Rafe Arnott over at Audiostream just figured out that a dedicated server is better than a laptop

[marce]

18 hours ago, davide256 said:

 

I'd say that half the hardware on a typical PC MOBO is superfluous for a  network player, just a source of noise and power instability.  The microRendu is a good minimalist design, the only thing I disliked about it was that it didn't include  Wifi.

I do agree to some extent, but the main bones required is the same in both cases, memory, I/O, processor...

[marce]

18 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Uh no...

The difference is single-purpose computers vs multi-purpose computers. Everyone knows what people mean: they just don't write out "single-purpose-computers." There is nothing WRONG with multi-purpose computers. Their GOAL and DESIGN is not to do one thing well. This is what high end audio manufacturers bring to the table, - single purpose machines designed to playback digital files. This means eliminating unused, noisy, and lower quality components that either get in the way, or can add unwanted artifacts in enhanced audio reproduction.

""A fact, computers are not designed to play music they are designed to manipulate and move digital data, something they are very good at, however you dress your computer up and name it...""

 

"Digital data?" Yes, - ALL computers manipulate digital data, - but some computers are designed to be networked cameras, turn on your lights, run Point of Sale systems, browse the Internet, Email etc. There are many single purpose computers that are designed to do 1 thing. These single purpose computers (be they cameras, networked washing machines, refrigerators, etc. are all BETTER than multi-function computers for that one task or goal.

No one is bothering to run Email and web browsing on their Razberri Pi with Allo Digital1 card in it. They have BETTER multi-function computers available for the many other tasks that multi-function computers are needed for/serve.

 

""The trouble is with a lot of stuff in the consumer audio world is designs are taken on word of mouth and marketing splurge, say its an audiophile components and people will flock to back it up however good or bad it is...""

We don't talk about consumer audio here, - we're talking about high end audio. Un-modified, Multi-function computers are perfectly fine for consumer audio.

Just like any single purpose computing device out there, single purpose music playback computers aren't around long if they do not perform well. The fact that many of these single purpose computers perform so much better than multi-purpose ones proves this point decidedly. In fact many of the design elements that have IMPROVED digital file playback, single purpose computers, - have not come from high end audio designers/manufacturers, - but from the computing industry. Those devices when applied properly, - were proven effective through experimentation and testing: I am referring to devices like the Intona USB isolator.

When you have laid out many single purpose computers and multipurpose computers you find your self at the end of Animal Farm looking in and realise there is not much difference, a few I/O interfaces less, but as said the main parts all look the same these days, an a processor of some sort, memory (inevitably DDR these days), Ethernet Interface, USB interface, PSU, possibly HDD or SSD for long term storage...

There is a difference between low end and high to an extent, don't see much of the high end in consumer audio, from what I have seen...

[jabbr]

23 hours ago, davide256 said:

What we buy off the shelf is cheap crap for allowed errors, compared to purpose built machines that need to integrate into electrically complex environments with high reliability. I wonder if for audio some of NASA's design requirements for control PC's might be applicable. At least we don't have to worry about radiation effects so much in earth atmosphere.

 

Whaaaaat? 

 

I can tell you with certainty that both NASA and our national research laboratories (think nuclear weapons research etc) have been pioneers in the use of cheap of the shelf computers clustered together https://www.hq.nasa.gov/hpcc/reports/annrpt97/accomps/ess/WW46.html

 

The concept that these cheap computers are designed to allow errors is not even wrong.

 

Do you think NASA and the military have their own foundaries? Design their own CPUs ? ... maybe but just like a CPU becomes specialized with software, so are FPGAs. 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Whaaaaat? 

 

I can tell you with certainty that both NASA and our national research laboratories (think nuclear weapons research etc) have been pioneers in the use of cheap of the shelf computers clustered together https://www.hq.nasa.gov/hpcc/reports/annrpt97/accomps/ess/WW46.html

 

The concept that these cheap computers are designed to allow errors is not even wrong.

 

Do you think NASA and the military have their own foundaries? Design their own CPUs ? ... maybe but just like a CPU becomes specialized with software, so are FPGAs. 

 

A good friend who lives nearby works for an engineering firm on the national nuclear deterrent - Q security clearance stuff. What runs a critical part of our national defense would not have a prayer of running an HQPlayer filter.

[jabbr]

19 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Uh no...

The difference is single-purpose computers vs multi-purpose computers. Everyone knows what people mean: they just don't write out "single-purpose-computers." There is nothing WRONG with multi-purpose computers. Their GOAL and DESIGN is not to do one thing well. This is what high end audio manufacturers bring to the table, - single purpose machines designed to playback digital files. This means eliminating unused, noisy, and lower quality components that either get in the way, or can add unwanted artifacts in enhanced audio reproduction.

Uh no. 

 

The trend end these days is to put more function on an integrated CPU called a SoC ... ClearFog is an example that I often use as a specialized network I/O board...

 

There is no one design for “audio” this concept is frankly absurd.

 

The requirements for a streamer (eg ClearFog with essentially one chip) are vastly different from what is needed to run HQPlayer upsampling ... in my experience the video ouput has the most noise, but what about folks who want integrated video + audio ... similarly my NAS has terabytes of storage ... why do you think there are so many motherboards all made by SuperMicro as well as ASUS and then NVidia/AMD etc ... each have different options. Design the system that has the options you need. All off the shelf.

[Jud]

While there really is not a "single purpose" computer, there can be computer components or other components of a system, such as networking components, selected with a careful view of their potential effects regarding audio.  Note two things in this regard, however:

 

- People with experience and training, like Miska and PeterSt, can look at this issue and come to very different conclusions (such as an NAA vs. Peter's PC).

 

- It is trivially easy for anyone to slap an "audiophile" label on a component - caveat emptor. 

[plissken]

I'll use a $200 computer, a $999 DAC. You pick what ever 'audiophile' do-dad chain. You want a linear supply, microrendu, USB baptizer doohicky, dedicated audiophile player (that you don't think is a computer even though it is).

 

Straight up bitstream playback.

 

All you have to do is evaluate blind.

[barrows]

2 hours ago, marce said:

I do agree to some extent, but the main bones required is the same in both cases, memory, I/O, processor...

Yes, of course.  But the difference is that an Ethernet Renderer, which is purpose built for audio, can choose to run a much lower power processor (than what is required for a full featured server) and a custom operating system can be used which can be slimmed way down to only do what is necessary and nothing more.  Additionally, instead of using an OTS main board, the developer can design their own board, paying additional attention to noise generation and sharing.  Instead of switching DC/DC converters, the developer can choose to use ultra low noise linear regulators, and to make sure that there many, separate power supply domains, to reduce noise propagation.

The design choices can be less limited by price, as a high end developer is not so concerned with meeting the ultra competitive price points common in the commercial computer world.

Beyond this, there are other steps which can be taken (which may remain proprietary) in design/implementation choices which can also reduce noise.

By doing all of the above, a purpose built Ethernet Renderer (as what Sonore does with the Rendu series) can be a much lower source of noise in the audio system than either a full featured server (even those built for high end audio) or a standard commercial computer.

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, plissken said:

I'll use a $200 computer, a $999 DAC. You pick what ever 'audiophile' do-dad chain. You want a linear supply, microrendu, USB baptizer doohicky, dedicated audiophile player (that you don't think is a computer even though it is).

 

Straight up bitstream playback.

 

All you have to do is evaluate blind.

 

I'll take a $200 computer, $375 DAC, and $79 software. That's a savings of nearly $550.

[davide256]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Whaaaaat? 

 

I can tell you with certainty that both NASA and our national research laboratories (think nuclear weapons research etc) have been pioneers in the use of cheap of the shelf computers clustered together https://www.hq.nasa.gov/hpcc/reports/annrpt97/accomps/ess/WW46.html

 

The concept that these cheap computers are designed to allow errors is not even wrong.

 

Do you think NASA and the military have their own foundaries? Design their own CPUs ? ... maybe but just like a CPU becomes specialized with software, so are FPGAs. 

And none of them would be trusted as part of the control systems in a spacecraft... the standards for  spacecraft are even higher than commercial aircraft because

of the extreme environment and because you can't just land anytime when in difficulty. Your speaking to throwaway tech...

[StephenJK]

On 8/16/2018 at 7:35 AM, marce said:

snip...

So what is a dedicated server, if not a computer! Its a computer plain and simple, it will have a processor of some sort, memory and IO, in other words a computer. Its in a fancy box and has limited functionality but it is still prone to the same problems all computers and digital circuitry have, noise, jitter etc. etc.

Yes, but.  A purpose built computer or server for playing music will have sonic integrity as it's primary goal - or it should.  I used a Dell laptop for years, believing that "a computer is a computer" and didn't have to worry about one of the big complaints of fan noise.  

 

I started a test program a few years ago with a playback test using a comparison between a track on my turntable, the same recorded file on the Dell laptop and that same file again played back from my Korg MR-2000.

 

No comparison.  The laptop file had a much smaller and compressed soundstage that had also was a bit blurry and was unable to play or properly position brief transient sounds, particularly in the higher frequencies.  The turntable track was better than the Korg but then the Korg is meant more for recording, it doesn't have the best DAC section in the world.

 

I now use a Bryston BDP-2, essentially a Linux computer in a box that feeds to the companion BDA-2.  Playback of a 24/96 FLAC file from an album I've recorded is virtually indistinguishable from the same track played on the turntable.  

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I'll take a $200 computer, $375 DAC, and $79 software. That's a savings of nearly $550.

 

The DAC I'm speaking about is the ADI- Pro 2 and it basically sets the standard doing the least amount of what ever to the input signal. I could also see a Topping DX7s as an alternate. 

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The DAC I'm speaking about is the ADI- Pro 2 and it basically sets the standard doing the least amount of what ever to the input signal. I could also see a Topping DX7s as an alternate. 

 

Using the $200 computer (ASUS VivoMini, bought new for $250 with $50 rebate) with the $79 software (Audirvana Plus for Windows) to send DSD512 to the iFi micro-iDSD DAC I bought new for $375 results in pretty much all the in-DAC processing being bypassed except for the final analog filter.  This makes for some nice performance as measured by mansr and Miska (Miska with his own software, of course).

[jabbr]

56 minutes ago, davide256 said:

And none of them would be trusted as part of the control systems in a spacecraft... the standards for  spacecraft are even higher than commercial aircraft because

of the extreme environment and because you can't just land anytime when in difficulty. Your speaking to throwaway tech...

Oh c’mon this is nothing to do with computer audio. 

The person here who has actual experience with space system design is @marce so it’s funny that you are arguing with him.

 

I’m just saying that commercial computer equipment hardly has a high error rate even with trillions of calculations. 

 

Yes you want low noise. So called “high end” audio designs use commercial off the shelf parts (digital) although Pass has commissioned custom transistors but regarding digital audio, and specifically the chain before the DAC none of the parts need to be “special” 

 

Real high end electronic design may use $80 - 100,000 software packages and the fact that audio companies can’t even afford mid-range measurement equipment suggests to me that practically none of the board design is done with the resources available to eg SuperMicro and certainly not that of Intel or Apple.

 

If I’m wrong let’s see the data  

[crenca]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Real high end electronic design may use $80 - 100,000 software packages and the fact that audio companies can’t even afford mid-range measurement equipment suggests to me that practically none of the board design is done with the resources available to eg SuperMicro and certainly not that of Intel or Apple.

 

 

This.  There is a contradiction in these claims by (some) of these artisanal companies between engineering excellence on the one hand and lack of tools, resources, etc. to actually achieve much beyond what is already contained in the commodity boards/parts/circuits they use...

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This.  There is a contradiction in these claims by (some) of these artisanal companies between engineering excellence on the one hand and lack of tools, resources, etc. to actually achieve much beyond what is already contained in the commodity boards/parts/circuits they use...

 

Some of what's being done is selecting commodity components on the basis of different goals.  I'm sure something like the Sonore streamers use components they didn't design and fabricate themselves, other than designing the boards, but component selection was done with a view toward low noise rather than highest fps on a popular game.  Even artisanal companies (or individual DIYers) have the tools to design boards, and can have small runs fabricated by vendors.

 

Now (leaving out speed), whether they have circuit design tools as sophisticated as Apple or Intel, very possibly not, though they might not need them (the components don't need to fit in a phone or a chip).  And I'd imagine measurement equipment is a very real difference - not that small companies don't have and use measurement equipment, but companies like Apple and Intel can afford advanced and costly measurement equipment far beyond the means of artisans.

[mansr]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

And I'd imagine measurement equipment is a very real difference - not that small companies don't have and use measurement equipment, but companies like Apple and Intel can afford advanced and costly measurement equipment far beyond the means of artisans.

If you can't afford your own measurement gear, it can be rented for a few days when needed. Alternatively, a lab can be contracted to perform specific measurements. EMC compliance testing, for instance, is often done this way.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

If you can't afford your own measurement gear, it can be rented for a few days when needed. Alternatively, a lab can be contracted to perform specific measurements. EMC compliance testing, for instance, is often done this way.

 

I don't know if you can rent the sort of stuff Intel uses - would you happen to know?

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

I don't know if you can rent the sort of stuff Intel uses - would you happen to know?

I don't know what Intel uses, so I can't answer that question.

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Some of what's being done is selecting commodity components on the basis of different goals. 

 

Exactly. In some cases using a commodity board with low noise power supply. In other cases selecting from among commodity chips.

 

Quote

I'm sure something like the Sonore streamers use components they didn't design and fabricate themselves, other than designing the boards, but component selection was done with a view toward low noise rather than highest fps on a popular game.  Even artisanal companies (or individual DIYers) have the tools to design boards, and can have small runs fabricated by vendors.

 

Of course they do. I think the biggest value they provide is packaging a custom Linux that anyone can use so that you have a plug and play product. Like a power supply, you expect to plug it in and have it work.

 

 Designing for the lowest EMI can be very challenging. The talent in most audio firms tends to be analog, not high speed digital. I wouldn't underestimate the expertise that goes into a SuperMicro server board, or an Intel NIC, for example. I wouldn't describe either as "cheap, throwaway" or "error tolerant"...

 

 

Quote

 

Now (leaving out speed), whether they have circuit design tools as sophisticated as Apple or Intel, very possibly not, though they might not need them (the components don't need to fit in a phone or a chip).  And I'd imagine measurement equipment is a very real difference - not that small companies don't have and use measurement equipment, but companies like Apple and Intel can afford advanced and costly measurement equipment far beyond the means of artisans.

 

Intel undoubtedly uses its own in house proprietary tools in many cases ... who knows ... but lower noise translates into higher working clock rates ... likewise lower power draw translates into longer battery life so we shouldn't underestimate the resources that are devoted to both low noise and low power.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

lower noise translates into higher working clock rates

 

Right - in other words you can have a higher clock rate and still have noise within tolerance, or underclock and have a lower overall noise level than a processor not designed to run as fast.

[marce]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't know if you can rent the sort of stuff Intel uses - would you happen to know?

there are quite a few EMC labs that will do testing, its expensive to set up an EMC lab and it needs to be well shielded so that you don't pick up spurious noise from the external sources to the DUT.

There is lots of talk about noise, yet very little measurement (critical in EMC engineering) and quite often hostility towards those who both question this and put up arguments to why a solution wont work as described. None of the noise reducing methods are secret as most refer to the likes of Henry Ott, Ralph Morrison etc. for information. One of the best ways of understanding noise is to study rf/microwave structures... This is a good example:

https://www.jlab.org/accel/eecad/pdf/050rfdesign.pdf

Look at some of the structures and work out how they work (forget electron flow, concentrate on the fields both E & M) and you start to get a far better understanding of noise coupling within electronic circuits, the physical layout being a critical factor as well as component choice. The power delivery system also plays a huge part in this being the heart of the system and often providing a pathway between various sections of circuitry via shared supplies and of course the most important "signal" the designated 0V (ground!!!) plane.

The importance of testing is critical, an example was a charge pump circuit to provide some low power -8V for an analogue section, the first choice of components and drivers whilst low power, created far too much noise for the circuitry due to the faster rise times and PWM of the drive, cutting efficiency for a older design cut noise significantly. It would have been better to have a proper - analogue supply but space did not allow this.

The important thing to remember is that whilst there are generic cures, such as ferrite;s each layout, each component with wiring, circuit boards, external cables etc. has to be tested in its own right. A problem for domestic audio is external connectors, you never know what sort of cable is going to be hung on the end of the device, so you have to design for a generic cable and hope the punters use somthing similar and not some exotic antenna,?

 

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, marce said:

A problem for domestic audio is external connectors, you never know what sort of cable is going to be hung on the end of the device, so you have to design for a generic cable and hope the punters use somthing similar and not some exotic antenna,?

 

Hilarious. And obviously very true.

Is this a reason that cables (even digital) can sound different? Different levels of conducted and/or radiated RF?

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

Is this a reason that cables (even digital) can sound different? Different levels of conducted and/or radiated RF?

 

Or at least a reason to measure them in situ in a working system - now all you have to do is trundle that into your test lab, or vice versa.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, marce said:

created far too much noise for the circuitry due to the faster rise times and PWM of the drive

 

Hmm - @PeterSt, @jabbr, interesting, eh?