+ 1
MDAC First Listen (part XXIX)
- Thread starter Asphaltradler
- Start date
- Status
+ 1
fred sonnen
pfm Member
+1
IP network = Ethernet
But then you need more than a passiv USB soundcard (mdac)
regards
f.s.
Julf
Facts are our friends
There are systems out there that use Ethernet (cat5+) but aren't IP. They are a dead end.
Yes. But adding an IP-capable processor is trivial these days.
Julf
Facts are our friends
Thunderbolt might be a marketing thing, but IP over twisted pair cable has been with us for something like 25 years, and is likely to be with us a fair bit longer (at least in IPv6 form).
It is still pointless suggesting that this should be used for the mdac2 when USB2 is more than adequate and fast enough for two channel audio at insane sample rates.
Lets discuss features that gives real benefits instead!
Julf
Facts are our friends
Sure - I was merely pointing out that if one wants to go for "the interface of the future", it isn't thunderbolt.
Not having to connect a (noisy, expensive, cumbersome) computer to a DAC would be a very real benefit, as would being able to send almost arbitrarily large chunks of data, hence Ethernet or wireless networking. Slimdevices had this sorted years ago with the squeezebox; Linn and then naim have bought into the same network DAC paradigm - why is it so difficult for people who design DACs to connect them to a network? People who make just about everything else - phones, tablets, printers, cameras, TVs, burglar alarms - manage to do so.
killie99
pfm Member
and cheaply too, THE BEST price/performance ratio of any bit of kit I have ever owned.
JohnW
pfm member
Dont worry the performance will be maintained - there's more reasons that I'd like to separate the Digital section:-
1. As the project is running behind schedule (as to be expected) - we will be able to send the Mainboard PCB with the Analogue stages, Dual ESS DAC IC's, Clock sections and PSU ahead to production, and while the wheels of the production cycle slowly churn into gear I can continue the design of "Digital sections" which will be partitioned onto the second smaller PCB.
2. Having the digital sections partitioned from the analogue stage allows us to keep abreast with the constant rapid developments in PC interfaces... USB1, USB2 & USB3 etc...
3. I have some ideas that might require far greater DSP processing power then can be provided by the MDAC2 single FPGA - so upgrade options can be offered in the future inline with developments...
JohnW
pfm member
Why should we? We design the analogue front and backend of the chain, we do Analogue well – we are not computer hardware and software designers.
The last thing I want to do is spend our limited R&D budget and resources recreating "PC hardware" that will require constant software updates and support, be buggy, outdated in a very short timescale, cost far more then an existing off the shelf product (Apple AE, SBT etc) for practically no sales.... your lucky these days if you sell more then 1K units in Hifi these days – the HiFi industry is dying FAST...
Whats wrong with using an iPad (and the such) with its unbeatable UI and software support and just simply connect to your DAC via USB? Have you tried entering the network address into Naim gear…. My life’s to short to mess about with such a crude and irritating UI. No I grab the iPad jut swipe though a beautiful screen and away I go.. just works no messing… AND ITS CHEAP!
Processing Ethernet generates so much RF related interference and crud within a product – you compromise the quality of the analogue device… Analogue first, leave the heavy Digital processing external.
JohnW
pfm member
I agree - its a complicated and uncommon interface... nothing wrong with USB for Audio.... Every PC has a USB port...
JohnW
pfm member
JohnW
pfm member
Yes that's the idea - also we can offer later upgrade options (Who knows what we will come up with in a couple of years time) - Nice to be able to keep your DAC future proof for minimal cost.
It's about time we rebranded DACs as analog devices with digital inputs - it's much more helpful to think of them that way. The first three things you're told about a DAC on the headline stats relate to its digital design; the most important factors affecting its real-world performance are rarely listed in the top five.
@ AndyU - tell me more about these noisy, expensive, cumbersome computers? Elsewhere on the forum, they're claimed to be completely benign - and irrelevant . . .
@ AndyU - tell me more about these noisy, expensive, cumbersome computers? Elsewhere on the forum, they're claimed to be completely benign - and irrelevant . . .
JohnW
pfm member
Hey, if this part is a statement design, that what is the tube output stage - reference statement design?
About to issue a small PCB with the Tube stage prototyped... trying to figure how to include the Tube as an MDAC2 option... it might be too complex... but I fear it might sound so good that I'll be forced into it!
But then the tube version might sound worst - and I'll need not worry
Also, keen to see how well the Tube design measures...
misterdog
Not the canine kind
I have Trichord Research 'Digital turntable' AKA Cd player.
misterdog
Not the canine kind
About to issue a small PCB with the Tube stage prototyped... trying to figure how to include the Tube as an MDAC2 option... it might be too complex... but I fear it might sound so good that I'll be forced into it!
But then the tube version might sound worst - and I'll need not worry
Also, keen to see how well the Tube design measures...
Stop teasing
JohnW
pfm member
- Status