2. digital
  3. 1375969641

Goodbye Sonos, hello ????

I've been a happy Sonos user for over 10 years and will continue to use it in my casual listening areas in my house. However I dont think I am doing my dedicated 2 channel system justice streaming from the ZP-90. In addition, Sonos does not do high resolution. Therefore I am looking for a high quality digital transport/streamer that can replace the Sonos. Here are my requirements:

1. High quality, low jitter digital output
2. Awesome user interface with remote control via IPAD, ANDROID, iphone, etc
3. Wireless and wired digital streaming from music stored on a NAS
4. No built in DAC as I prefer to mix and match
5. Ability to handle various audio formats including high resolution.

So far it looks like my options are the Bryston BDP-2 or DIY my own streamer. I have built several low powered (ATOM) HTPC in my home to stream 1080p movies so this is definitely an option but I am not too sure about how to get the best possible, low jitter digital output from a PC so this would be something I need to investigate. I can build an ATOM based, fanless system running Jriver and my IPAD to remotely control my music. I know there are products from Linn and Accustic Arts but these all come with either a DAC or an amp.

So are there any other audiophile quality products on the market that fit my need or should I just go the DIY route?

Thank you.
128x128tboooe
kriskdf
12 posts
 
I just ran across this, which actually seems to cover things I forgot: http://www.lanshack.com/cat5e-tutorial.aspx

It looks like about 1" radius is the minimum. The article is pretty good and points out that the faster you want the network, the more you need to pay attention to the standard for install. There are also good practices called out that may impact performance less, but helps long term maintenance (labeling, leaving a service loop and lots of slack, etc.).
williewonka
3,082 posts
 
Kriskdf - thanks for the link - great article that contains some interesting point to observe when running network cables.

Also explains why local computer stores had never heard of CAT7 - i.e. rarely used in north america
williewonka
3,082 posts
 
Knghifi - the cable should improve the transmission time because of its bandwidth capability, but since Audirvana buffers a complete track (i.e. when playing from a hard drive) it should have no impact on playback.

But I will reserve final judgement until my cables arrive - ordered them yesterday :-)
knghifi
1,668 posts
 
but since Audirvana buffers a complete track (i.e. when playing from a hard drive) it should have no impact on playback.
Disagree! Buffering on the server side has nothing to do with transmission to the client ... synchronization is still required during playback between both parties. IE: IC between components, SC between amp and speakers. All cables sound different.

Now if the Dac buffers everything before play, then cables should not make a difference. Synchronization is broken and Dac just process data in it's own buffer.
williewonka
3,082 posts
 
Knghifi - agreed - the cable between the iMac and the DAC will make a difference - In my case that is a USB cable

Audirvana is a program that runs on my computer (the client) and buffers a complete track into computer memory prior to passing that data onto the DAC via the USB cable

The cables between my computer and my NAS drive (the server) will have no effect on playback because each track is bufferred on the client

But it never hurts to have a faster network :-)
More to discover