Everybody does what he wants.
A Mac Mini + Audirvana can not match the optimization of an audiophile OS that was designed from the ground for this specific task.
…
Maybe… This is subjective… Because the quality of the audio performance is always inherent in the DAC architecture… not necessarily in the data-handling/ data-flow of the software/hardware architecture…
(edit): Using Core Audio API’s in a vertically integrated M1 SoC platform is really not any different than a system using an AKM or ESS component based architecture…
Even the best high end DACs benefit from such setup. The lowest CPU load of the end point provides the best sound. But this is only one factor.
There are other factors that make the streamer a superior solution to a PC that is directly connected to the DAC.
NAD can’t do UPnP at all. In fact they refuse to support it because of the fragmentation in implementations between vendors.
…
Most computers are cruising along with high-resolution digital-audio playback… CPU taxation will be a problem when there is not enough memory to handle the tasks… Do you really believe that all vertically integrated DAC players are alike and provide the ultimate hardware architecture and software implementation?
Doesn’t even show as a device on Audirvāna, works great with my synology NAS as does my Oppo205 and Denon AVR
Maybe but it can still produce excellent results.
Most of the streamers that have integrated DACs are a compromise between the cost and the performance they can deliver.
…
Well that answers the question regarding NAD components
Again what would be the point? I’ve experimented with inputting the Oppo via balanced and single end running 3.5 and Studio. It’s just redundant, no better to my ear at least.
I don’t know what you call “DAC players”. I’m not familiar with this expression.
But no, I don’t think that all the hardware, and software architectures are alike.
Some are better than the others. That’s why upgrading regularly a setup is part of the hobby.
It does, but it just mounts the remote share where the content is stored using plain SMB/CIFS protocol.
…
Of course… no point in the scenario you are employing today…
I agree with you.
That’s why I use only Rbi based streamers. There are countless software options for them. As well as DIY hardware upgrade options.
1 Like
So true and a big part of the fun for me at least, I ran a analog only NAD amplifier C375 for years with several different DAC’s, few different software and computers. Good fun I always went along with the theory of putting your money into your speakers, it’s pretty true but the new streaming products are really great.
You won’t know if you don’t try it, but make sure you have a trial period with no return penalty in case it’s not for you
1 Like
… @Cloclo
I’m describing a Network Player like a UD-701N USB DAC / NETWORK PLAYER or something like a headless MacMini connected to a DAC running Audirvana as ‘network player’… the advantage of this less integrated approach of a MacMini or other computer being employed as a Player, is the DAC can be upgraded easily in the future and the quality of the DAC is only limited by cost prohibitions…
1 Like
I don’t know this specific product, but I reached long a go the conclusion that it’s better to avoid integrated devices.
Some integrated devices are excellent. But still, an integrated device won’t give a better sound than good separate devices. Because the design of an integrated device represents a lot of challenges in order to power correctly all the components, and to avoid interferences… It requires engineering solutions, contributes to the complexity of the product, and to its final cost. Nothing of this is supposed to improve the sound.
I’m partisan of separate devices. Each device for its specific task.
…
I agree with your general premise… Simplicity will serve one well in these cases… cable interconnection points degrade and are not necessarily as good as a solidly soldered connection using silver solder, etc… Having multiple earthing paths through power-supply connections to the mains power, etc… The fewer connection point transitions, the better to mitigate data-corruption, etc…
I want hear from somebody making the simple network audio-distribution of: a UPnP Server sending signals over an Ethernet digital-audio network, to a computer (connected to a DAC of some form) running Audirvana as a Player/UPnP (media renderer)
I was definitely a member of this club for sure, my first “system “ started with a Fisher tube amplifier that my neighbor gifted me as a teenager. Kenwood separates etc. My parents always had the console style stereo unit but the cool stuff was separate components. If you haven’t heard anything from the last couple of years you may be very surprised at how effective these new products are.
There are pros, and cons indeed.
Regarding cables, and connections, I agree with you. Good cables are necessary.
Regarding the power supplies, I don’t agree. There’s no way that a single LPS for an integrated device, could be better than separate LPS’ for each. Furthermore, it’s even better if you can power with separate LPS’ the components inside each device.
There’s no way that an application that was deigned to have a nice UI, to manage a library, to display bios, to stream Qobuz and radios, etc… could be a better renderer than a small piece of software that was designed specifically for that, and that is constantly improved only for this specific task.
…
Audirvana is designed to exploit the Apple platform Core Audio paths very adroitly… this no different than a manufacturer using an ESS ARM platform to exploit the ESS architecture… The CPU eventually needs to receive data-streams and produce data-streams on the platform… What you saying is the fundamental sound of Audirvana Studio is being diminished by the computer platform it is running on… A vertically integrated audio-playback device is just a computer platform hosting a software player and UI with supporting hardware architecture for input and output…