computer/dp/B075SS1YX4/ref=sr_1_1
> It includes a 12V 2A SMPS.
> 
> ...



If there's a return policy, you could try it first and see how it works. Also, you're only out $179 if you decide on something else later on. Just know, resale on these are terrible.

Personally, I wouldn't buy it (it just doesn't have enough options for what I like/need). Some or all of the points below may not apply to you.

Only 1 Ethernet port, which for me wouldn't work. I need 2 ports, 1 connected to D16, and the other connected to a stand alone router. This allows me to remote into my D16 attached PC (mini ITX) from my laptop. If you don't use Windows Remote Desktop, than it's a non issue. I really enjoy using it. I suppose you could use one of the USB ports if you needed too (USB to Ethernet).

Hard drive appears to be pretty small at 64GB. There's nothing mentioned about Sata ports. I use 2 sata drives, 1 for OS and the other to store music. Both SSD drives are powered separately by an external LPS. Sorry, I don't know how noisy those Emmc drives are. Don't know how you plan on storing your music.

There's no PCIe expansion slot. You might want to install a PCIe based Ethernet port down the road, you won't have this option. I've disabled both my Ethernet ports and installed a PCIe based Ethernet card with 2 ports. This card is also powered separately by it's own LPS.

I also use another LPS just for the PC's power. It does sound better than a SMPS.

Just some things to think about...


----------



## Iving (Mar 21, 2018)

JayNYC said:


> Windows users-- I'm curious to your opinion of using this fanless Atom mini pc for Foobar-->DVS ASIO playback to Ethernet-->RedNet_D16
> https://www.amazon.com/x5-Z8350-Processor-1000Mbps-Fanless-Computer/dp/B075SS1YX4/ref=sr_1_1
> It includes a 12V 2A SMPS.
> 
> ...



I would just say fwiw and to stir your imagination:

In line with "small" (and low power), Bob - who started this thread aka rb2013 - has posted aka Tubelover2 on his other thread here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2910#p8666 and then here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2925#p8675 and then here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2925#p8686.

But then posts beginning here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2940#p8709 corroborated my own prejudice towards "clean and big" culminating here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2940#p8713.
PeterSt Quote begins
Yes, the more powerful the PC, the better the sound will be. This has always been the general consensus, and in 100% of cases where people thought they'd be good with their laptop or other "mini" system, they had to admit they were no good at all, after finally implementing the hefty desktop.
General consensus too is the more processor cores the better, and what's fairly standard by now is 20 core hyperthreaded Xeons. But mind you, without anything further in that cabinet, and preferably fully powered by a linear power supply. So no fans, no disks, no SSD, no USB connected stuff and also no SD. Nothing. Only LAN and the music stored somewhere there.
And regarding NAS ideas : Might that be beneficial in the first place, then try to envision it is not about any peripheral which doesn't spread noise to your precious Audio PC; it is about the Audio PC being able to run lean. Run evenly (no spiking).
PeterSt Quote ends

Mine is now a simple CPU/PCIe loop comprising only o/s and music on an Optane PCIe AIC together with a PCIe Ethernet AIC. They sit on a quality mobo, and a decent LPS supplies everything. I am not so much wishing to taunt you as to explain that Bob seems to want to expend his (most worthwhile and educational) efforts downstream of the PC, whereas others (including me) are just as interested in the PC itself. The difference is partly a matter of personal philosophy - not right or wrong as it were - and I am just urging you to identify yours - personal tendencies that is - for we audiophiles all suffer from a dreadful and obsessive disease of perception - so that you may tread a consistent orientation henceforth - so wasting less time and money in the long run.


----------



## lmitche

Iving said:


> I would just say fwiw and to stir your imagination:
> 
> In line with "small" (and low power), Bob - who started this thread aka rb2013 - has posted aka Tubelover2 on his other thread here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2910#p8666 and then here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2925#p8675 and then here: http://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1172&start=2925#p8686.
> 
> ...



Iving,

I couldn't agree with you more. My PC is simple, 6700k, 8gb ddr-2400, Optane boot drive, and a single LPS-1 powered, 4 port USB 3 card for NIC, HDD and LPS-1 powered ISO/REGEN/Lush/DAC connection.  Power is split between CPU ATX SMPS and 24 pin Hdplex/ Sigma 11 LPS. Dual serial lt3045s everywhere possible.

SQ is phenomenal!

Still working on refinement of the network link, and getting major SQ improvements as an outcome.

P.S. I think Bob is great, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Golfnutz

lmitche said:


> Iving,
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more. My PC is simple, 6700k, 8gb ddr-2400, Optane boot drive, and a single LPS-1 powered, 4 port USB 3 card for NIC, HDD and LPS-1 powered ISO/REGEN/Lush/DAC connection.  Power is split between CPU ATX SMPS and 24 pin Hdplex/ Sigma 11 LPS. Dual serial lt3045s everywhere possible.
> 
> ...



Still have the 6700k cpu/mobo, it was booted to the curb by the low powered Mini-ITX with 12v LPS, and other 5v LPS for PCIe and SSD. Since these Rednet devices only go as far as 192/24, it really makes no sense too me that they require anything more. The guy's wanting more horsepower are using DSD DAC's with USB, not Ethernet to AES. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## lmitche

Funny, I just gave my 12 volt J1900 ITX rig to a friend.  He loves it.

Yes, I up-sample everything to DSD512 with Hqplayer.  Marvelous.I'll never do REDnet, so I guess it's time to leave.

See you!

Larry


----------



## JayNYC (Mar 24, 2018)

mhamel said:


> Not sure if anyone has seen these or not, but there are some new Dante "maker boards" available with several different I/O options - AES, SPDIF, headphone amp, 20w/ch power amp, analog XLR, and analog RCA.
> 
> http://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=dante-aoip-stereo-maker-boards
> 
> ...



Thanks to @mhamel I now have a low cost 2in/2out Dante based system running on my office PC.
I ordered a Digimedia DIO RCA TOS Pro from Micromedia (it shipped right away from Switzerland)
https://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=aes67-dante-aoip-stereo-interfaces
and also a super basic Jameco LPS from Amazon
https://www.jameco.com/z/DDU120100H...ngle-Output-12-Volt-1-Amp-12-Watt_170245.html

















Dante for everyone!  Audinate's licensing dept should be doing cartwheels...

Rest of system for the curious
feeding SPDIF to Schitt Modi Multibit and then splitter out to O2 hp amp & Focal CMS-40 monitors, plus
receiving TOSLINK from RME Babyface running standalone with Aqvox ps (decent micpreamp+ADC for recording and VOIP calls!).
Since this is for office use (convenience trumps absolute sound quality) I set sample rate to 44.1 in both Dante Controller and Windows, DVS to WDM, Tidal to Exclusive and finally Foobar Wasapi + DSP dbPA SSRC to 44.1 because http://src.infinitewave.ca/
No Rednet Control or Sample Rate Follow.


----------



## mourip

JayNYC said:


> Thanks to @mhamel I now have a low cost 2in/2out Dante based system running on my office PC.
> I ordered a Digimedia DIO RCA TOS Pro from Micromedia (it shipped right away from Switzerland)
> https://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=aes67-dante-aoip-stereo-interfaces
> and also a super basic Jameco LPS from Amazon
> ...



Does it come with a license for DVS?


----------



## JayNYC

@mourip not that I know of, I just happen to have a few DVS licenses from a lot of experimenting in my home primary Rednet system


----------



## mourip

Looks like they have DIY boards also. Cool! I sent a message asking for specs. I assume they are using the Dante chip that is limited to 24/96?

https://www.micromedia.ch/?portfolio=dante-aoip-stereo-maker-boards


----------



## alpovs

mourip said:


> I assume they are using the Dante chip that is limited to 24/96?


The AES67 standard is limited to 24/96.


----------



## Iving

Whilst looking for a suitable Balanced>Unbalanced transformer I came across these:

http://www.sonifex.co.uk/company/press/2018/06022018_sonifex_latest_dante_licensee.shtml

http://www.sonifex.co.uk/company/press/2018/05022018_new_multichannel_aes67_at_nab2018.shtml


----------



## kazsud

Looks like Aurender has adopted Ravenna.

https://onahighernote.com/blog/2017...g-technologies-nadac-player-ravenna-platform/


----------



## gefski

kazsud said:


> Looks like Aurender has adopted Ravenna.
> 
> https://onahighernote.com/blog/2017...g-technologies-nadac-player-ravenna-platform/



Interesting. So Ethernet file delivery AND sample rate following (lack of is the one downside to broad consumer acceptance of Dante).


----------



## mourip

gefski said:


> Interesting. So Ethernet file delivery AND sample rate following (lack of is the one downside to broad consumer acceptance of Dante).



Focusrite Rednet does have sample rate following although I have found it to be a bit unreliable.


----------



## johnjen

Yeah the claim is they have SR following.
It has never worked, on my Mac.

JJ


----------



## gefski

Glad I'm 99% Redbook (Tidal too).


----------



## Golfnutz

Ravenna has the ability to do DSD, so I think SR becomes more important for them. Like gefski, I'm 99% Redbook, so I just use the same SR for everything (SR really means nothing for me at this time).


----------



## johnjen

On another thread, the topic was dithering, and how Media Center has 2 types of dithering it can add.

This got me curios so I started to play around with these 3 settings, No dithering (not recommended), "bit perfect" dithering, and "TPDF" dithering.
And the way I have my Sample Rate conversion setup is everything is downsampled to 44.1, except the vast majority of my collection which is already at that SR.

So theoretically simply because I don't play any tracks that are upsampled, adding dithering shouldn't make any difference, and indeed I hear no difference between the 2 types of dithering.

But what I have discovered is that while the differences between the 2 types of dithering make no discernible difference, turning off dithering altogether does make a very slight difference, and one that seems to be ever so slightly 'better'.
This was unexpected, as you might imagine.

I need to give it more time and listen deeply into these differences to see if it's just my imagination or if there really is a change, and also try to describe what the change is.

Experiments, they just keep on coming…

JJ


----------



## gefski

Empirical Audio (has made great USB solutions for years) is really pushing their Interchange Ethernet box over on AudioCircle in their mfg thread "Ethernet vs USB". The huge performance improvement he describes sounds like exactly what we experience with Dante. It's $3k plus extras. Can't wait for those who "snake-oiled" us Dante enthusiasts to "discover" what Ethernet file delivery can bring.


----------



## Muziqboy

He must have secretly been browsing this thread for awhile and had to find out for himself what we all here are experiencing with the Dante stuff.

And now he’s a convert. lol


----------



## Tand2016

Tand2016 said:


> Hi
> 
> Has anyone considered or even installed a SOtM sCLK-EX clock with a Master Clock (10 MHz input) in your Rednet?
> 
> ...



Well, my Rednet is now on its way to Korea for sCLK-EX upgrade. Will be interesting to get it back and see if it is worth it  

Tommy


----------



## Iving

Tand2016 said:


> Well, my Rednet is now on its way to Korea for sCLK-EX upgrade. Will be interesting to get it back and see if it is worth it
> 
> Tommy



How much is it costing you to have SOtM fit a 10 MHz Master Clock to your 16? Can't wait for your verdict!


----------



## Tand2016 (Apr 9, 2018)

Iving said:


> How much is it costing you to have SOtM fit a 10 MHz Master Clock to your 16? Can't wait for your verdict!



Not exactly sure yet, depends on if SOtM can do further upgrades beyond the sCLK-EX card but in the ballpark of 1250 USD for the card and intstallation.


----------



## bexi

Great news! I sent my D16 to Focusrite few weeks ago and now I am getting it back. Finally they have been able to reproduce that "Not present on the network" bug on their own setup. That bug is likely firmware related. There are no timescale for a fix though. Let's wait.


----------



## JayNYC (Apr 17, 2018)

Hi again Dante experts.  I just ordered an Arrakis Simple IP-8D for my primary playback system.
+ Din 5pin DC input
- No JetPLL
- No word clock IO
They tell me it uses a MeanWell GP25 SMPS.  Can the awesome people of this thread help me understand what specs for an LPS I would need for this?  I'm not familiar with 3 different voltages for a single power supply.










Thanks!


----------



## gefski

Sounds like a job for @johnjen.


----------



## johnjen

Say there @JayNYC 
It looks like it has a +5vdc, and +12vdc, and -12vdc, all with a common ground.

This is a triple output power supply.

The rated voltages of ±12vdc and +5vdc are fairly common.
The trick will be in finding either a single ps with a triple output with 2.5amp output on the +5vdc leg, along with 1amp on the +12vdc and the -12vdc legs,
or you can use 2 power supplies that can share a common ground, one for the +5vdc and the other for the ±12vdc output.
And yes the -12vdc doesn't need 1amp but almost all ±12vdc supply's will have equal current output on both the + and - sides of the output.

And you can use a power supply with greater output current, but not less than the rated current as listed on your stock ps.
And while you can use a ps with greater output current capacity it's usually not 'wise' to go overboard, like 10 amps (or greater) for any of the outputs.

Also, when I was considering replacing the ps in my RedNet 3, which used +5vdc and ±15vdc I found out that the ±15vdc voltages weren't needed.
This means all I had to provide was the +5vdc to power my RedNet3 box.

So you might want to find out if the Arrakis Simple IP-8D actually needs the ±12vdc to operate.
Because if you don't need all 3 voltages, your options for a replacement ps becomes much simpler and less expensive.

IOW just because the SMPS is providing all 3 voltages doesn't necessarily mean the Arrakis Simple IP-8D actually uses all 3 of them.  

A call or email to their tech or pre-sales support should answer this question.

JJ


----------



## Golfnutz (Apr 18, 2018)

I don't think there's a simple plug and play replacement for what you're asking (JJ's post confirms this).

Before you run out and buy an LPS, what about this?

If you can build your own adapter, you could make a cable (female to male) with pins 3, 1 or 2 (or both 1 and 2 for this cable). This will give you 5v only from the Mean Well supply. Basically, your not passing ±12vdc to the unit.

If you don't have the means to build your own cable, you could contact a company like https://www.redco.com/ and have them build you a 1 foot cable based on the above. Or you could buy a ready made cable, cut it in half and manually twist wires 3, 1 or 2 (or both 1 and 2) back together, assuming you can figure out which wires belong to which pins (a multimeter would be helpful for this). Make sure you terminate the wires for pins 4 and 5 from the Mean Well supply (you don't want to short anything out with loose wires).

This will tell you if you only need 5v to power the unit. If it doesn't work, just stick with the Mean Well supply. Otherwise, you're going to pay through the nose for something custom, and it probably won't be worth the cost.

Assuming it works, you could purchase a LPS (5v, =>3A, >30VA). However, you would still need a different custom cable that would have a DC connector on one end and 5pin Midi on the other (using pin 3, and pin 1 or 2 only). This assumes you don't want to change the 5pin din connector on the unit to a DC connector.

If you call Tech support, and they tell you the ±12vdc is needed, make sure you ask them why. You might get someone who thinks it's easier to just say ±12vdc is needed, rather than look up the schematics to determine if/where it's used.

Edit: Actually, I forgot to mention, the very first thing I would do is open the unit up and see if the wires to pins 4 and 5 could be removed easily. If they can, than you don't need to the first cable I mentioned, you could just use the existing cable that comes with the Mean Well supply.


----------



## mourip (Apr 18, 2018)

JayNYC said:


> Hi again Dante experts.  I just ordered an Arrakis Simple IP-8D for my primary playback system.
> + Din 5pin DC input
> - No JetPLL
> - No word clock IO
> They tell me it uses a MeanWell GP25 SMPS.  Can the awesome people of this thread help me understand what specs for an LPS I would need for this?  I'm not familiar with 3 different voltages for a single power supply.



Very interesting. I agree with johnjen that they may have just chosen a good quality generic SMPS that happened to have 3 outputs but only uses +5v. It is also possible that they also use this SMPS for the Simple IP-8A which has analog outputs that probably require a regulated bipolar supply.

I am a bit curious as to why you would choose this over Rednet 3. The only advantage I can see is that it has two ethernet ports like the more expensive D16. Nice that it goes to 24/192 unlike some of the other less expensive AOIP units.

Looking forward to hearing about how it sounds!


----------



## JayNYC (Apr 18, 2018)

@gefski @johnjen @Golfnutz @mourip
So I've just asked Arrakis and will see what they come back with.

It's funny, it was the OP @rb2013 of this thread that surfaced this Arrakis product I think back in 2016 when it was first announced.  It uses the 'better' Brooklyn II Dante card and features a stock DC input.  In theory, since I have no hands-on electrical skills, this seemed like a good and easy way to connect a LPS and 'solve' the power challenge.  Then direct connect this to my DVS PC, etc.

I already own a stock RN3 and stock D16 for my home theater setup: adjacent to my projector, I have an Oppo203 feeding an RN3 which then sends 24/48 across my home LAN to my audio rack on the other side of the room where a D16 receives and feeds my DAC.

I thought I would (a) try a new Dante product and (b) make my life easy since I have no mod skills-- I never considered the Arrakis could use a complex SMPS that might be difficult to substitute an LPS for (I always knew I would be giving up JetPLL and future word clock optionality compared to the D16).

Based on what Arrakis comes back with, that will inform my next action.

Thank you so much to all/each of you here.  Without this thread, I would be in the USB dark ages and my current home theater design would never have been viable.


----------



## JayNYC (Apr 18, 2018)

...and Arrakis just replied

```
"We do not use the +/-12vdc on the IP8D.  We use the standard 3 rail supply across several product lines rather than having a bunch of different supplies."
```

I think I can breathe a huuuuge sigh of relief right now....  if I understand this correctly, it means I now have a green light to go shopping for an LPS, right? <rubs hands together>

@johnjen and @Golfnutz I think you suggested I'm looking for an LPS which outputs 5V @ >=3A?


----------



## Golfnutz (Apr 18, 2018)

JayNYC said:


> ...and Arrakis just replied
> 
> ```
> "We do not use the +/-12vdc on the IP8D.  We use the standard 3 rail supply across several product lines rather than having a bunch of different supplies."
> ...



Yep, 5v, =>2.5A, =>28W (you can see it all on the back of the Mean Well picture you posted above). I don't think it would hurt to go 5v, =>3A, =>30W. You'll need a special cable made that goes from the LPS (2 wire DC connection) to the 5pin din unit using pins 3, 1 or 2 (common).

There are many, many LPS to choose from. As an example, this is the one I'm using (you could use it too). https://www.ebay.com/itm/100VA-Ultr...485038?hash=item1eb3ea236e:g:MzMAAOSwWWxY-A~u
It supposed to be ultra low noise...


----------



## phile1

Hello,
I've seen this thread since a while, but I found the Dante devices a bit pricey and did not go that way. And I admit I didn't understand everything about Dante.

The news from Arrakis, with a Dante device less pricey, with AES3 output seems interesting.
Coudl you please answer these basic questions :
- the Arrakis Simple-IP-D is an interface between a computer and a DAC (with AES input) ?
- the Simple-IP-D acts like a combo sotm-SMS200 + the USB>spdif interface SU-1 (for instance) that use UPNP protocol ? A Simple-IP-D sounds better than a SMS200+SU-1 or not ?
- using Dante device, we can stream all the sounds of the computer to the hifi setup ? without latency (unlike the UPNP protocol) ?
- On my PC, I use EqualizerAPO, that enable active correction through convolution. Can I keep using my active correction if I stream the PC sounds to a device like the Simple-IP-D thru Dante protocol ?

Thanks in advance for your reply
Rgds


----------



## Golfnutz

phile1 said:


> Hello,
> I've seen this thread since a while, but I found the Dante devices a bit pricey and did not go that way. And I admit I didn't understand everything about Dante.
> 
> The news from Arrakis, with a Dante device less pricey, with AES3 output seems interesting.
> ...



Basically, yes to all your questions with the exception of the convolution (I have no experience with it). Maybe someone else might use convolution with Dante that could reply.
My advise is to wait until JayNYC receives his, and see if he posts anything about it (or send him a PM).


----------



## phile1

Thanks a lot Golfnutz


----------



## johnjen (Apr 18, 2018)

JayNYC said:


> ...and Arrakis just replied
> 
> ```
> "We do not use the +/-12vdc on the IP8D.  We use the standard 3 rail supply across several product lines rather than having a bunch of different supplies."
> ...


Yes all you need is a single output ps with +5vdc and at least 2.5amp capacity.

You will need a custom cable made that uses the DIN 5 pin connector (into the IP-8D) and what ever the +5vdc ps uses on it's end.
This cable shouldn't be difficult to make but it isn't a 'standard' cable, so finding one pre-made would be difficult.
You (or someone who) can make such a cable out of the stock SMPS cable, but then that SMPS would be an 'orphan' at that point (meaning not salable nor usable until further modified).

And finding out that the ±12vdc isn't needed meant you just dodged a bullet in terms of $$$ and complexity, all the way around.

JJ


----------



## JayNYC

@phile1  there are many Dante enabled products with AES outputs; this Arrakis unit is not the least expensive, it also lacks SPDIF and I haven't received it yet.  Check out @gefski  who published a review on an Atterotech undAESo model, also, Focusrite has recently discontinued the Rednet3 (according to B&H Photo) and the D16AES (according to Focusrite) so they may become available at substantially discounted prices, and Focusrite may have new Rednet models coming out soon.  If you do SRC on your player (or NAS as your diagram shows), then any Dante product could work; if in the future you insist on playing everything at native resolution and letting your DAC handle SRC if necessary, then Focusrite products are currently the only option because they (semi) support Sample Rate Follow via Rednet Control. Read back in this thread for a wealth of knowledge.  You publish a very nice system diagram and yes, Dante could be quite useful to you.


----------



## JayNYC

johnjen said:


> And finding out that the ±12vdc isn't needed meant you just dodged a bullet in terms of $$$ and complexity, all the way around.



@johnjen Very well said!  Thank you so so so much for your expertise here.


----------



## phile1

Thanks JayNYC 
I go back to page 1 to learn more about it ! 
Rgds


----------



## gefski

Great news all around on the single voltage needed for the Arrakis. Thanks to those who open up boxes & void warrantys.

JayNYC, FYI @atomicbob and I like the Acopian Gold Box PS. They are assembled (in US) for the voltage needed, standardized chassis, run cool (all heat sink & holes). https://www.acopian.com/power-supply-voltages/ They've been making them for years, so I have been able to find units on eBay for sub $100, have a couple here but no 5v. My uDO is 24v. There, of course, are adjustable units from other companies in nice little black boxes.

JayNYC, I appreciate your phrase "semi" sample rate follow.  Please keep this little group up to speed on your adventures. We only get noticed when someone discovers how great the Dante system sounds or when someone who never listened to one "snake oils" us.


----------



## mourip

Is anyone here who is running a Dante system also using a streaming music service such as Tidal or Quboz? 

I am using JRMC with AO to play downloads and CD rips. This has been rock solid and very convenient. I need to be able to play via my music server and have the ability to remote control playback using my iPhone or iPad.

Anyone have experience with this?


----------



## johnjen

Have you tried JRemote?
I use it on my ipad and while it is a bit complicated it does work well.

JJ


----------



## JayNYC

mourip said:


> Is anyone here who is running a Dante system also using a streaming music service such as Tidal or Quboz?
> 
> I am using JRMC with AO to play downloads and CD rips. This has been rock solid and very convenient. I need to be able to play via my music server and have the ability to remote control playback using my iPhone or iPad.
> 
> Anyone have experience with this?



@mourip  set DVS for WDM instead of ASIO,  go into Tidal settings and set the output for Exclusive & Force Volume.  that’ll effectively be Wasapi.  Use remote desktop to control Tidal as a first step.


----------



## mourip

johnjen said:


> Have you tried JRemote?
> I use it on my ipad and while it is a bit complicated it does work well.
> 
> JJ


I use JRemote now with JRMC and love it. I was looking for a way to use a streaming service to play music from my server via DVS.

Thanks.


----------



## mourip

JayNYC said:


> @mourip  set DVS for WDM instead of ASIO,  go into Tidal settings and set the output for Exclusive & Force Volume.  that’ll effectively be Wasapi.  Use remote desktop to control Tidal as a first step.



Thanks. I will give it a shot. Too bad that JRMC does not support plugins for major streaming services...

I did have Pandora working for a while using Virtual Cable but it broke and I never could get it working properly again.


----------



## music_man

I know long ago I had been a jerk here and I am apologizing for that. I just wanted to know if this is relevant when using a DAC, Server etc. that operates over Ethernet and/or I2S? My understanding was all this is simply to overcome the limitations of USB? Furthermore I have found other than Rednet the USB/Ethernet extenders have problems with latest Win10. Why PSA seized production of LanRover. I think it should not matter in my case though as I am using Ethernet right into the DAC? Or should I do this anyways for best sound reproduction? I am not being wise I am asking a serious question. To me at least.


----------



## johnjen

Not entirely just to overcome USB but because USB wasn't top notch, until folks got serious.
But SPDIF and AES have been around a long time as have various flavors of ethernet, among them the several PSA implementations.

But thus far AOIP is still top -o- the heap, especially if tweaked (get rid of them nasty SMPS's) etc.

USB has come a long ways and it was only when the Wyrd came out that USB approached and surpassed the PSA ethernet approach with the PWD, at least in my system.
And USB is even better now with Gen-5 in either flavor, and is good enough to act as a secondary digital audio path, but still when a tweaked AOIP system settles in, well the USB feed simply doesn't get used all that much after that.

JJ


----------



## music_man

Thanks. I am surprised wyrd was better with PSA on USB than their Ethernet. I must go kick myself because 3 weeks ago I was offered a Wyrd for $25 and passed it up! I would be happy with just that. I have the two IFI boxes and the Wyred PSU on them.
There is plenty of Rednet gear around here. I will just borrow one from myself and try it. I just did not know if you are going into the DAC with Ethernet or USB? If you have Ethernet option, better to use that? PWD has been out since like 2013 so I assume it is old USB implementation. Weird thing is PSA said it needs +5V and I discovered it did not. Lifted on the IFI.  Although right now I am using DAVE anyways.


----------



## johnjen

It took a bit of fussing to get the Wyrd to equal the PSA ethernet feed.
And that feed was very limited by the JRivers player and its inability to use DSP.
There are many 'tricks' that can be applied in DSP which all add together for a distinct advantage in being able to apply DSP in the chain.
So once the data feed was equal in SQ then the rest of the DSP tweaks were dialed in.

I'm feeding my dac with aes from my RN-3 thru 2) Mutec 3's, with all of the SMPS's removed and several other tweaks added as well.
And right now I'm back using the PWD with that same feed and it is 'better' than the Eitr which is a spdif feed to the dac, which is also a major step up from the dual Wyrd setup that I was using prior to my current AOIP feed.
And I agree that the 'stock' USB input on my PWD is WAY behind, which is why I was using the ethernet feed to begin with.

But these implementations of AOIP are simply 'better' than anything else I have heard.
But there are potentially other digital audio transfer protocols that could surpass this, but we're talking a long way off.

JJ


----------



## music_man

I am working on it. It is going to take me a bit. I will not be surprised if it sounds better than anything ahead of the USB input. I am familiar with it in the studio as it is used often. Once again something good has been borrowed from the pro side. Luckily for others I think there is a fairly inexpensive Rednet setup. I was never happy with USB on anything. Same reason I used Ethernet as you. I never tried Audio over IP but am about too. Should hopefully be running by like 4am lol. I guess one good thing about being retired.


----------



## shyamwanne

I am trying to figure out how to use AOIP on a linux system.   I know Dante does not support linux.   Has anyone figured out a way?


----------



## mhamel (May 30, 2018)

Dante Avio adapters are out

https://audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio

Looks like around $129 for the AES3 adapter.


----------



## peteAllen

mhamel said:


> Dante Avio adapters are out
> 
> https://audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio
> 
> Looks like around $129 for the AES3 adapter.



The correct link is https://www.audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio#aes3

Looks like a cheap way of using Dante with my bedroom hifi dac which has an aes input


----------



## mhamel

peteAllen said:


> The correct link is https://www.audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio#aes3
> 
> Looks like a cheap way of using Dante with my bedroom hifi dac which has an aes input



That's the same page, just linked to the AES3 adapter directly instead of the overall page... I sent the main page in case anyone wanted to see the other adapters or wasn't familiar with the AVIO product.

It will be interesting to see how these compare with the larger interface boxes.


----------



## JayNYC

The AVIO devices (other than the USB product, which is limited to 48khz only btw) require POE--  so that means using a POE injector or other POE power source.  I'll defer to others here who might be in a position to comment on the quality of POE injector power, which I think, 802.3af means 48V.


----------



## Maxx134

johnjen said:


> USB has come a long ways and it was only when the Wyrd came out that USB approached and surpassed the PSA ethernet approach with the PWD, at least in my system.
> And USB is even better now with Gen-5 in either flavor, and is good enough to act as a secondary digital audio path, but still when a tweaked AOIP system settles in, well the USB feed simply doesn't get used all that much after that.


Gen-5 is actually very good, 
but still did not supass the Spdiff input using a _DXIO Pro3Z, _when I owned a yggy.
So USB still not as good as other input methods in my experience.


----------



## gefski

Since we're heading to the lake for a few weeks, I'm 24/7 USB Gen 5 for this last week with Yggy-B. Must say it sounds very good, better than my previous outboard USB solutions "most of the time". However, I bump into periods of time or days when it seems too bloomy & less alive.

On the other hand, once Yggy-B was ripened, file delivery via Dante/uDO/Ethernet seemed to be UNCHANGING; vitality and touch, every album a new thrill every time, any hour. Not unlike my experience with Yggy-A since 2016.

This is just an off the cuff comment in my system, not a controlled comparison at all, so disregard if it seems unlikely.


----------



## Waqar

peteAllen said:


> The correct link is https://www.audinate.com/products/devices/dante-avio#aes3
> 
> Looks like a cheap way of using Dante with my bedroom hifi dac which has an aes input



Ok i have been reading this thread alot, so as i understand this is a digital input for a Aes3 compatible dac? So i can use it as a digital out from the pc and int to the dac, but i need a poe device that can provide it power? Because the pc ethernet port does not do that right? or the consumer router etc. 
So what kind of poe insert device do you guys recomend for this one? 

It looks like a cheaper alternative to the rednet devices just for sending the digital signal to a dac, but maybe there is a quaity difference on the sound. But this is so heap compared to the other stuff that i am gona try it. But need some advice on how to power it etc.


----------



## Waqar

And i am also looking at the MUTEC MC-3+without usb, but is the only difference here that the Usb version has the Usb input and the rest of the dvices are similiar? And is it possible to send the AES3 signal into the Mutec and put out as a Toslink or Coaxial signal and not the same signal as in AES3 in And Aes3 out.?


----------



## Waqar (Jul 31, 2018)

Would this one work: https://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-43_TL-POE150S.html for providing power to start with for setting up the device and then buy another better one later on
Or can i use the Ethernet Cable from the pc into a Netgear GS108PE poe network switch?


----------



## mourip

Waqar said:


> And i am also looking at the MUTEC MC-3+without usb, but is the only difference here that the Usb version has the Usb input and the rest of the dvices are similiar? And is it possible to send the AES3 signal into the Mutec and put out as a Toslink or Coaxial signal and not the same signal as in AES3 in And Aes3 out.?



My understanding is that the M3USB has other changes that increase the sound quality over the MC-3+. The difference is not just a USB input card.


----------



## Waqar

mourip said:


> My understanding is that the M3USB has other changes that increase the sound quality over the MC-3+. The difference is not just a USB input card.



Yes i see that now, the usb version is a more updatet version and has a new and improved Sq. So i think i can go for the Usb version its better overall even if it is a little more.


----------



## johnjen

Waqar said:


> And i am also looking at the MUTEC MC-3+without usb, but is the only difference here that the Usb version has the Usb input and the rest of the dvices are similiar? And is it possible to send the AES3 signal into the Mutec and put out as a Toslink or Coaxial signal and not the same signal as in AES3 in And Aes3 out.?


I have one of each (3+ and 3+usb) and the usb version has additional functionality and reportedly 'better' word clock accuracy.
And if I understand your question correctly it will receive any form of input but that is the signal that is sent out the outputs (aes, spdif).

JJ


----------



## mourip

Waqar said:


> Would this one work: https://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-43_TL-POE150S.html for providing power to start with for setting up the device and then buy another better one later on
> Or can i use the Ethernet Cable from the pc into a Netgear GS108PE poe network switch?



Either should provide the 48v to power a connected device which requires POE.


----------



## Waqar

mourip said:


> Either should provide the 48v to power a connected device which requires POE.


Nice but what is optimal for the device to get the best input of power? Maybe get the injector an use a linear power supply? Maybe the switch puts in more emi or other things that may polute the power over Ethernet, i am asking this because i am taking this dante route like many other has in this thread, to get pass the nasty stuff that a usb connection provides. So i just want the cleanest possible signal into my dac etc.


----------



## mourip (Jul 31, 2018)

I have moved to LPS power supplies whenever possible. For 48v you might need to have one custom made. Consider however that you are considering a low end Dante device and so the expense/different might not be justified or heard...


----------



## Waqar

mourip said:


> I have moved to LPS power supplies whenever possible. For 48v you might need to have one custom made.


Yeah thats true, i forgot about the 48 v. But i am wondering if this aes dante adapter is gonna be better then the direct usb connection, and how it compares to a rednet when it comes to the digital signal out to mt dac.


----------



## mourip

Waqar said:


> Yeah thats true, i forgot about the 48 v. But i am wondering if this aes dante adapter is gonna be better then the direct usb connection, and how it compares to a rednet when it comes to the digital signal out to mt dac.



It might not be better than USB via the Mutec. I am using a D16 with AES out to a Mutec USB and AES out to my DAC and find it to be great.


----------



## Waqar

mourip said:


> It might not be better than USB via the Mutec. I am using a D16 with AES out to a Mutec USB and AES out to my DAC and find it to be great.


 Yeah i saw that in youre earlier posts, that is what inspired me to get a mutec but maybe i just should start with a mutec first over Usb. And then go for a rednet with aes out. I have a rednet am2 coming in tomorrow, i am gonna just feed my preamp from the xlr out on that unit. Just to see if i am satisfied. But i want a digital signal out so i can use a mutec and then feed my dac. Hmm. I am not sure about this little unit because it gets the power from its ethernet line in. Maybe that power is gonna polute to much. Its bugging me, i think the digital signal it gets is better then over usb, but not the power. But then again it is designed to be operated poe. So maybe its just gonna be be better then the usb solution with my uptone usb regen. Hmm.


----------



## Waqar

The ting is i am getting some very revealing speakers, so i just dont want to degrade the signal inn. Just as little as possible, maybe i am better off with the rednet am2 xlr into my preamp, and maybe later go for a rednet d16r?


----------



## Waqar (Jul 31, 2018)

But what rednet unit is the most recomended for getting digital out to my dac? Is the D16r then one to get, its a newer one. And does it not have the brooklyn chipset the newest one? But how is it compared to rednet 3? Chipset etc. Rednet 3 is cheaper so is it worth going for the d16r?


----------



## Waqar

And what about this one? Is it possible to use this as a digital out for my Dac? 
I'm talking about the Focusrite Red 4Pre.


----------



## mourip

Waqar said:


> But what rednet unit is the most recomended for getting digital out to my dac? Is the D16r then one to get, its a newer one. And does it not have the brooklyn chipset the newest one? But how is it compared to rednet 3? Chipset etc. Rednet 3 is cheaper so is it worth going for the d16r?


The guts in the d16/d16r and the rn3 are essentially the same and all use the Brooklin board. The outputs are different between the 16 and the 3. 

Check out the Focusrite web site for lots of specs.


----------



## mhamel

The Rednet 3 uses the original Brooklyn module while the D16 uses the Brooklyn II.  I'm not sure if that has changed for the 3 more recently but that was the case the last time I checked. I had also seen at one point a SKU for a Brooklyn II upgrade for the Rednet 3, but wasn't able to find much more about it. It's possible that one could find a Brooklyn II card cheap on eBay and upgrade the 3, but I don't know if any other steps are involved.

That said, I may have a Rednet 3 with an external iFi PSU for sale in the next week or so.... I'm going to a D16 mainly because I needed something that would fit in 1U space.


----------



## mourip

For those few of us who still are enjoying Rednet/Dante. Audinate has a new chip that seems to be in between their two existing Dante chips and does 24/192. It is called the "Broadway". Not sure if there are any implementations yet.


----------



## ferenc

For a studio project we just got few new Wireworld DB25-XLR cables, 3 different kinds, one new EVO Snake which is a standard one and 2 different silver and copper as a customized. Hope to try it soon with a Rednet and a Merging Hapi too. We will see how it works.


----------



## mourip

Looking forward to hearing a comparison. I did not know that WW made Pro Audio cables also. 

What cable are you using in that position now?


----------



## ferenc

mourip said:


> Looking forward to hearing a comparison. I did not know that WW made Pro Audio cables also.
> 
> What cable are you using in that position now?



http://www.wireworldproaudio.com/wireworld.html

Actually these cables will be built in a studio partly to be used with Rednet interfaces and with Merging Hapi too as audio in, out and AES I/O as well. I am using Micro Platinum Eclipse XLR cables with my active monitors and I really like them, very lively, open and smooth at the same time, really good. I expect the same from their DB25 cables. 

The DB25 cables we got are:

- OCC Silver, from Micro Platinum Eclipse wire (custom made)
- OCC copper, from Micro Eclipse wire (custom made)
- and few from the newest OFC EVO-SNAKE, standard

Got some custom made Platinum Electra silver power cables as well for this project. They are nothing short of amazing.  Do not try them.!


----------



## mourip

Are you also using RedNet in your home system?


----------



## ferenc

Not at the moment, Merging only.


----------



## mourip (Aug 31, 2018)

Is anyone here using Qobuz and found a good way to accomplish playback through their DVS output?

It is coming to the US soon and I was just wondering. Playback through my system now uses JRMC. 

This works wonderfully but I am looking forward to trying out Qobuz to widen my musical horizon a bit...


----------



## gefski (Sep 2, 2018)

mourip said:


> Is anyone here using Qobuz and found a good way to accomplish playback through their DVS output?
> 
> It is coming to the US soon and I was just wondering. Playback through my system now uses JRMC.
> 
> This works wonderfully but I am looking forward to trying out Qobuz to widen my musical horizon a bit...



Can't help you there, but I've also shelved Qobuz in the back of my mind in case Tidal (which I like) takes a dive. My Audirvana+ does Tidal and Qobuz.


----------



## alubis

I'm using Qobuz desktop app on Windows 10. You just need to select the sound output to DVS in the Qobuz desktop app, then it will work properly. 



mourip said:


> Is anyone here using Qobuz and found a good way to accomplish playback through their DVS output?
> 
> It is coming to the US soon and I was just wondering. Playback through my system now uses JRMC.
> 
> This works wonderfully but I am looking forward to trying out Qobuz to widen my musical horizon a bit...


----------



## mourip

Perfect. That is encouraging.

Given that simple configuration is there an app which is the equivalent of JRemote for controlling it?


----------



## alubis

Unfortunately not for Qobuz desktop app, but you can use TeamViewer or similar apps to remotely access the pc screen although much less convinient compare to proper remote. 



mourip said:


> Perfect. That is encouraging.
> 
> Given that simple configuration is there an app which is the equivalent of JRemote for controlling it?


----------



## mourip

Thanks. I am using plain old RDP for now. An IOS app would be great however.

SQ is very good via DVS. I even have sample rate following working.

Looking forward to their US launch.


----------



## mourip

alubis said:


> I'm using Qobuz desktop app on Windows 10. You just need to select the sound output to DVS in the Qobuz desktop app, then it will work properly.



So I now have QB working on my Win2012 server running DVS to my D16/Mutec USB/Yggy. It sounds excellent and the album choices are staggering, especially for classical music. I have found one issue however.

I usually run JRMC for playback of my own files. QB and JRMC do not seem to like to be running at the same time. This issue comes up when I try to switch between them. It seems that once one of the programs plays music then it "locks" DVS and will not give it up until that app is closed. DVS seems to be monogamous, not liking to share resources.

I realize that Rednet users are a small group and that of those the ones also using Qobuz make for an even smaller sampling but I am hopeful someone else has experimented with this. I would like to find one setup that supports both ways of playback and allows seamless rate switching.


----------



## johnjen

Have you got JRMC running with exclusive access turned on?
Just a possible factor that might be mess'n with the mix…

JJ


----------



## mourip (Sep 6, 2018)

johnjen said:


> Have you got JRMC running with exclusive access turned on?
> Just a possible factor that might be mess'n with the mix…
> 
> JJ



Thanks.Seems like a good possibility. Remind me where to find that. I did not see it in the JRMC audio settings. I am using ASIO which may use it automatically?


----------



## johnjen

under options > audio > audio device > device settings > Open Device with Exclusive Access

JJ


----------



## alubis

I'm experiencing the same problem with you except I am using foobar. As others suggest, you could try using wasapi rather than asio. In my case, I can't get wasapi to work properly in foobar. 



mourip said:


> So I now have QB working on my Win2012 server running DVS to my D16/Mutec USB/Yggy. It sounds excellent and the album choices are staggering, especially for classical music. I have found one issue however.
> 
> I usually run JRMC for playback of my own files. QB and JRMC do not seem to like to be running at the same time. This issue comes up when I try to switch between them. It seems that once one of the programs plays music then it "locks" DVS and will not give it up until that app is closed. DVS seems to be monogamous, not liking to share resources.
> 
> I realize that Rednet users are a small group and that of those the ones also using Qobuz make for an even smaller sampling but I am hopeful someone else has experimented with this. I would like to find one setup that supports both ways of playback and allows seamless rate switching.


----------



## mourip

My RedNet ASIO settings do not have that option of "Open Device with Exclusive Access" and I also do not have the option of WASAPI. Perhaps it has to do with running Win2012 with Audiophile Optimizer? One of these might turn off Windows Sound. My headphone system uses Win10 via USB and has a WASAPI output option. It has the same conflict between JMRC and Qobuz and I am not using RedNet on that system. I will try WASAPI without "Exclusive Mode on that system and see what happens.

I understand that Roon might be offering Qobuz integration so that might be a good final answer. I am really liking Qobuz and so hope this can work out. Seamlessly integrating my own files with QB would be great.


----------



## mourip

So another question for those elite folks who have stayed with Dante 

Are any of you using Roon to play via DVS? If so how is the sound quality compared to JMRC if you have used that as a player also...?


----------



## mourip

I experimented a bit more today. I upgraded DVS to version 4 and got a Windows Audio option WDM. Sounds great but would only do 24/44 or 32/44. Nothing higher. It did sound good. It took 24/192 and down sampled it to 24/44. So my search continues.

I think that my eventual plan will be to use Qobuz which according to the latest PR releases will come with Roon integration at launch. I guess the question is if Roon will work with DVS. I really like Qobuz and with Roon I can drop JRMC and still be able to play my local files.


----------



## alubis

mourip said:


> I experimented a bit more today. I upgraded DVS to version 4 and got a Windows Audio option WDM. Sounds great but would only do 24/44 or 32/44. Nothing higher. It did sound good. It took 24/192 and down sampled it to 24/44. So my search continues.



Hmm. I actually got the same problem as you. I thought that limitation is because of foobar. Personally I prefer the sound using wdm compare to asio.


----------



## mourip

I got Roon working with DVS. I think that is more of my learning my way around Roon than a technical issue. I am running Roon Server on Windows Server 2012R2 with the Windows Essentials Media pack installed and my music stored locally on an SSD. I am using the most current versions of RedNet Control and DVS and have sample rate following enabled. DVS using ASIO sends audio to my Rednet D16 which supports 24/192. The path shows as lossless and ASIO is exclusive by default.

The “fix” was that I decided to add Roon Bridge to my headphone rig which has it’s own PC audio server but uses a USB output. In the process I found the audio settings on my iPad and realized that "Dante Virtual Soundcard(x64) was indeed showing up there. Once chosen, and a couple of choices made, it just worked. I can also now play to my headphone rig using the files on my other server so I may disconnect the SSD on the HP system once I compare audio streamed vs local. Sound quality is equal to JRMC or slightly better.

Now if Qobuz will release their US version which they said will be capable of Roon integration then I will be set!


----------



## Golfnutz

If you've lost your D16 from Rednet Controller, try unplugging your LAN cable from the D16. Use a single cable, and plug one end into the Primary and other end into the Secondary ports of the D16. Once the lights begin flashing, unplug both ends and put you original LAN cable back into the Primary port. This should bring the connection back. I think Miska might be right. When you exit Rednet Control, it appears the network drops the connection and cannot reestablish it again because there is no router/switch. By plugging both ends of a LAN cable into the Primary and Secondary ports it wakes the D16 up. For me, the primary reason for the direct connection is to avoid any noise the router may introduce into the system. To be honest, I don't look at Rednet Control after the system is up.

After reading Mourip's comments on the other site, I went into Rednet Control and everything was fine (running non stop for about 2 months). After I exited Rednet Control, I went back into Rednet Conrol and the D16 was dropped. So I did the LAN cable trick, and it came back. I tried exiting Rednet Control several times afterwards, and the D16 was still there.


----------



## mourip

Golfnutz said:


> If you've lost your D16 from Rednet Controller, try unplugging your LAN cable from the D16. Use a single cable, and plug one end into the Primary and other end into the Secondary ports of the D16. Once the lights begin flashing, unplug both ends and put you original LAN cable back into the Primary port. This should bring the connection back. I think Miska might be right. When you exit Rednet Control, it appears the network drops the connection and cannot reestablish it again because there is no router/switch. By plugging both ends of a LAN cable into the Primary and Secondary ports it wakes the D16 up. For me, the primary reason for the direct connection is to avoid any noise the router may introduce into the system. To be honest, I don't look at Rednet Control after the system is up.
> 
> After reading Mourip's comments on the other site, I went into Rednet Control and everything was fine (running non stop for about 2 months). After I exited Rednet Control, I went back into Rednet Control and the D16 was dropped. So I did the LAN cable trick, and it came back. I tried exiting Rednet Control several times afterwards, and the D16 was still there.



Thanks for the suggestion.

I have tried many things in my troubleshooting. Actually I usually keep Rednet Control up and leave it up, partially so I can see when it drops both my D16 and the Dante server entries. If I leave it up eventually it drops both. If I close it while both are still showing and then reopen it then they are usually both still there. I have found no repeatable pattern yet. I do know that rebooting my server will reestablish the connections showing in RC. I did not have this issue with the first couple of versions of RC. It came with an update and has never been resolved.

I briefly thought that stopping and restarting DVS would reestablish the link but further testing found that not to be true. Probably power cycling my D16 would work but both doing that and using your method are pretty inconvenient as they involve diving into the back of my somewhat inaccessible cabinet. It just seems to me that there is an inherent software bug with DVS and RC.

Regarding Miska's idea. I have spent a lot of energy removing SMPS's and isolating all of my audio devices to avoid ground currents. Currently my only connection to the "dirty" side is my ground isolating fiber media converter connection to my router. I might try his idea just to see if it solves the dropping issue but currently my system has such a black background with great low level detail that I am hesitant to sacrifice that to solve this irritating but intermittent issue.

BTW. My current setup is a server with two NICs. One goes through fiber to my LAN switch. The other goes to my D16 on port 1 and uses the self assigned address range that the D16 can use.

I think that it is time for me to contact Focusrite again about this and also now try Audinate.


----------



## peteAllen (Sep 28, 2018)

Occasionally my dante network seems to be undetectable. I fix it by closing the dante controller and rednet app, then using a .bat file to stop and start all the dante related services in the correct order:

net stop conmon
net stop DanteDiscovery
net stop dvs.manager
net start conmon
net start DanteDiscovery
net start dvs.manager

Obviously this shouldnt be necessary but maybe it helps someone


----------



## mourip

Thanks. I will give it a try. Looks like a good work-around.


----------



## Golfnutz

peteAllen said:


> Occasionally my dante network seems to be undetectable. I fix it by closing the dante controller and rednet app, then using a .bat file to stop and start all the dante related services in the correct order:
> 
> net stop conmon
> net stop DanteDiscovery
> ...



Thanks Pete, it's nice we can share these types of things.


----------



## mourip (Oct 3, 2018)

The batch file works well if Rednet Control is exited first. When RC is launched again the D16 is recognized however it will not play music until a *new* button is clicked which says "*Conform*". Once clicked, that button disappears and sample rate following starts again and music plays. I am currently seeing a pattern where all is well for about two days and then the D16 drops out of RC again.


----------



## mourip

I am continuing to work with Focusrite on the Rednet Control dropout issue. They suggested that I uninstall Rednet Control and run Wireshark, a network protocol analyzer, to monitor one of the ports for issues. In the process I have learned a few things. 

First, you do not need to run Rednet Control or even have it installed once you have your Dante system configured. It is mainly for monitoring and making changes for Pro Audio. If you leave Dante Controller installed you can still tell if there are issues. I also found that my version of Dante Controller was a bit old. I guess that I had not been keeping that part updated. So far my system has not lost contact with my D16. I am close to the 2 day mark at which point things usually drop so I will see how it goes. I left both of my ethernet connections connected to a Cisco SG200 which is powered by an LPS and has its LAN connection provided over fiber optic to ensure ground isolation.

The really good news is that I am using Roon now and it sounds much better than JRMC plus rate following is working perfectly. I am playing each track at its native rate and my SQ has never been better.


----------



## bexi (Oct 13, 2018)

I have somewhat similar results. Without RedNet Control 2 installed, Dante Controller do not drop connection as ofter or it comes back up after few minutes. So there is still some bugs left.. Now it has been working fine for 2 days but sometimes it takes a bit longer time. I have send a few Wireshark captures with logs too.

I don't see how Roon would follow sample rate without RedNet Control. Dante Controller alone do not change it or does it?


----------



## bexi

Now I am routing through HP 1810-8G v2 switch with single ethernet cable. When I previously used direct cable just for D16 AES I did not have any problem with heavy traffic on 'Internet' port. Now when I utilize that single port with traffic (10MB/s) I get some lost packets. That 10% port usage should not be a problem but it seems so. I guess this is fine with dedicated computer with low traffic and using switch. 

I set "Interrupt Moderation" and "Flow Control " to Disabled from network card settings and it got much better, but still some packets are late. Sound quality is the same even with a few late packets but of course too many leads to skips in sound.

EEE settings could be affecting with Dante Controller connections. That setting was Enabled even though it should not matter when it was set to Disabled in switch.


----------



## mourip

bexi said:


> I have somewhat similar results. Without RedNet Control 2 installed, Dante Controller do not drop connection as ofter or it comes back up after few minutes. So there is still some bugs left.. Now it has been working fine for 2 days but sometimes it takes a bit longer time. I have send a few Wireshark captures with logs too.
> 
> I don't see how Roon would follow sample rate without RedNet Control. Dante Controller alone do not change it or does it?



I have rate following set to follow my Win2016 server so that means that it will follow whatever the rate the application is sending via DVS.

Sound like they already have the information that you sent from Wireshark. Do you have the most current versions of DVS and Dante Controller? Dante Controller is up to 4.1.0.5 for Windows.


----------



## bexi

mourip said:


> I have rate following set to follow my Win2016 server so that means that it will follow whatever the rate the application is sending via DVS.
> 
> Sound like they already have the information that you sent from Wireshark. Do you have the most current versions of DVS and Dante Controller? Dante Controller is up to 4.1.0.5 for Windows.


Do you use WDM driver with DVS then? Jriver with ASIO driver won't change sample rate without RC2..
I have DVS 4.0.4.4 and DC 4.1.0.5.


----------



## mourip

I use the DVS ASIO driver. I recently stopped using JRiver and am now using Roon. When I used JRiver I did find sample rate following to be very flaky but it is unfailing with Roon. Before using Roon I had given up on SRF and just set everything to 192K in JRiver.

In RC I set the Global Sample Rate Follow to be my DVS computer, not my D16. I am using those same versions of DVS and DC.


----------



## mourip

Color me bummed...

My system went off -line this afternoon and I had to reboot it. It sure sounds great for the two days before it goes off line. I guess that I will start up Wireshark for the Focusrite folks. The good news is that it does seem to work without RC installed...


----------



## mourip

peteAllen said:


> Occasionally my dante network seems to be undetectable. I fix it by closing the dante controller and rednet app, then using a .bat file to stop and start all the dante related services in the correct order:
> 
> net stop conmon
> net stop DanteDiscovery
> ...



Thanks a lot for this. It does speed up reestablishing the connections. I am still working on this with Focusrite.

A question for you or anyone else with this problem. Do you use Audiophile Optimizer and what operating system are you using?


----------



## bexi (Oct 16, 2018)

mourip said:


> A question for you or anyone else with this problem. Do you use Audiophile Optimizer and what operating system are you using?


No special optimizer software. Windows 10.
About that sample rate changing thing. Jriver does change sample rate in Dante Controller without RC2, but it does not change it in D16 AES.. it is just strange that it works for you.

I moved back to direct connection. Switch based connection did not gave any positive change. There were more timeout errors and late packets with heavy traffic.


----------



## mourip (Oct 16, 2018)

bexi said:


> No special optimizer software. Windows 10.
> About that sample rate changing thing. Jriver does change sample rate in Dante Controller without RC2, but it does not change it in D16 AES.. it is just strange that it works for you.
> 
> I moved back to direct connection. Switch based connection did not gave any positive change. There were more timeout errors and late packets with heavy traffic.



Thanks for the input. I know that my Yggy DAC is changing for differing rates because I can hear the clicking as it switches. It only does that to accommodate a rate change.

Do you have SRC checked ?






I have tried different cabling combinations between the PC, D16 and switch. I have also tried every idea suggested by others and all of the settings that Focusrite recommends for a managed switch. The devices still drop out of RC predictably about every two days. There must be a clue in there somewhere. It is odd that the problem followed me when I switched from an old install of Server 2012 to 2016. I did get a nice increase in sound quality however, especially when I went to Roon. If the sound quality was not so great I would probably move on to another method...


----------



## DrummerLeo

Hi I'm new to the AoIP, Dante. I personally own a b2 boomer, I'm wondering if I use a usb to dante adapter will that help to improve the sound quality compare with usb interface aes output? In another word, will this usb-dante adapter-dac setup maintain AoIP's benefits?


----------



## johnjen

I'm not sure what a usb to dante adapter is, but for me the whole point of AOIP is to avoid USB altogether.

JJ


----------



## DrummerLeo

johnjen said:


> I'm not sure what a usb to dante adapter is, but for me the whole point of AOIP is to avoid USB altogether.
> 
> JJ


Yes, that’s what main point I was concerning... my PC has only one Ethernet connector, and I used it for internet. I saw there are plenty of usb to Dante interface/adapters on the market so I’m start to thinkabout that.


----------



## johnjen

If you have a switch or router connected to your computer then the dante AOIP can be connected to that and run 'side by side' to the rest of your network.

JJ


----------



## rafabro

DrummerLeo said:


> Yes, that’s what main point I was concerning... my PC has only one Ethernet connector, and I used it for internet. I saw there are plenty of usb to Dante interface/adapters on the market so I’m start to thinkabout that.


Put another LAN pcie card to the PC and use it only for Dante. I have done this way. Avoid any network switches/routers - it degrade SQ significantly.


----------



## mourip

DrummerLeo said:


> Yes, that’s what main point I was concerning... my PC has only one Ethernet connector, and I used it for internet. I saw there are plenty of usb to Dante interface/adapters on the market so I’m start to thinkabout that.



As suggested, you could simply add another PCIe ethernet card. You could also buy a USB to ethernet adapter and dedicate that for your LAN Internet connection. I agree that it is best if you can avoid going through a switch for the Dante connection if possible.

Regarding "*usb to Dante interface/adapters*": Be careful as most of those only support 24/96. They are much cheaper though if that rate meets your needs.


----------



## gefski

I haven't been fiddling much with Ethernet cables since going with Dante file delivery in 2016. Have been happy with BJC's Cat6a -- apparently well built (read their detailed explanation), robust, and so transparent that Yggy's incredible detail retrieval is really happening. 

However, I wanted to try a solid core wire, so I've been running this one for a few days, solid cat 7 patch cord 23 AWG shielded. It is slightly different sonically, a bit more relaxed and graceful, yet even more "presence" of voice or instrument in the (perceived) place the performance is in. It's stiffer, so careful bending is called for. Really happy with it, but don't plan to continue extreme upscaling with Ethernet cable (arriving at cable exceeding the cost of Yggy hahaha)!

$36 for one 7 footer delivered, a week plus to Seattle, (I'm spoiled by next day BJC deliveries). 

https://americanteledatastore.com/product-category/patch-cables-cat-5e-6-6a-7-8/cat-7-indoor/


----------



## Dawnrazor

Just jumped in with the Focusrite Rednet AM2.  Using a surface tablet with Dante Virtual Soundcard with files on an attached USB drive.  Player software is Hysolid with Iphone running the control ap.  AM2 is powered over PoE (included PSU didnt make any difference that I could tell).  Feeding the balanced outs to a pair of Behringer P1s.  They run the M1060s balanced (2 in mono only running one channel) and are battery powered.  

Amazing improvement.  The Hysolid is clean, the AM2 is clean and the Behringers are clean and all together its sooo clean and revealing but never harsh.  The timing is amazing.  There is so much space between notes and images and it can be so warm if the recording has it.  Vocals are so much more resolved.  

Anyhow for $399 for a balanced networked dac and single ended headphone amp with volume control for each its a steal.  

My old system was a severely detuned PC with low voltage underclocking, only 2 windows services running, no networking, etc with analog outs provided by a Lynx 2b.  

A few posts mention that the AM2 is limited to 96kh.  My old system did realtime upsampling to 192k and at least for me with no hires content outside a couple albums I could live with 44.1 since the sound has been transformed.

Its hard to describe but I think this is an example of the whole being better than the sum of the parts.  

Any tips on things that can improve the sound.  Like cabling and OS settings?  I did most if not all the Focusrite recommended settings.  I gutted the Surface and turned off as much as I could like the cameras, sd card, audio, etc.  All dante and Hysolid services are running at realtime etc, and the music is played with out the user being logged on.  Though really those settings dont seem to have a major effect.  Anything to try would be helpful.

Thanks


----------



## mourip

The only thing that I can think of is to find a POE injector that will allow you to use an LPS to power the AM2...


----------



## JayNYC

mourip said:


> The only thing that I can think of is to find a POE injector that will allow you to use an LPS to power the AM2...



the AM2 has a DC barrel input so it's possible to use a LPS.  If it will have any worthwhile impact is the question.


----------



## mourip

I cannot answer that for your situation but it has always been that way for me. 

I just replaced the HDPlex LPS that runs my audio PC with their newer version and I was amazed at the benefit.


----------



## johnjen

In my setup using dante, the elimination of any and all SMPS's was noticeable and cumulative.
And depending upon your budget, shorter ethernet cables and even using an optical link/break between the computer and the rednet device can help as well.

And the phrase 'the whole is greater then the sum of the parts' is a good analogy, but really just getting away from USB seems as important.

And for most folks 88.2/96KB sample rate is about optimal, if hi-res is your thing.
For me I run everything at 44.1, because the Schiit JggtB dac is 'tailored' to optimize that SR.

But since you've got a dante solution for $400, embellishing it with additional 'expensive' gear, (Mutec 3's, outboard clocks etc.) seems silly because they all are well over twice the cost of your entire implementation, and even the couple of tweaks mentioned may only make marginal improvements, depending upon the resolution of the rest of your system.

We have come to use the term *REALNESS* to describe the resultant SQ changes we hear from our dante systems.
And at least for me there is no going back.

JJ


----------



## gefski

johnjen said:


> In my setup using dante, the elimination of any and all SMPS's was noticeable and cumulative.
> And depending upon your budget, shorter ethernet cables and even using an optical link/break between the computer and the rednet device can help as well.
> 
> And the phrase 'the whole is greater then the sum of the parts' is a good analogy, but really just getting away from USB seems as important.
> ...



Yes, for me also. Dante's REALNESS and NOTHINGNESS (even LESS than what we call a "black background") are completely unsurpassed by any other file delivery I have heard or tried at home.

Living with YggyA since 2015, then YggyB in 2018, (giving me a couple week use of Gen5 USB), I thought "wow, it's really getting close to Dante".

Nope, it's not.


----------



## Dawnrazor

mourip said:


> The only thing that I can think of is to find a POE injector that will allow you to use an LPS to power the AM2...


Great idea man.  Thanks I will look into that.  Right now I am just relistening to my collection and really enjoying!


----------



## bfin3

I just got an atterotech and am trying to figure out the power supply. I understand it needs to be 24v but I'm not sure if the amps matter. There are some really nice regulated supplies on ebay for cheap from acopian https://www.acopian.com/store/9-(7).aspx?min=18&max=25 would theA24H1500 work? They're available used for less than 100 but honestly I don't know much about power supplies and would prefer not to cook the undaes


----------



## gefski

bfin3 said:


> I just got an atterotech and am trying to figure out the power supply. I understand it needs to be 24v but I'm not sure if the amps matter. There are some really nice regulated supplies on ebay for cheap from acopian https://www.acopian.com/store/9-(7).aspx?min=18&max=25 would theA24H1500 work? They're available used for less than 100 but honestly I don't know much about power supplies and would prefer not to cook the undaes



I've been using the Acopian Gold Box B24G210 with my uDO since late 2016, running 24/7, and it's flawless. I think the B24G170 will work well also. I have an A24MT210 in the same Gold Box series, the "A" being way cleaner distortion-wise, with sensing terminals that make it perfect at the load. @atomicbob knows all about setting these up and could give you good info. I got it used also, but never got around to using it since it needs to be calibrated and have a fuse wired into the input. If you're interested, I could sell it for $50.

The B series are easier since they're not adjustable output, and the fuse is already installed.


----------



## gefski

@bfin3  here's the page showing the output current, all are 24v. The 210 are just over 2a, the one you mention is 15a, way beyond the uDO needs.

https://www.acopian.com/power-supply-voltages/24-volt-power-supplies.htm?search=24


----------



## bfin3

@gefski i would be very interested in the a series box if someone would be able to tell me how to set it up.


----------



## joelha

Operating on the assumption that I would want to know if I were looking for this device, please know I'm selling a Rednet D16 AES at the following link: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rednet-d16-aes.898166/

If I'm not supposed to post messages like this one on this thread, please let me know.

Thanks.

Joel


----------



## gefski

bfin3 said:


> @gefski i would be very interested in the a series box if someone would be able to tell me how to set it up.



I'll PM you when I get a chance.


----------



## Iving

http://www.neutrik.co.uk/en-uk/audio/dante-interface/na2-io-dline


----------



## gordec

I’m very interested in this topic. I’m trying figure out how I can try this in my system, but all the info is scatter through 200+ pages. Can someone give me a quick tutorial on how I can use Dante with my current setup? 

Right now I have Jriver running DLNA server and have ifi Pro iDSD connected to the network through a network switch. This sounds way better than USB. I happen to invest heavily to get a good USB card with LPS, high quality USB cable, etc. Network streaming still walks all over USB.


----------



## Dawnrazor

gordec said:


> I’m very interested in this topic. I’m trying figure out how I can try this in my system, but all the info is scatter through 200+ pages. Can someone give me a quick tutorial on how I can use Dante with my current setup?
> 
> Right now I have Jriver running DLNA server and have ifi Pro iDSD connected to the network through a network switch. This sounds way better than USB. I happen to invest heavily to get a good USB card with LPS, high quality USB cable, etc. Network streaming still walks all over USB.


You need a device that supports Dante.  I don't think your iFi does.  At least its not mentioned on the audio advisor product listing...


----------



## johnjen

AFAIK there are no quick and dirty/tutorials etc. as it involves several different processes and they allow for a varied combination of setups.

Besides if you are going to do this you'll need to know this info anyway because it'll be you setting it up and getting it to work.
There are video tutorials that can help but it's best to also do your own research and as questions come up jot them down and see if they get answered, if not ask here and we can offer support.

Just my 2¢

JJ


----------



## gordec

Dawnrazor said:


> You need a device that supports Dante.  I don't think your iFi does.  At least its not mentioned on the audio advisor product listing...



The BNC input of the Pro iDSD accepts AES. 
"BNC multifunction input (S/PDIF/AES3id) such as from a high-end CD transport. For clock 
 synchronization in recording studios, the Pro iDSD supports AES3id based DARS (Digital Audio 
 Reference Signal) according to AES11."

Is that different? I'm not too familiar with AES inputs.


----------



## johnjen

In a nut shell AOIP as it exists now is made up of 3 'parts'.
#1 is the dante network s/w that is installed on the computer that has the ethernet port used to send the digital audio stream.
It is a completely separate set of network protocols that only does one thing, send digital audio data streams from anywhere to anywhere
 on it's network.
All the nodes on this dedicated network must speak this dante network language, from the computer/player to the endpoints which convert the ethernet packets into the digital audio format that feeds your dac (AES, SPIDF, etc.)

#2 is the driver for the win/mac/unix based player to send the digital audio bit-stream out this dedicated ethernet network.

#3 is the endpoint converter box that receives the ethernet dante digital audio stream and then converts it to AES, SPDIF, etc. to feed your dac.

This thread deals with all of this and is probably your best resource for learning about all of this.

Also, this dante network is designed for pro audio, and not specifically for how we use it.
This doesn't mean it doesn't work nor work well, but this 'product' requires a degree of technical competence that normal retail users will find unacceptable due the complexity and required understanding of the task at hand.
IOW this isn't plug and pray.

JJ


----------



## gefski

johnjen said:


> In a nut shell AOIP as it exists now is made up of 3 'parts'.
> #1 is the dante network s/w that is installed on the computer that has the ethernet port used to send the digital audio stream.
> It is a completely separate set of network protocols that only does one thing, send digital audio data streams from anywhere to anywhere
> on it's network.
> ...



For me, it was plug, swear, pray, play. 

However, once properly set up, it's been glitch free for two + years. Power outage, change dacs, tear down system to take to a meet, whatever, as soon as the system is fired up, it communicates and is ready to play in seconds.


----------



## johnjen

For me it was plug and then I ran into a s/w bug.
And setting up the whole system isn't difficult, but wrapping your head around all of this for the 1st time can be a bit intimidating, especially if this sort of fussing with the bits and pieces is not the sort of thing you normally do.

And I've had my system glitch once or twice, but a reset cured it, but yeah it just plain works and does so with REALNESS!
hahahahahahahahahahahaa

JJ


----------



## bexi (Feb 4, 2019)

I had some glitch which broke DVS drivers. I had to reinstall. At the same time Audinate servers were completely down for a day.. so I could not activate drivers at all. "The licensing server couldn't be found (513)" After they fixed the servers.. I could not activate. "This license has been activated too many times (4)". Audinate customer service was quick to answer and fixed problems. All is good now.

Another news is that Genelec is releasing a new AoIP product. They already have released AoIP product 8430A two years ago. This new speaker is not for audiophiles but still great product. You only need network cord and nothing else. Cat5 cable is enough to carry power, DSP settings and audio! I hope Genelec brings these things to bigger monitors as well. Now they need separate cabling for GLM (DSP-settings).

https://www.genelec.com/genelec-launches-smart-ip-audio-platform-ise-2019

Great things from my small home country. Finland.


----------



## kristeva01

Is anyone here using Audirvana + with their Dante controller software?

I recently purchased a Dante enabled device (Micromedia) and was wondering whether you can stream music from Audirvana. How do you make Audirvana use the Dante controller as the preferred audio device?

Apologies if I'm covering old ground.


----------



## JayNYC

kristeva01 said:


> Is anyone here using Audirvana + with their Dante controller software?
> 
> I recently purchased a Dante enabled device (Micromedia) and was wondering whether you can stream music from Audirvana. How do you make Audirvana use the Dante controller as the preferred audio device?
> 
> Apologies if I'm covering old ground.



Dante Virtual Soundcard will appear as an output in Audirvana.  If running Windows probably best to select ASIO in DVS.


----------



## kristeva01

JayNYC said:


> Dante Virtual Soundcard will appear as an output in Audirvana.  If running Windows probably best to select ASIO in DVS.



Thanks for the heads up, so I need dante soundcard and not dante controller, or perhaps both lol?


----------



## kristeva01

How does one go about streaming music 'into' the Dante controller software? I guess it must be possible.


----------



## peteAllen

kristeva01 said:


> How does one go about streaming music 'into' the Dante controller software? I guess it must be possible.


Dante Controller software is for configuration only. To stream audio using a Dante endpoint you need either a suitable dante hardware device such as their pcie ethernet card, or their "Virtual Soundcard" software running in the background. https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard


----------



## kristeva01

peteAllen said:


> Dante Controller software is for configuration only. To stream audio using a Dante endpoint you need either a suitable dante hardware device such as their pcie ethernet card, or their "Virtual Soundcard" software running in the background. https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard



Thanks, I'm on it.


----------



## Iving (Feb 8, 2019)

Just posted per below link at Bob's US Audio Mart "Greatest Breakthrough" thread. The subject of Duelund wires came up there and I followed thru on a temption to build a digital AES cable for D16 AES to Convert-2. Massive, massive success. Didn't realise what a bottle neck an AES digital cable could be 
https://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1465&p=11805#p11805


----------



## kristeva01

Iving said:


> Just posted per below link at Bob's US Audio Mart "Greatest Breakthrough" thread. The subject of Duelund wires came up there and I followed thru on a temption to build a digital AES cable for D16 AES to Convert-2. Massive, massive success. Didn't realise what a bottle neck an AES digital cable could be
> https://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1465&p=11805#p11805



Thanks for posting the link to that thread, I'm just beginning with AIOP and there's lots of useful stuff in there regarding ethernet cables and POE splitters etc that I wasn't aware of.


----------



## Iving

Bob started this thread here on Head-Fi. It's probably worth a read soup to nuts if new to AoIP. 
On US Audio Mart see also Bob's other thread https://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1449&start=390. Both US Audio Mart threads are a bit quiet right now (like this one!) - Bob says he's on a trip - he usually returns!


----------



## kristeva01

So in my quest to summit the Everest that is AIOP / Dante software having traversed the dangerous crevices of the ice flow I'm now stuck at camp 1 

As recommended I've installed the Dante Virtual Soundcard so I can use my favourite music software player. And quite by chance and persistence I've managed to get Dante Controller to recognise my Dante enabled device. It seems the issue was I have two wired ethernet ports on my Apple G5 tower and turning off the unused port was imperative, (and also the WIFI).

My next issue it seems may be one of subscription - I need a green tick to create a subscription?

But I have this warning sign which appears as soon as the device is recognised:








This is the explanation for this error icon from the Dante controller manual:

WARNING: The subscription is unresolved, typically because the transmitting device is not visible on the network (for example, because it has been removed, or switched off)


Can anyone give me a few pointers?


Much appreciated. P


----------



## kristeva01

No worries guys - I just summited, using that ever reliable method of clicking anything and everything


----------



## Dawnrazor

Do take a look at the computer.  I was drawn to Dante because I thought its sound quality would be independent of the computer and what it was doing or not doing.  Well I was totally wrong.  So IME you just can't connect a computer to a Dante device, or switch and viola awesome sound.  You have to tweak the computer a bit.  Focusrite has a page on how to optimize Windows 10 for audio.   I will link and I must say you need to do everything they mention.  And I even did some of the Black Viper stuff.  

Originally I was using a Surface 3 and just went through the optimizations when I was using a USB dac.  Then I jumped to Dante.  It sounded fantastic.  I also dedicated the Surface to NOTHING but audio and disabled everything from the camera to the wifi connection to the internal soundcard, etc.  It sounded great but the Surface really sucks to use.  WTH is Microsoft thinking?  Stupid things like the onscreen keyboard covering text boxes on websites, etc.  

So I ditched it and bought a fanless mini Windows 10 pc.  Hooked up the Dante device with the same switch and cables and installed the Dante Controller, and Virtual soundcard.  OMG it sounded horrible.  Had I not run it on the Surface I would have returned the Dante device.  It was harsh and congested and unlistenable.  I went through the optimizations and now it sounds great.  So all those "bits are bits" "everything is buffered and the computer doesn't matter" dudes have never heard this.  Its clearly audible.  So if you are jumping in do the optimizations and better yet get a dedicated computer.

https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207355205-Optimising-your-PC-for-Audio-on-Windows-10


----------



## Dawnrazor

kristeva01 said:


> No worries guys - I just summited, using that ever reliable method of clicking anything and everything





kristeva01 said:


> So in my quest to summit the Everest that is AIOP / Dante software having traversed the dangerous crevices of the ice flow I'm now stuck at camp 1
> 
> As recommended I've installed the Dante Virtual Soundcard so I can use my favourite music software player. And quite by chance and persistence I've managed to get Dante Controller to recognise my Dante enabled device. It seems the issue was I have two wired ethernet ports on my Apple G5 tower and turning off the unused port was imperative, (and also the WIFI).
> 
> ...



Glad you got it going!  I think I had a similar issue at first when clicking in the boxes would amount to nothing.  The training vids make it look soo easy but it wasnt.  IIRC I had set the Dante device to 96khz.  But all my source material was 44.1  so it wouldnt subscribe.  Switching it back to 44.1 IIRC got it to go green.  But that is a bit of a different issue than you show.  I HAVE had that when I disabled some of windows services.  It would not subscribe, but lol it worked fine.  Zero difference between normal operation except for the yellow triangles.  Which shows the robustness.  Even when it shouldnt be working it was.  Turning on the offending service brought the green check box back.


----------



## kristeva01

Dawnrazor said:


> Glad you got it going!  I think I had a similar issue at first when clicking in the boxes would amount to nothing.  The training vids make it look soo easy but it wasnt.  IIRC I had set the Dante device to 96khz.  But all my source material was 44.1  so it wouldnt subscribe.  Switching it back to 44.1 IIRC got it to go green.  But that is a bit of a different issue than you show.  I HAVE had that when I disabled some of windows services.  It would not subscribe, but lol it worked fine.  Zero difference between normal operation except for the yellow triangles.  Which shows the robustness.  Even when it shouldnt be working it was.  Turning on the offending service brought the green check box back.



Thanks! It sounds really good. Next up is experimenting with POE - bits already ordered from ebay - and I'll look into the link you posted regarding computer optimisation. I also need to take a proper look at the Dante settings.

Has anyone tried using Dante Via instead of Virtual Soundcard?


----------



## Dawnrazor

kristeva01 said:


> Thanks! It sounds really good. Next up is experimenting with POE - bits already ordered from ebay - and I'll look into the link you posted regarding computer optimisation. I also need to take a proper look at the Dante settings.
> 
> Has anyone tried using Dante Via instead of Virtual Soundcard?


You know I looked at Via and take this with a grain of salt because I found the descriptions a bit confusing but it seemed to me that the difference is that DVS would function locally on one machine.  Ie the software on the local machine that plays the tunes would send sound to DVS like an installed sound card.  But VIA would allow a computer to function as a Dante Device.  So you could send sound accrossed the network to a computer running Via ( and get sound out of it from connected devices like usb), whereas you couldnt send sound from one computer to another if the 2nd computer just had DVS.  So for me VIA didnt make sense because I just have one device and one computer that plays the tunes. But if I wanted to have a 2nd room that might make sense.  

If I am misunderstanding the differences please correct me.


----------



## bfin3

I am trying to setup dante and no matter what I do the clock for my computer and the aeterotech is unsyncable. Any suggestions?


----------



## Dawnrazor

bfin3 said:


> I am trying to setup dante and no matter what I do the clock for my computer and the aeterotech is unsyncable. Any suggestions?


Sorry man I cant be of much help.

I think i had an issue with the clock.  Not sure if its what you are having but other audio i had you can say your dac does UP TO  say 96k.  And 44.1 or 88k signals would work.   Iirc i set my dante device to 96k and the computer was always sending 44.1.  So it never synched.  Changed Dante to 44.1 and it worked.  

Or this:
https://www.atterotech.com/resources/faq


----------



## johnjen

Which device is 'master'?

JJ


----------



## gefski (Mar 10, 2019)

bfin3 said:


> I am trying to setup dante and no matter what I do the clock for my computer and the aeterotech is unsyncable. Any suggestions?



Yep, @Dawnrazor's comment is a common mistake; I've done that too.

This is the first of the short Dante videos that helped me. First one is basically a sales pitch, but there are eight, covering basic LAN setup, clocks, etc.
 

I'm assuming the basic physical hookup is correctly done -- DVS and Controller loaded on computer, Ethernet cable from computer to unDAES-O (uDO), AES to DAC. DVS settings entered and DVS start. Then you won't have to return to DVS; it just stays on unless you stop it. Dante Controller is where you do the settings.

Looking at my Dante Controller, uDO is Master CLock. IMac device config is set at 44.1. uDO device config is set at 44.1.

In the iMac AudioMidi, output is DVS, set at 44.1.  In sound preferences output is to DVS.

In my Audirvana+ preferences-audio system, preferred audio device is DVS, at 44.1.

On uDO, first two lights are solid green, Sync light is flashing green, Rate light is off for 44.1 (and would have other colors for other rates).

Not being computer creative, those videos, screen shots of settings, etc. was a big help for me.

Cheers!


----------



## bfin3

Thanks for the help everyone! I am up and running. It was definitely worth the effort.


----------



## kristeva01

Is anyone powering their dante devices via POE? I'm currently using a 2 port block for the injector and a standard splitter at the other end in to my device. I'm trying to get my head round the third iteration of this POE where an 8 port block is used to increase the number of wires used to power the device - often referred to as a dual CAT. Has anyone achieved this or got a simple explanation for a numpty like me? ☺


----------



## Muziqboy

Sounds like you have been following ROB's thread on USAudiomart forum.
I have implemented the POE in most of my rig for quite sometime and also in the Convert-2 Dac that I recently just tweaked and modded to replace the internal SMPS with low noise regulators and can be powered by Lps or Li-Ion batteries. All I can say is I definitely like what I am hearing.


----------



## kristeva01

Muziqboy said:


> Sounds like you have been following ROB's thread on USAudiomart forum.
> I have implemented the POE in most of my rig for quite sometime and also in the Convert-2 Dac that I recently just tweaked and modded to replace the internal SMPS with low noise regulators and can be powered by Lps or Li-Ion batteries. All I can say is I definitely like what I am hearing.



Yes I agree, its really quite a revelation.

Is Rob his name? Yeah I've been following a thread on US Audio Mart. Not read it all the way through though, probably should. I can only assume he's dispensed of the splitter at the device end and replaced it with an injector block which enables you to feed the D.C. separately to the audio signal.


----------



## Iving (Mar 13, 2019)

Muziqboy said:


> Sounds like you have been following ROB's thread on USAudiomart forum.
> I have implemented the POE in most of my rig for quite sometime and also in the Convert-2 Dac that I recently just tweaked and modded to replace the internal SMPS with low noise regulators and can be powered by Lps or Li-Ion batteries. All I can say is I definitely like what I am hearing.


I haven't modded my D16 AES - nor my Convert-2. This is a provocation! 
The RedNet mods were pioneered some time ago. Have things changed much. Can you guys provide an overview of what you would do if you were modding one now. Is the conversion blog created by @johnjen way back a sota summary. (I notice the D16 AES is out of production and the D16R its replacement has 2 SMPSs of course.)
@Muziqboy I'm loathe to break into a mint 2.5k Convert-2. Is it worth it? If I depreciate its value significantly? Has @mhamel modded his C-2. Would he feel strongly either way about that.
Could I get up to speed with PoE trawling Bob's USAM threads.
@Muziqboy what do you make of NUC. Is your use of NUC in any way inspired by the "novel way" CA thread. We can't use Audiolinux right. I love fb2k. Is JPLAY worth a trial for SQ alone.
I don't have 1 or more Mutec reclockers. Is modding these straightforward. Are the SQ gains significant. btw I built a DIY AES cable with Dueland silver ribbon see here: https://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1465&start=465#p11805. The gain was truly massive. I'd have to build 2 identical ones a bit longer if I have a reclocker between D16 and C-2. The REF 10 is out of reach for me right now. Do you think the USB MC-3+ USB will be superseded any time soon.
(Is @astrostar59 still on the block or moved on to finer things.)
Sorry about all the "conversation gambits". It's great to see folks still dedicated to RedNet as I am. Wondering how things have gone and where they might go.
atb


----------



## astrostar59

[QUOTE="
(Is @astrostar59 still on the block or moved on to finer things.)
Sorry about all the "conversation gambits". It's great to see folks still dedicated to RedNet as I am. Wondering how things have gone and where they might go.
atb[/QUOTE]
I am out of the Rednet circle now, as my DAC has changed and I now get better sound via USB. IMO this is DAC dependent and server dependent. The Rednet is good, but there is some grain and loss of dynamics v my USB direct route. I put this down to more parts / processing in the signal path, the cheap clock in the Rednet, and the fact SPDIF or AES is an old and probably weaker connection for digital audio than USB (done right). Also of course, those connections are limited to 192 files as well. There is something done to the signal to get into a DAC via AES or SPDIF, and the effect of that can IMO affect / reduce the sound.

My advice is look at your DAC before you spend 2.5K on a convertor / connection interface. Go for a good NOS DAC with good USB board in it, then you can get beyond the delta-sigma type sound which IMO is more limiting tun the connection interface sonically.

Good luck!


----------



## peteAllen (Mar 13, 2019)

astrostar59 said:


> I am out of the Rednet circle now, as my DAC has changed and I now get better sound via USB. IMO this is DAC dependent and server dependent. The Rednet is good, but there is some grain and loss of dynamics v my USB direct route. I put this down to more parts / processing in the signal path, the cheap clock in the Rednet, and the fact SPDIF or AES is an old and probably weaker connection for digital audio than USB (done right). Also of course, those connections are limited to 192 files as well. There is something done to the signal to get into a DAC via AES or SPDIF, and the effect of that can IMO affect / reduce the sound.



Interesting. What's your new/old dac?

I've compared the rednet setup with the usb input on my previous Vitus rd100 and on my current Totaldac d1-dual and rednet was always much better.


----------



## astrostar59

I have the Aries Cerat Kassandra Ref II. It sounds best on USB with it's double clocks. TotalDAC seem to favour AES, as their server has no USB or Ethernet I believe?

The server you use depends on how USB performs IMO. If it is noisy, then ethernet can provide some isolation from that, albeit IMO a loss as it goes through yet more circuits and conversions.


----------



## peteAllen

astrostar59 said:


> I have the Aries Cerat Kassandra Ref II. It sounds best on USB with it's double clocks. TotalDAC seem to favour AES, as their server has no USB or Ethernet I believe?
> 
> The server you use depends on how USB performs IMO. If it is noisy, then ethernet can provide some isolation from that, albeit IMO a loss as it goes through yet more circuits and conversions.



Oh wow, that's a very nice dac. Admittedly I had to google it as I'd never heard of it. And it appears you're a fellow Wammer.

The totaldac has a usb input. Not sure about the totaldac server/streamer as I don't have that. I'm trying to avoid upgraditis (2 years and counting...) For now, Rednet sounds great with good aes & ethernet cables etc, which I use with a self built fanless server with various tweaks and a Paul Hynes psu.


----------



## astrostar59

So have you done the internal LPS mod? I highly recommend that, as it does make a big difference. The parts / kit is about 140USD. I bet you could still sell it later as a maxed out Rednet for audio use. My mod still has the IEC 230v input, not the mod where you make a 12v DC input only.

Good luck.


----------



## peteAllen

astrostar59 said:


> So have you done the internal LPS mod? I highly recommend that, as it does make a big difference. The parts / kit is about 140USD. I bet you could still sell it later as a maxed out Rednet for audio use. My mod still has the IEC 230v input, not the mod where you make a 12v DC input only.
> 
> Good luck.



That sounds like a good idea. Do you have a link related to the parts/kit? I've been playing with soldering recently so this sounds like something that would be fun. Thanks


----------



## astrostar59

Dig back in this thread, it is all in here. Pics etc. I got my kit off Ebay.


----------



## mhamel

Iving said:


> Has @mhamel modded his C-2. Would he feel strongly either way about that.



I have not felt the need to even attempt it. My D16 has an external LPS and I use the clock in the C-2 as the master. Would someone mind PMing me the link to the thread about modding it on the other forum?

Thanks,
  -Mike


----------



## Iving

mhamel said:


> I have not felt the need to even attempt it. My D16 has an external LPS and I use the clock in the C-2 as the master. Would someone mind PMing me the link to the thread about modding it on the other forum?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike


Thanks Mike
I'd like that link too please.


----------



## Muziqboy

Iving said:


> I haven't modded my D16 AES - nor my Convert-2. This is a provocation!
> The RedNet mods were pioneered some time ago. Have things changed much. Can you guys provide an overview of what you would do if you were modding one now. Is the conversion blog created by @johnjen way back a sota summary. (I notice the D16 AES is out of production and the D16R its replacement has 2 SMPSs of course.)
> @Muziqboy I'm loathe to break into a mint 2.5k Convert-2. Is it worth it? If I depreciate its value significantly? Has @mhamel modded his C-2. Would he feel strongly either way about that.
> Could I get up to speed with PoE trawling Bob's USAM threads.
> ...




Modding the Convert-2 is up to you if you accept the risks, although the way that I modded it, I can easily go back to stock if I have to.
Just to let you know that the mods on the C-2 are not as simple as when we modded the Rednet 3.
As for the NUC, well I have been using that ever since and is in no way inspired by any thread. I am using an lps to power it though.


----------



## Iving

Muziqboy said:


> Modding the Convert-2 is up to you if you accept the risks, although the way that I modded it, I can easily go back to stock if I have to.
> Just to let you know that the mods on the C-2 are not as simple as when we modded the Rednet 3.


Have you posted your C-2 conversion method?
Thanks


----------



## Muziqboy

I have not. Too busy with work and other things right now.
And the mods are very involving.
Rednet 3 and D16 only deals with 5vdc so it was easy.
Convert-2 deals with 5v, 12v, and +/-18v (dual polarity) so for the electrical/electronics minded, I have given you a clue.
I got the regulators from LDOVR. If I find the time, I'll try to post a how-to guide and also be ready to spend some $$. Did I forgot to mention that it ain't cheap.


----------



## Iving (Mar 14, 2019)

Muziqboy said:


> I have not. Too busy with work and other things right now.
> And the mods are very involving.
> Rednet 3 and D16 only deals with 5vdc so it was easy.
> Convert-2 deals with 5v, 12v, and +/-18v (dual polarity) so for the electrical/electronics minded, I have given you a clue.
> I got the regulators from LDOVR. If I find the time, I'll try to post a how-to guide and also be ready to spend some $$. Did I forgot to mention that it ain't cheap.


Sure would be interested to see/evaluate your C-2 "how to" notes if and when you get the time ...


----------



## mourip (Mar 14, 2019)

I have dropped out of the Rednet path also. I had a lot of issues with Rednet Control dropping communication with both DVS and my D16. It would do it predictably about every 2 days. I contacted Focusrite multiple times and they had no fix. I also found rate following to be erratic. I do not think that Focusrite really has any interest in the audiophile market.

I have moved to AudioLinux, and with a fair amount of tweaking have found it to exceed AOIP in sound quality. I use a NUC running Roon endpoint booting from a USB stick into ramroot with no internal drives. USB out to my Mutec 3+ USB/Ref10 with AES out to my Yggy. LPSs all around including removing the SMPS from my Mutec USB.

Sorry to divert from the Rednet discussion.


----------



## astrostar59

mourip said:


> I have dropped out of the Rednet path also. I had a lot of issues with Rednet Control dropping communication with both DVS and my D16. It would do it predictably about every 2 days. I contacted Focusrite multiple times and they had no fix. I also found rate following to be erratic. I do not think that Focusrite really has any interest in the audiophile market.
> 
> I have moved to AudioLinux, and with a fair amount of tweaking have found it to exceed AOIP in sound quality. I use a NUC running Roon endpoint booting from a USB stick into ramroot with no internal drives. USB out to my Mutec 3+ USB/Ref10 with AES out to my Yggy. LPSs all around including removing the SMPS from my Mutec USB.
> 
> Sorry to divert from the Rednet discussion.



My point exactly. This is DAC / server dependant. In some cases the Rednet can improve things, others not. If the USB is weak on the DAC, then AES may work better via the Rednet. I had to use SPDIF on my then Audio Note DAC 5, and it did sound great. But my current DAC sounds better on USB direct. I tried it with the Rednet 3 modded in the chain, but it flattened the soundstage a bit, and dynamics were reduced. My old USB chain had some grain in the treble, and the Rednet got rid of that. But if your DAC has well designed USB with noise rejection and clocking, it should beat the Rednet.

Focusrite are DAW environment, so not surprising they have little interest. They don't promote the Rednet as an Ethernet - SPDIF convertor, it is really a router with that output added for monitoring purposes.

There are other Ethernet to USB devices that could work. My advice is look at your DAC. Many have poor USB boards, which will send you down the AES / SPDIF routes. But those routes mean you need another board on the server, or there is an additional process out of the server to output AES / SPDIF. This is part of the reason IMO early servers sounded rubbish.

The Roon Nucleus is IMO a good product, very simple to use and backed up by Roon and Intel. 1.5K is a steal, many good server cost 3 times that. And IMO Roon beats the other players. I never liked the Aurender player, or trust another type of system in a server, as it can be a dead end, poor investment.

Get the Nucleus and your done. Hook it up to your ethernet router, and your USB external drive. Run it off a decent 12V LPS. Good setup.


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> I have dropped out of the Rednet path also. I had a lot of issues with Rednet Control dropping communication with both DVS and my D16. It would do it predictably about every 2 days. I contacted Focusrite multiple times and they had no fix. I also found rate following to be erratic. I do not think that Focusrite really has any interest in the audiophile market.
> 
> I have moved to AudioLinux, and with a fair amount of tweaking have found it to exceed AOIP in sound quality. I use a NUC running Roon endpoint booting from a USB stick into ramroot with no internal drives. USB out to my Mutec 3+ USB/Ref10 with AES out to my Yggy. LPSs all around including removing the SMPS from my Mutec USB.
> 
> Sorry to divert from the Rednet discussion.





astrostar59 said:


> My point exactly. This is DAC / server dependant. In some cases the Rednet can improve things, others not. If the USB is weak on the DAC, then AES may work better via the Rednet. I had to use SPDIF on my then Audio Note DAC 5, and it did sound great. But my current DAC sounds better on USB direct. I tried it with the Rednet 3 modded in the chain, but it flattened the soundstage a bit, and dynamics were reduced. My old USB chain had some grain in the treble, and the Rednet got rid of that. But if your DAC has well designed USB with noise rejection and clocking, it should beat the Rednet.
> 
> Focusrite are DAW environment, so not surprising they have little interest. They don't promote the Rednet as an Ethernet - SPDIF convertor, it is really a router with that output added for monitoring purposes.
> 
> ...



 astro ... Anathema to me on several counts not the least of which is I loathe Roon and and all other commercial subscription services - and anything or anyone else that does my organising or thinking for me.

Last time I used USB I acquired a trenchant Pavlovian aversion to it. Probably it will take a fundamental paradigm shift whether USB, AoIP or anything else to lever me away from Rednet. All my music is offline Redbook/flac upsampled to 176.4 KHz in fb2k Sox - no need for SR follow. No issues with DVS/DC/dropouts ever. I do watch out for Bob wherever he is and follow CA "novel way" in case something triggers displacement of my neurosis - but it hasn't done so yet.


----------



## astrostar59

Respect Iving. But your DAC is influencing your decision making. As I said, this is DAC dependant on the effect / route people will take. DS DACs benefit from upsampling post sending in many cases as the digital filter is causing havoc with the sound. I don't want to get into a big off topic on that, but IMO that is what I hear to my ears. 

The streaming situation has moved recently. I can get better sound out of 24 bit 96k or 24 bit 192k files off Qobuz than Redbook sat on my hard drive. I have buddies on different systems who say the same. 

Your experience with USB is with your DAC and it's input, that is my point. It is not applying to all DACs or all cases. So at the moment, you are probably best staying on Rednet (as I was before).


----------



## Iving

astrostar59 said:


> Respect Iving. But your DAC is influencing your decision making. As I said, this is DAC dependant on the effect / route people will take. DS DACs benefit from upsampling post sending in many cases as the digital filter is causing havoc with the sound. I don't want to get into a big off topic on that, but IMO that is what I hear to my ears.
> 
> The streaming situation has moved recently. I can get better sound out of 24 bit 96k or 24 bit 192k files off Qobuz than Redbook sat on my hard drive. I have buddies on different systems who say the same.
> 
> Your experience with USB is with your DAC and it's input, that is my point. It is not applying to all DACs or all cases. So at the moment, you are probably best staying on Rednet (as I was before).



Well - not true astro because I acquired my Convert-2 after I abandoned USB. I have only ever used its AES input. But respect likewise! and you have far more knowledge and experience with (upmarket) DACs than I do. Second - even if it could be proven that a streamer outperformed offline delivery I wouldn't be interested for reasons already given.


----------



## Iving

There is an info bulletin here: https://www.usaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1465&p=12173#p12136 advising Bob has passed away.
Hats off to a special person, may he RIP and may those he left behind receive merciful blessings.


----------



## mourip (Apr 13, 2019)

Sorry to hear about Rob. He was certainly passionate and contributed much to our shared knowledge of the various ways to attain audio bliss.


----------



## Dawnrazor

Tried one of those iFi psus on my am2.  I didnt like it .  Kept going back to the POE.  Weird but it just sounded slow with the iFi and bloated.  The bass was off.  Maybe others would have liked that bass but I didnt....

Will try it on the pc next.


----------



## bexi

New version of RedNet Control 2.4.1 is up and it comes with new firmware. Works fine!
https://customer.focusrite.com/sites/customer/files/downloads/RedNet_Control_2.4.1.exe

It seems that "Not present on the network" bug is fixed.


----------



## mourip

Glad to hear that. I wonder what took them so long. 

I eventually sold off my Rednet gear in favor of using Audiolinux in ramroot with Roon. It took a long time for me to tweak it to the point that it sounded better than RedNet. I hated to sell off my D16 but I just got tired of it losing connectivity.


----------



## Iving

mourip said:


> Glad to hear that. I wonder what took them so long.
> 
> I eventually sold off my Rednet gear in favor of using Audiolinux in ramroot with Roon. It took a long time for me to tweak it to the point that it sounded better than RedNet. I hated to sell off my D16 but I just got tired of it losing connectivity.


Never tempted to come back? Looking forward to hearing what an EtherREGEN can do for direct playback flac on PC > EtherREGEN > DAC!


----------



## astrostar59

My DAC change promted me to go direct from music server > DAC via USB. I tested it at length and in my setup now, USB done right surpasses Rednet.

I think it is system dependent, and dependent on how good the server used is as well. If house is controlled in the server and it has excellent OCXO clocking and LPS then the noise is not there from the source, as opposed to fixing it in the next stage. 

I still use my Rednet in my second system though, as that has my Mac Mini as a music server with it's own noise issues.


----------



## Dawnrazor

bexi said:


> New version of RedNet Control 2.4.1 is up and it comes with new firmware. Works fine!
> https://customer.focusrite.com/sites/customer/files/downloads/RedNet_Control_2.4.1.exe
> 
> It seems that "Not present on the network" bug is fixed.


I never seemed to have ANY bugs with the old version.  I did the new version and nothing is different.  Maybe its just the simple implementation I have...just one product .


----------



## Iving

Dawnrazor said:


> I never seemed to have ANY bugs with the old version.  I did the new version and nothing is different.  Maybe its just the simple implementation I have...just one product .



Same here - but my system is also ultra simple (176.4 kHz flac on PC via DVS only - no internet streaming).


----------



## mourip

Iving said:


> Never tempted to come back? Looking forward to hearing what an EtherREGEN can do for direct playback flac on PC > EtherREGEN > DAC!



Not currently tempted but I usually get restless so it could happen 

The EtherREGEN sounds interesting. It certainly had a long buildup to its release. I will start looking for some feedback from early adopters. 

Currently my Roon server has a direct bridged connection using a JCAT ethernet card to my Roon endpoint and the second port goes via optical FMCs to a regular switch for network/Internet access. This is my speaker setup. My HP setup is much simpler and less isolated.


----------



## mourip

Dawnrazor said:


> I never seemed to have ANY bugs with the old version.  I did the new version and nothing is different.  Maybe its just the simple implementation I have...just one product .



Possibly your AM2 was less susceptible than an R3 or D16?  

I did not have any issues until I hit one of the later updates. It was odd but remarkably predictable. Usually it would work fine for about 18 to 24 hours and then I would need to reboot the D16 and the server. It sounded wonderful but eventually I got tired of the reboot routine.

Water under the bridge!


----------



## Dawnrazor

Crazy question.  There are lots of dante amps and speakers and subs.  And none seem to have volume control.  There are boxes with analog outs.  How is the volume controlled?  I see nothing in Dante Controller to set volume.  

Thanks,


----------



## johnjen

Dante is specifically an ethernet protocol so a volume control isn't really something it concerns itself with.

But the devices that use Dante can have a volume control, either the player in front of the dante network or the digital or analog devices on the downside of the network can have a volume control built into them.

JJ


----------



## Dawnrazor

johnjen said:


> Dante is specifically an ethernet protocol so a volume control isn't really something it concerns itself with.
> 
> But the devices that use Dante can have a volume control, either the player in front of the dante network or the digital or analog devices on the downside of the network can have a volume control built into them.
> 
> JJ


I get that but there are dante products that have no vc that I can see. here is an example:

https://www.crownaudio.com/en/products/dci-8-600da

Maybe they are software controlled or something and Dante is just an input.


----------



## johnjen (Nov 29, 2019)

Dawnrazor said:


> snip
> Maybe they are software controlled or something and Dante is just an input.


Yes exactly.
That device is dante 'enabled', but is a crown amp that can be controlled via the dante network.

Dante is a software company that developed a specialized network based audio transport system.
It operates devices on the network but it, by itself, has almost no 'control' except to allow devices to talk together and do so quickly.
In essence it's an intelligent programmable audio snake that operates using an ethernet backbone instead of many many balanced pairs of wires +.

JJ


----------



## Iving (Nov 29, 2019)

anyone (else) tried the etherREGEN with Dante/Focusrite yet?


----------



## bexi (Nov 29, 2019)

I have normal remote analog volume control in my system but too lazy to use it. Friend of a mine made volume control in his middleware software called PcmStreamer. It is actually kind of a AoIP software solution but for USB-sound cards. I use it for volume control and room correction purposes. You can use cheap basic USB-volume controller. Some keyboards have it also. Mouse works too.. it has been really safe to use, no sudden 100% increases.
Convolver is really transparent. There are many things to fiddle. Originally designed to use with Windows and Raspberry Pi/Odroid C2. Works fine with just Windows and ASIO-sound card like RedNet. Internal communication is this software is tcp/ip-based. New version for RPi4 coming up soon. Windows server/client version maybe in the future. www.pcmstreamer.com

I am thinking about modding my D16 AES. Does anyone make JST XH connectors with cables? What are the +5V ja GND pins in this connector?


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> anyone (else) tried the etherREGEN with Dante/Focusrite yet?


What's the difference with/without EtherRegen using direct connection method from PC to Rednet device?
I have JCat Ethernet Card on my PC that goes directly to Rednet D16. JCat (CCHD-957) and EtherRegen (CCHD-575) both use Crystek Femto clocks for phase noise. I doubt adding another device to my chain would improve anything.


----------



## Golfnutz (Nov 29, 2019)

bexi said:


> I have normal remote analog volume control in my system but too lazy to use it. Friend of a mine made volume control in his middleware software called PcmStreamer. It is actually kind of a AoIP software solution but for USB-sound cards. I use it for volume control and room correction purposes. You can use cheap basic USB-volume controller. Some keyboards have it also. Mouse works too.. it has been really safe to use, no sudden 100% increases.
> Convolver is really transparent. There are many things to fiddle. Originally designed to use with Windows and Raspberry Pi/Odroid C2. Works fine with just Windows and ASIO-sound card like RedNet. Internal communication is this software is tcp/ip-based. New version for RPi4 coming up soon. Windows server/client version maybe in the future. www.pcmstreamer.com
> 
> I am thinking about modding my D16 AES. Does anyone make JST XH connectors with cables? What are the +5V ja GND pins in this connector?


There should be plenty of pics and comments about this in this thread, just do a search and you should be able to find what you need. Take a look starting at page 183 in this thread.


----------



## Iving

I have used +/- Cisco switch
PC > Cisco > ER > D16 AES
and
PC > ER > D16 AES
over
PC > D16 AES
I was a first batch etherREGEN recipient.
Definitely a sig. SQ delta - and I'd be very confident any of us would agree. General feeling that it is +ve and virtually all AS reviewers agree although their systems not RedNet.
Then firmware got altered since only 2 days ago. Major, major SQ change. Massive detail. Less wallop. Not all of us convinced it is "natural".
So watch this space.
ER generally quite a revelation - but imho we need to get to the bottom of the firmware impact on SQ.
If we don't I'm not sure I shall keep it.
But if you want to put an ear trumpet to your music give it a try.


----------



## Golfnutz

Iving said:


> I have used +/- Cisco switch
> PC > Cisco > ER > D16 AES
> and
> PC > ER > D16 AES
> ...


Sounds similar to the JCat Netcard.


----------



## Dawnrazor

Iving said:


> anyone (else) tried the etherREGEN with Dante/Focusrite yet?


sorry I haven't, but I did get a tripplite ethernet isolator and that seemed to make things smoother...like timewise.  Background is quieter.  One day I will AB and get a better sense.  It also would have solved a grounding issue with my cisco switch (which was fixed by switching to dlink)  I bought another of the Tripplites for my other dac or to put on the audio computer.


----------



## Dawnrazor

Just got a new dac.  Will be seeing how the Audinate AES box works with a dac compared to dante dac combos like the ESS Planet 22x and the Focusrite Am2.  New dac will be the Stello D100mkii.  Be interested to see if there is an advantage to an audiophile dac.  Said another way are the Ultimo chips that good?


----------



## peteAllen

Has anyone done a recent comparison of the state of art sonore optical rendu / uptone etherRegen against a Rednet solution? Recently my music server went wrong and has been out of action, so I switched back in my microrendu to simply stream hqplayer from a laptop. A very full and wonderful sound that surprised me. Perhaps the key difference from my comparison years ago when I first aquired the rednet was that I now have a Paul Hynes 9v psu to power the microrendu (at first I ran it of the ifi psu and it was VERY flat compared to rednet).


----------



## Baird GoW

How does this compare to audio-gd's new Digital Interface, DI-20HE


----------



## Dawnrazor

peteAllen said:


> Has anyone done a recent comparison of the state of art sonore optical rendu / uptone etherRegen against a Rednet solution? Recently my music server went wrong and has been out of action, so I switched back in my microrendu to simply stream hqplayer from a laptop. A very full and wonderful sound that surprised me. Perhaps the key difference from my comparison years ago when I first aquired the rednet was that I now have a Paul Hynes 9v psu to power the microrendu (at first I ran it of the ifi psu and it was VERY flat compared to rednet).


For me one of the huge advantages of the dante solution is that those products seem to be less finicky about the power.  At least I couldnt hear any benefit of an improved linear vs. PoE.


----------



## gefski

Dawnrazor said:


> For me one of the huge advantages of the dante solution is that those products seem to be less finicky about the power.  At least I couldnt hear any benefit of an improved linear vs. PoE.



The linear PS and Uptone fan controller for my Mac Mini had a bigger impact than the linear PS for the Atterotech unDAES-O. Acopian Gold Box PS in both cases.


----------



## johnjen

Computer power supplies are 'beefy' and do create more noise than a simple wall wart, not to mention the noise the computer itself generates.
But when you have several wall warts, each contributing it's own noise, this can all add up.

Case in point, in my system I replaced 5 SMPS's with LPS's for my AOIP system, and when I go for max SQ, I shut down 3 more (modem, router, screen), and this last step is easily discernible, especially late at night when the house is quiet and still.

JJ


----------



## Guido310 (Feb 21, 2020)

Hello, i came across this thread searching info about DANTE and Clocking and i wanted to report my experience....
I am a HTPC user from the beginning of my HT-HIFI experience, starting in early 2000's and i have made numerous setup during these years, using pro gears and Room correction (Dennis Sbragion 's free DRC) Lynx AES16 PCi, Lucid coverters etc
Obiouvsly I wanted to try DANTE as soon as i "discovered" it, and at the same time, i started to build my own multiway multiamplified High Efficency speaker system using AUDIOLENSE XOVER digital crossover and room correction
So i replaced Lynx aes 16 with a REDNET PCI card and a 16 channels REDNET2, connected to a Cisco router, and analogic preamplifier as volume control
Well, results were promising but under my expectatives, too much noise using very high efficency horns and drivers and a sound quality not properly "Hi-end"
So i removed DAC, preamplifier and switched to DANTE amplifiers, Yamaha XMV...better but still something missing, depht and details
I started to investigate the clocking aspect, i let the network decide the best clock, and never heard differences between the different clocks i had on the network
Then, i had an occasion to buy at a very low price a used YAMAHA DME64N processor eqipped with two analog out cards and two AES cards, i purchased also two Yamaha My16AUD2 cards, so that i have a swiss knife for audio conversion, this makes me able to choose which format to use, AES, DANTE, giving the possibility to use external aes DAC or the Yamaha DME as a DAC feeding it via AES or DANTE, and control the volume

But the best part come when i tried to force the my16aud2 card to sync to the internal DME clock, and thus to become the DANTE MASTER

I was very surprised by the result, a day and night change from all the previous setup, so i decided to try also an external clock, namely a MUTEC MC3+, to drive the YAMAHA DME, and i also removed switch by daisy chaining all the gears, connecting the pci card directly to the DME with a lan to optic fiber adapter

Now i am very pleased by the result and looking forward to a 10M reference clock!

My advice to whom are using DANTE is to not rely on onboard clocks but to try a device with external sync possibilities, in my case was the best upgrade, i finally have an "audiophile" sound, despite all the readings about uselessness of an external clocks in a DANTE environment

HTPC and DME have Linear power supplies, PC is win10 optimized by Fidelizer Pro and i9 processor, Roon and Jriver as players and Audiolense 6.2 new extraordinary convolver to apply crossovers and room eq 64 bit filters


----------



## Dawnrazor

Guido310 said:


> Hello, i came across this thread searching info about DANTE and Clocking and i wanted to report my experience....
> I am a HTPC user from the beginning of my HT-HIFI experience, starting in early 2000's and i have made numerous setup during these years, using pro gears and Room correction (Dennis Sbragion 's free DRC) Lynx AES16 PCi, Lucid coverters etc
> Obiouvsly I wanted to try DANTE as soon as i "discovered" it, and at the same time, i started to build my own multiway multiamplified High Efficency speaker system using AUDIOLENSE XOVER digital crossover and room correction
> So i replaced Lynx aes 16 with a REDNET PCI card and a 16 channels REDNET2, connected to a Cisco router, and analogic preamplifier as volume control
> ...


I think I get this and thanks for sharing, but some is unclear.  I have 3 external dante devices.  1 is a dac with preamp and headpone amp.  One is the same but with 2 line ins.  One is a dante to AES adaptor. Are you saying to use one of those as the master?  Or are you saying to get another  device that has the option to add a master clock to it and use a dedicated clock seperate clock??


----------



## Guido310 (Feb 22, 2020)

My suggestion is to have at least one Dante device with a word clock input, so that when externally controlled by a reference clock, it becomes DANTE MASTER CLOCK
It is a feature contained in the Dante controller....if you have more than one Dante device and if you not select any preferred master clock, the network itself chooses the best clock present by an algorithm, otherwise if you have a device that can have external reference, by default it is set as preferred master if you check "sync to external" box
The fact is that IMHO clocks onboard Dante devices are good ones, (I tried focusrite and Yamaha devices) but not as much as in dedicated clocks, or even in good grade (not Dante) gear...the Yamaha DME is a 8000$ (without cards) mixer processor that can be quite easily found used for 800-1000$ and with a Dante card becomes future proof


----------



## Guido310 (Feb 22, 2020)

Guido310 said:


> My suggestion is to have at least one Dante device with a word clock input, so that when externally controlled by a reference clock, it becomes DANTE MASTER CLOCK
> It is a feature contained in the Dante controller....if you have more than one Dante device and if you not select any preferred master clock, the network itself chooses the best clock present by an algorithm, otherwise if you have a device that can have external reference, by default it is set as preferred master if you check "sync to external" box
> The fact is that IMHO clocks onboard Dante devices are good ones, (I tried focusrite and Yamaha devices) but not as much as in dedicated clocks, or even in good grade (not Dante) gear...the Yamaha DME is a 8000$ (without cards) mixer processor that can be quite easily found used for 800-1000$ and with a Dante card becomes future proof




https://pro.focusrite.com/category/audiooverip/item/isa-adn2

https://www.rme-audio.de/digiface-dante.html

here some examples of Dante gear that accepts a Word clock input


----------



## mhamel

In my setup, I use the clock in my DAC (Dangerous Convert-2) as the external clock source for a Rednet D16 via BNC cable, then set the D16 as the master clock for the Dante network. The D16 feeds the Convert-2 via AES. The Focusrite clocks are very good.  That said, I did quite a bit of testing/comparison when I first got into the Dante setup and found a subtle but noticeable improvement using the Convert-2's clock.  I also have a Rednet 3 on the network feeding a RME ADI-2 DAC on another system.


----------



## Guido310

mhamel said:


> In my setup, I use the clock in my DAC (Dangerous Convert-2) as the external clock source for a Rednet D16 via BNC cable, then set the D16 as the master clock for the Dante network. The D16 feeds the Convert-2 via AES. The Focusrite clocks are very good.  That said, I did quite a bit of testing/comparison when I first got into the Dante setup and found a subtle but noticeable improvement using the Convert-2's clock.  I also have a Rednet 3 on the network feeding a RME ADI-2 DAC on another system.



I Agree that Focusrite has good clock, but if  is possible I suggest to try a Mutec with a 10M reference clock, it is a big big improvement


----------



## mhamel

Guido310 said:


> I Agree that Focusrite has good clock, but if  is possible I suggest to try a Mutec with a 10M reference clock, it is a big big improvement



I may give the Mutec a try at some point... I had read through a test on the Convert-2 where they tried it with several outboard clocks and none made an improvement over the already excellent built-in clock, so I've been telling my wallet that I can put money into other parts of the system for now.  Hahaha


----------



## johnjen

In my setup I'm running the Antelope LIVE Clock word clock.
And if I were to get a REAL wild-hair (and NEED to spend another 1K$+) I'd opt for a master clock to drive the LIVE word clock, which in turn feeds the 2 Mutec MC3's and the RedNet 3.

This word clock addition to the system was a slight improvement in overall SQ, enough so I kept the LIVE clock, but not as much as replacing the SMPS's in all 5 devices in the AOIP chain.

It does mean that changing the sample rate adds yet another step in the process.
Fortunately, I use the sample rate converter in JRiver so that all files output at 88.2KB/s, which precludes needing to fuss with the different sample rates of all the files in my library.

JJ


----------



## Dawnrazor

Guido310 said:


> https://pro.focusrite.com/category/audiooverip/item/isa-adn2
> 
> https://www.rme-audio.de/digiface-dante.html
> 
> here some examples of Dante gear that accepts a Word clock input


Ok If I understand this, I would need the digiface and a clock to add to my system.  The focusrite link you gave seems to be an add on card and not a stand alone product.

Is there anything less expensive than the digiface?  And which clock?

Also on the digiface there is a headphone out but how do you control the volume?


----------



## Alexnova

Hey guys I need help. 

I can't get the SPDIF RCA output working with my Yggdrasil A2.

I know the A1 versions of the DAC, Schiit had used 50ohm BNC connectors but all this was fixed during the A1 lifecycle into A2.

So here's my setup:

RedNet D16 -> XLR output -> Dangerous Music Convert-2
Dangerous Music Convert-2 "Word Clock Out" with BNC 75ohm cable-> RedNet D16 "Word Clock In"

I'm using the Convert-2 as an external Word Clock for the D16.

But I also have a RCA coaxial cable 75ohm hooked up.

RedNet D16 -> SPDIF RCA output -> Yggdrasil coaxial SPDIF input

I get no audio from the Yggdrasil. I haven't unplugged anything from the Convert-2/D16.

I thought the SPDIF coax out, per the manual, will replicate the adjacent channels to output on channels 3-4. But when I do this I still get no audio. The only audio that's output is from channel 1-2, which is the AES output to Convert-2 and that plays audio.

Any ideas here? I reached out to Focusrite support and this is what they replied with:

"
You should be able to use the SPDIF and AES at the same time, you will just lose the two channels the SPDIF connection is taking. On the input, SPDIF is selectable as 3-4 (which will replace the DB25 channel 3-4). [The AES XLR input will replace DB25 channel 1-2]

On the output you can select any odd-even signal pair (for example, replacing outputs 3–4 or 11–12 of the DB25 connection). "

Still not sure what to do here. Attached a screenshot of my current setup:

https://i.imgur.com/8j4BND4.png


----------



## Alexnova

atomicbob said:


> Ok, I believe I know root cause for the issue. I have support screenshots if anyone is interested in seeing them. Data obtained using RME DigiCheck Channel Status monitor.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...



Just found this post, does this explain the issues I'm having?


----------



## johnjen (Apr 5, 2020)

Have you 'enabled' the music stream output to channels 3-4 in Dante controller (it doesn't look like it in your picture)?

JJ


----------



## Alexnova

Yeah I toggled that too, still didn't work.

I think its the Yggdrasil guys. I hooked up the SPDIF coax to another DAC and my AV recevier...and the audio works. I did try using the BNC connection on the back of the Yggdrasil but that didn't work either. (I have a 75ohm coax cable with BNC connector on one end and RCA on the other)

So it looks like atomicbob's original post still stands and Focusrite hasn't updated the firmware since. I will contact Focusrite again.


----------



## johnjen

At this point I'd have to agree.
And I am using that same setup with my RN-3 to feed 2 dacs, the JggyB via AES and a Jolida Dac via SPDIF.

The SPDIF outputs were 'hot' and no changes to the s/w setup was required when I started to use it this way.

JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

We ran across this same issue with the YGGY, now I forget what solution we came up with way back when (this was back in 2016). I do know that to get it to work with @gefski 's Yggy we had to pass-through my Matrix Mini-i which had SPDIF coax out. I do know he eventually found the right transport for LAN bridge.


----------



## gefski

Soundsgoodtome said:


> We ran across this same issue with the YGGY, now I forget what solution we came up with way back when (this was back in 2016). I do know that to get it to work with @gefski 's Yggy we had to pass-through my Matrix Mini-i which had SPDIF coax out. I do know he eventually found the right transport for LAN bridge.



Yep, that was the Bellingham meet, my first “ears on” Dante. That freed me from the years shackled to USB chains, outboard boxes, de-crapifiers, etc. @atomicbob did a bunch of work, figured out the SPDIF problem, and posted his info, which @Alexnova referenced above. After that meet, I set my sights on the unDAES-O interface, AES to Yggy, where I remain through my 2nd Yggy.

Sorry for the aside, which doesn’t help solve the problem. It’s just rare in this hobby to really be happy with anything for years!


----------



## Alexnova

Just received this response from a Focusrite tech support engineer:

"I've spoken to our development team about this. Our team are aware of the issue and are looking to develop a fix.

As soon as we have a fix we'll send it over to you ahead of any scheduled releases. At present, our next scheduled release will be early summer but maybe sooner.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please do let us know. "

Now if there can be a workaround in the meantime that would be appreciated.


----------



## johnjen

There are AES to SPDIF converters and some are relatively inexpensive.
They won't be an 'ideal' solution, but would be functional…

JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome (Apr 9, 2020)

@gefski , which unit are you using? Attero Tech? Are you capped at 24/96 or is it capable of outputting 24/192?


------


[/QUOTE]


johnjen said:


> There are AES to SPDIF converters and some are relatively inexpensive.
> They won't be an 'ideal' solution, but would be functional…
> 
> JJ


I wonder if using a converter degrades the signal/timing.


----------



## Dawnrazor

Soundsgoodtome said:


> @gefski , which unit are you using? Attero Tech? Are you capped at 24/96 or is it capable of outputting 24/192?
> 
> 
> ------



I wonder if using a converter degrades the signal/timing.
[/QUOTE]
I bet you could find a used Big Ben that will convert and maybe help with timing.  It did for me, though I am not converting.  Just AES to AES, but it will convert to spdif from AES.


----------



## gefski

Soundsgoodtome said:


> @gefski , which unit are you using? Attero Tech? Are you capped at 24/96 or is it capable of outputting 24/192?
> 
> 
> ------



I wonder if using a converter degrades the signal/timing.
[/QUOTE]

The Atterotech unDAES-O. It is 4 channels, up to 24/96. I’m, of course, using 2 channels, and all my files are 44.1, whether ripped or Tidal. It outputs AES (or will daisy chain Ethernet, including PoE power).


----------



## johnjen

Soundsgoodtome said:


> I wonder if using a converter degrades the signal/timing.


Yeah they might, but as a temp(?) work around it should at least provide functionality.
And the Jggy will re-clock the signal anyway so there is that.

JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

24/96 is plenty, although it's usually components along the way in the chain that benefit from higher freq rate - not the dac itself (at least modern dacs). This is quite apparent with usb connected units but maybe not so much with ethernet chains.


----------



## johnjen

I agree that 24/96 is more than enough and if the dac is the JggyB the lower the better (up to a point).
I myself use 88.2 (dbl the CD Sample Rate) because AES feeds are less 'sloppy' (thanks to atomic bob who showed me some of his analysis), as my one and only SR to feed my AOIP and on into the JggyB.

And I do agree that the entire chain is involved as well.

But Schiit's Gen-5 implementation closed the gap on my AOIP feed, and their Unison USB (which just has to be a MAJOR step up) I'm sure closed it even further.
Perhaps I'll spend the $$$ for a board to find out, but I CAN think of plenty of other places to throw $150 at…
Still it would be interesting to determine what the differences are between a well tweaked AOIP feed vs the Unison USB.

JJ


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Schiit finally got their USB together..


----------



## Dawnrazor

I have an audinate AES box that I use to feed AES to the Big Ben and then AES to my dac.  Would it sound better if I bought a box like the RME Dante which would allow a word clock connection to the Big Ben??


----------



## TonySunshine

Anyone running a poor man's AOIP setup?
Will the below work?

- Dante Virtual Soundcard
- Audinate Avio AES adapter
https://m.markertek.com/product/adn...2x2-adapter-with-rj45-and-xlr-male-and-female
- Canare AES to SPDIF transformer
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/406162-REG/Canare_BCJ_XJ_TRB_BCJ_XJ_TRB_110_Ohm_to.html
- SPDIF input on DAC?

Thanks


----------



## Dawnrazor

TonySunshine said:


> Anyone running a poor man's AOIP setup?
> Will the below work?
> 
> - Dante Virtual Soundcard
> ...


yes kinda is the answer.  I run AES into the dac so I don't need the Canare converter.  Technically I am running AES into the Big Ben first then AES out to the dac and if needed it will act as a spdif converter for me too.  

Made a lot of changes but the system is sounding the best it ever has.   So I would say go for it.  Where else are you going to get that kind of performance and flexibility for that price.  And if you can try to get a used big Ben instead of the Canare adaptor or step up eventually. 

IME the dante stuff is not end game at least the $500 or less items but its better than the usb options.  Said another way, its highly doubtful you can get the same quality digital output for the money going with usb solutions.


----------



## Alexnova

johnjen said:


> In my setup I'm running the Antelope LIVE Clock word clock.
> And if I were to get a REAL wild-hair (and NEED to spend another 1K$+) I'd opt for a master clock to drive the LIVE word clock, which in turn feeds the 2 Mutec MC3's and the RedNet 3.
> 
> This word clock addition to the system was a slight improvement in overall SQ, enough so I kept the LIVE clock, but not as much as replacing the SMPS's in all 5 devices in the AOIP chain.
> ...


Is there a reason why doing 88.2kb/s is better than other bitrates?


----------



## johnjen

There are 2 factors.
1- the 44.1KHz waveform shapes I have seen, while still meeting the 'spec', are 'unkempt', where as the 88.2KHz (and above) is much closer to the 'proper' waveform.
2-its double the 44.1 Sample Rate, since CD's make up the vast majority of all of my music library. So this conversion doesn't mean jumping the 44.1KHz to 48KHz conversion complication.


Sonically there doesn't seem to be any discernible difference after the conversion to 88.2KHz no matter what the original sample rate of the track is, which would make it a no-go if there were.

So it's not a matter of a SQ increase, but more a matter of my OCD kicking in and this is the 'clean' way of dealing with it.

JJ


----------



## gefski

There is nowadays another alternative to USB that has really been gaining traction - Pi2AES. Like Dante/AES, it appears to compare favorably to USB, even “repaired USB”. Lots of info on it over at a site that dare not be mentioned here by name. I haven’t used it and have no plans to, but believe it sidesteps one irritation of Dante - lack of automatic sample rate switching.


----------



## Alexnova

gefski said:


> There is nowadays another alternative to USB that has really been gaining traction - Pi2AES. Like Dante/AES, it appears to compare favorably to USB, even “repaired USB”. Lots of info on it over at a site that dare not be mentioned here by name. I haven’t used it and have no plans to, but believe it sidesteps one irritation of Dante - lack of automatic sample rate switching.


Curious, what is the proper way to change the sample rate in Dante Controller/Virtual Sound Card?

I assume you have to go into each device in Dante Controller, go to "Device Config" and then set the number? It's interesting that when I do set the number in Dante Controller for the Virtual Sound Card device it immediately grays it out to not be clicked on and says "This device does not support sample rate configuration".


----------



## gefski

Alexnova said:


> Curious, what is the proper way to change the sample rate in Dante Controller/Virtual Sound Card?
> 
> I assume you have to go into each device in Dante Controller, go to "Device Config" and then set the number? It's interesting that when I do set the number in Dante Controller for the Virtual Sound Card device it immediately grays it out to not be clicked on and says "This device does not support sample rate configuration".


You have to change it in your computer preferences and your player. In my case, I would have to change it in Mac’s Audio Midi and in Audirvana’s Preferences. 

Yggy does so well with Redbook that I’ve just stuck with 44. At some point I should try JJ’s recommendation of 88.


----------



## Alexnova

Interesting, I don't have the Dante Virtual Card ASIO in my sound preferences. Even changing the sample rate in JRMC doesn't work. I still have to manually change it in Dante Controller.


----------



## johnjen (Apr 9, 2021)

Alexnova said:


> Curious, what is the proper way to change the sample rate in Dante Controller/Virtual Sound Card?
> 
> I assume you have to go into each device in Dante Controller, go to "Device Config" and then set the number? It's interesting that when I do set the number in Dante Controller for the Virtual Sound Card device it immediately grays it out to not be clicked on and says "This device does not support sample rate configuration".


Since the Dante AOIP system is primarily a pro-audio tool, 'easily' changing the SR (Sample Rate) is considered a 'bad' thing due to all of the up and down stream devices that would need to be reconfigured as well.
And most don't have SR following for that reason.

And in a complex setup, say like a concert, it would be shall we say 'problematic' at best.
And more like a nightmare as portions of the system ceased to function, all of a sudden like…   😳

Also an AOIP setup IS meant to deal with complex requirements with differing audio feeds all at the same time.
And generally us audiophools run extremely simple setups in comparison, since we only have 2 channels running in one direction with a limited number of h/w devices too boot.

What I have been doing is making ALL tracks play at 88.2KHz inside the JRiver player.
So all DSP functions including SR conversion, happens and is THEN broadcast to the dac at my desired fixed 88.2KHz SR.

And since I'm running a Jggy Dac which is 'optimized' for low SR rates, I have no need to accommodate the top end of the range of SR's in the first place.
And I have very few high SR files in the first place, and have heard little to no real improvement when I did compare low vs high SR files from the same albums, so the 'need' to deal with SR following is a non issue for me.

And often many of the AOIP h/w devices have a limited range of SR's to begin with.
For instance my RedNet 3 doesn't support 176.4KHz (but does support 192KHz) which is ok for my setup, while other AOIP converter h/w doesn't go above 96KHz.
In short there is no 'universal' h/w convention in place, nor where all SR's are supported by all h/w.
This makes for a much more complicated system setup and can result in 'unexpected' consequences when a change is made.

JJ


----------



## bexi (Feb 4, 2022)

So, the RedNet D16R MkII has been out for some time. Anyone got it? Is it any better?

Since Focusrite did something to drivers/software to fix "Not present on the network" bug after some uptime. It has not been problem since.
Now I am trying to get Audinate/Focusrite to fix similar problem. Same thing appears after computer recovers from sleep-mode. This does not happen everytime. Do you have same problems?


----------

