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
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 :-)
knghifi
1,668 posts
 
the cable between the iMac and the DAC will make a difference - In my case that is a USB cable
OK, I thought you use ethernet between computer and DAC.

Even though my DAC has asychronized USB, I much prefer ethernet and who wants a PC in their system rack. LOL!!!
williewonka
3,082 posts
 
Confirmed - cat7 network cables didn't improve playback on my setup...

NAS ->cat7 -> router ->cat7 -> iMac + Audirvana -> USB -> DAC

But access to the NAS drive has improved a little - better cables fewer resent packets probably

BTW the USB cable is from DH Labs and performs extremely well.

Next - upgrade the router :-)
knghifi
1,668 posts
 
Confirmed - cat7 network cables didn't improve playback on my setup...

NAS ->cat7 -> router ->cat7 -> iMac + Audirvana -> USB -> DAC
Your result is not surprising. Me changing Ethernet is equivalent to you changing USB.

Next - upgrade the router :-)
Why if Audirvana caches the track before play? You should not hear any improvements changing anything before your iMac.

Now if the DAC caches, one should not hear any differences changing anything before it. Not even a belt driven transport. If you build them, they will come. LOL!!!
More to discover