Should the aim be as simple as possible or is complication sometime justified .

[bencat]

I could I suppose just as easily put this topic in Two Channel but digital and computer sources seem to have the largest ability to mushroom additional boxes and devices so decided on here .

Now in some part of me there is a feeling that the shortest and smallest number of units from source to speaker is a great idea and gives the cleanest and most immediate sound so in theory a pair of active speakers with built in amplifiers and Streamer / DAC fed a streaming source from a HD over the internet or a streaming service is what should be best .

In fact I have done none of that instead I seem to moving in the direction of having a whole ecosystem of boxes that are needed and used to make the same connection . At one stage I had a Player feeding a DAC which then fed an integrated amplifier in to a pair of two way passive speakers and i though that sounded fine for a while .

Now that same system has double the speakers in a pair of KEF 103 stacked one on top of the other with the lower speaker only having the bass unit connected to deal with low bass and the upper one dealing with Mid and Bass . I have now a Raspberry Pi with an LPSU acting as a streamer with usb output to a Musical Fidelity V-Link 192 convertor this then feeds another box a MiniDSP DDRC 22D which deals with DSP and this has its own LPSU . This then feeds a MiniDSP 10 x 10 HD Digital Crossover unit which again has its own LPSU which thenh feeds the three stereo power amplifiers feeding the treated and split signal to the KEF 103 drivers . This is a large number of additional boxes and PSU units and should really mangle the sound just by it travelling through so many different stages. Strange thing is it does not do anything like that . In my view all of this complication adds up to the best and most enjoyable music i have had in years . I have this system on every day for hours and it just plays lovely music and seems to not miss a beat .

But as I have found nothing seems to stay the same someone on another forum has made me aware of this item . My next move was planned to be the Allo Signature Digione and I have added a link for anyone that wants to look at that . This has already a reclocker in the design and offers things in a nice simple board with SPDIF output . The alternative  FIFOPI 3 will need some form of Pi transport board addition but then gives what might be viewed as a very high quality digital output . As yet I have no idea if any of this is nessesary or if it will achieve the real goal but it will be fun messing about and finding out just have to decide on the route I want to take .

https://www.audiophonics.fr/en/dac-and-interfaces-for-raspberry-pi/ian-canada-fifopi-q3-ultimate-fifo-reclocker-module-pcm-32bit-768khz-dsd1024-dop-p-14758.html

https://allo.com/sparky/digione-signature.html

Again it seems that complication could be a move forward but perhaps it is now too late for me to go back after letting jack out of the box and finding the improvements to what I like .

 

[tuga]

My view is that file playback / streaming is still a developing technology. Maybe in a few years' time we can buy a top file player in a single case but for the time being we're stuck with a pile of boxes.

I still think that we'll need (at least) 5 different pieces of equipment (personally I use a 6th - network bridge):

Storage <> Network Router + Switch <> Player <> (Processor) DAC

Storage <> Network Router + Switch <> (Processor) Player <> DAC

I find that the (Processor) part is where the most gains are to be found: the Upsampling/Upconversion|filtering|noise-shaping and I prefer to do it in real time with the file player on a computer, but it can be done offline (e.g. PGGB) or using a dedicated box (e.g. dCS Upsampler, MScaler).

 

[tuga]

Also if one's DAC only has S/PDIF or performs better with this input one may need a USB to S/PDIF DCC.

The Raspberry Pi can be used as a Player and have an on-board DCC HAT but not as a Processor/Player (it's way underpowered) and as such it requires either an external upsampler or a DAC with a relly good internal one (e.g. Tambaqui).

 

[t1no]

I prefer a minimal box count but can understand given the way tech is moving why you might want want keep the digital front end as a separate device. Not for sound quality reasons but because of obsolescence. Hence why my digital front ends are all (except for one streaming amp) cheap and cheerful separate boxes reasonably decent internal DACs or failing that a digital output.

 

[tuga]

I guess the rule is "as simple as possible" (but not simpler as to affect performance).

 

[bencat]

So I want the simple as possible as it seems to make sense but I suspect that with all digital systems the additional mushrooming units can make things more complicated but in the end produce a more satisfying sound .

 

[jamster]

So I want the simple as possible as it seems to make sense but I suspect that with all digital systems the additional mushrooming units can make things more complicated but in the end produce a more satisfying sound .

I think that's right, within reason. Your setup sounds very well considered and includes a pi, minidsp etc. It looks like you have picked the right tool for each job.

I think the argument for 'multibox' falls down when people buy tech just to try it with no real argument for why their system needs it, reclockers and the like. It is easy to spend a grand and get nothing but a bigger electricity bill and a reinforced confirmation bias.

But what do I know? At the moment I am using a Sonos Amp, and loving it [emoji54]

 

[oldius]

I now use a turntable into an integrated amp into speakers.

Digitally, I use a streamer in to a DAC, integrated and speakers. 

All business needs to make a profit but there is no intrinsic need for separate phono stages, headphone amps and power supplies. We have been sold those ideas by the industry and improvements by using them are, regularly, in my experience, not worth the investment. Other will disagree, often those who sell gear, and others will disagree who have invested heavily, but you can only ever make your mind up as it is your system, your ears, your room and your own wallet.

 

[jamster]

I think it's also important to remember that this is a hobby.  People should do what makes them happy.  Some people prefer lots of boxes and a detailed pre-flight checklist to get the system switched on.  Others like simplicity and minimalism.   Some like both, in which case they need two systems

 

[bencat]

I do feel that there is no real need for all the different boxes I use in my system especially all the different LPSU units I have but each time I added one the sound quality get better and each time I remove one it gets worse . Now I know full well that other people do not hear this and find no difference but I do and in the end i am the one that sits and listens to the music .

I do agree that this is a hobby and in some areas there is lots of free and interesting things that can be tried and switched which gives in some cases just fun but also in some cases sound quality advancement .

I would love to have the option now of a simple system but having dipped my toes in the active world I find myself in at the deep end . I love what active brings to the final sound and I find it more real and enjoyable now do not ask me to pin point which part is responsible for this but i suspect it is really the use of a n amplifier for each driver that does it with the added ease for both the amplifier and the driver only having to deal with its specific frequency . Electrical and mechanical items like to and seem to work better when they are not stressed . If they are only asked to do limited things that are well within their bandwidth it seems to give both a speed and ease to the final sound that is a little hard to describe properly but one you hear it you want more .

There is still part of me that wants a lovely simple all in one box of streamer / DAC / Amplifier connecting to speakers but I think the reduction in the sound i like would be too much so the multiple boxes will have to stay until someone makes a three way DDRC 24 then I can use just that to cover Digital Crossover / DAC / Digital Volume as I do with my two way active . Sadly it does not look like MiniDSP want to do that as it would become too much competition for the other units they already produce .

 

[jamster]

There is still part of me that wants a lovely simple all in one box of streamer / DAC / Amplifier connecting to speakers but I think the reduction in the sound i like would be too much so the multiple boxes will have to stay until someone makes a three way DDRC 24 then I can use just that to cover Digital Crossover / DAC / Digital Volume as I do with my two way active . Sadly it does not look like MiniDSP want to do that as it would become too much competition for the other units they already produce .

Also - a lot of these all in one systems are effectively just separates but wired up internally, or in some cases on the same PCB.  

If I went active I'd be keen to have a play with some pro-audio kit e.g.:  https://motu.com/products/avb/8a/body.html - albeit even more complex than your set up

Edit: a thread about using that Motu in a 3 way active config:  https://www.******************.com/forum/index.php?threads/motu-8a-measurements.2342/

 

[JackoUK]

The question seems to be about the number of components in a system and whether having a larger number of components makes life unnecessarily complicated.

My take is that many systems benefit from the modularity of separate components dedicated to specific, self-contained tasks ... moreover this split should be a design goal requiring very careful consideration. We need solid standards to ensure interoperability and thus to offer choice and flexibility according to usage cases, where cost will eventually intrude.

These tasks appear to be very different to me ...

- moving digital information around the world

- designing an amplifier

- designing a loudspeaker

- converting a digital signal to analogue

... so I think it is natural and beneficial in general to make them separate components.

Also natural is that progress in different areas runs at different rates. Again it is typically better to have components and standards so that one can upgrade in line with progress, without having to ditch a whole system. That's why Bencat has an all-digital, 2021 front-end (because digital transmission of data around the world has come on a bit recently ;-)  ) ... and a pair of 1957 loudspeakers (there has been little progress in loudspeaker design in the last 60+ years).

There is an undeniable overhead with increasing the number of components ... but I think it well worth the effort.

 

[bencat]

Also - a lot of these all in one systems are effectively just separates but wired up internally, or in some cases on the same PCB.  

If I went active I'd be keen to have a play with some pro-audio kit e.g.:  https://motu.com/products/avb/8a/body.html - albeit even more complex than your set up

Edit: a thread about using that Motu in a 3 way active config:  https://www.******************.com/forum/index.php?threads/motu-8a-measurements.2342/

That is a very interesting item and given that it appears to be able to act like a MiniDSP 24 but with additional outputs so as noted it can be used for Three Way and then still have two outputs for subs for those that use them . Shame is being a pro unit its analogue outputs are neither XLR or RCS but phone jacks meaning either an adapter or specific cable for RCA input on most domestic amps .

 

[JackoUK]

My view is that file playback / streaming is still a developing technology.

I disagree, perhaps because I am from an IT/Telecommunications background. I have a high regard for digital standards and transmission.

Errors introduced in talking to the cloud are corrected in the internet protocols. CD's were protected from misuse by error-correcting codes. The PCM audiostream to a DAC is protected by the DAC's flow-control protocol. PCM and USB are mature standards. I am happy with the integrity of audio information all the way to the DAC ... what happens in the DAC I intend to explore.

 

[tuga]

I disagree, perhaps because I am from an IT/Telecommunications background. I have a high regard for digital standards and transmission.

Errors introduced in talking to the cloud are corrected in the internet protocols. CD's were protected from misuse by error-correcting codes. The PCM audiostream to a DAC is protected by the DAC's flow-control protocol. PCM and USB are mature standards. I am happy with the integrity of audio information all the way to the DAC ... what happens in the DAC I intend to explore.

Sorry, didn';t express myself correctly.

 

[tuga]

I disagree, perhaps because I am from an IT/Telecommunications background. I have a high regard for digital standards and transmission.

Errors introduced in talking to the cloud are corrected in the internet protocols. CD's were protected from misuse by error-correcting codes. The PCM audiostream to a DAC is protected by the DAC's flow-control protocol. PCM and USB are mature standards. I am happy with the integrity of audio information all the way to the DAC ... what happens in the DAC I intend to explore.

The issue is not transmission errors but D/A conversion errors due to noise which affects the chip; so not a digital transmission problem per se.

 

[jamster]

At this point - let me set out a precis of the next few posts - so we don't have to live them real-time:

1.  Issue with noise in digital chain is overblown. Tests prove its impact is negligible.

2.  But I can hear it - explain that!

3.  You are imaging it.  Tests don't lie.

4.  Tests can't be as accurate as the human ear. Science still has a long way to go.

5.  Agree to disagree.

 

[tuga]

At this point - let me set out a precis of the next few posts - so we don't have to live them real-time:

1.  Issue with noise in digital chain is overblown. Tests prove its impact is negligible.

2.  But I can hear it - explain that!

3.  You are imaging it.  Tests don't lie.

4.  Tests can't be as accurate as the human ear. Science still has a long way to go.

5.  Agree to disagree.

Which tests are you referring to? I am quite a big fan of measurements.

 

[garn63]

All things should be simplified...its mans nature to complicate things & "mess"...only to arrive back with the "re-invented simple" before the whole process starts again.  Making money & new conversations seems the main driving force behind hifi these days. There are of course exceptions but in the main most stories have been told.  

* This is only my opinion. I am not being contentious. I might be feeling philosophical today. I promise to leave the thread alone now.