+- Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com)
+-- Forum: Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Chat)
+--- Forum: Streaming (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Streaming)
+--- Thread: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server (/Thread-Mac-AIR-v-MiND-180-v-Auralic-ARIES-v-totaldac-d1-server)
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - PhilP - 09-Sep-2014
FYI, This paper from Texas Instruments explains how to design ethernet terminating electonics to reduce the effects of EMI and cable coupling with equipment. So they at least think that the effects of cables etc are not all b******s
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snla107a/snla107a.pdf
Thanks to Simon-in-Suffolk on the Naim forum for the link.
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - Confused - 09-Sep-2014
I tried my system without cables once, it didn't work. An interesting link above, perhaps something for a new thread, i.e. the facts and science behind cable technology, the truth is out there....
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - PhilP - 09-Sep-2014
(09-Sep-2014, 20:32)Confused Wrote: I tried my system without cables once, it didn't work. An interesting link above, perhaps something for a new thread, i.e. the facts and science behind cable technology, the truth is out there....
I do have to come clean though - I have never spent more than a few £ on an ethernet cable
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - Confused - 09-Sep-2014
@PhilP - just noticed that you're in the perfect position to advise regarding AIR vs Naim NDX. An interesting one for sure!
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - PhilP - 09-Sep-2014
(09-Sep-2014, 20:50)Confused Wrote: @PhilP - just noticed that you're in the perfect position to advise regarding AIR vs Naim NDX. An interesting one for sure!
Funnily enough, my NDX was boxed up ready for sale until a couple of days ago when I decided to give it one last chance. The last time I used it was a couple of months ago when my 200 was still running-in and to be honest nothing sounded great
I compared a couple of tracks NDX versus AIR yesterday and the latter definitely sounded clearer and more-detailed whilst the NDX was softer but had more body. I will report back in a couple of days when I've a proper chance to compare the two.
BTW, when I first tried the 200 I used the NDX/XPS2 as the main source and it sounded very nice - smooth, relaxed and detailed with no digital harshness. Without the XPS2 the sound was significantly degraded with a harsh edge.
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - philoouu - 10-Sep-2014
(09-Sep-2014, 19:58)PhilP Wrote: If clocking is the main reason for the difference in sound between AIR and Totaldac AES/EBU and both mechanisms provide bit-perfect data to the DAC then the implication is that Devialet's buffering and re-clocking of AIR-transported data is sub-optimal. If so, I'm very surprised that Devialet would have made that compromise given that AIR is one of their flagship technologies. And it sounds pretty good to me anyway
Hello
Thanks for all your comments.
On one side Air is supposed to be "the most bit perfect" way to transfer data to the DAC and on the other side Totaldac is producing the best sound. I never tested Totaldac server (I think that once you buy Totaldac server you should start thinking of buying the Totaldac dac too and start a system from scratch rather than adding it on Devialet but this a completely personal point of view irrelevant here) but I believe that Totaldac server sounds better because so many people agree on it.
On my side I prefer A+/Itunes/USB than Air or A+/Itunes/Air. And again this is not the “most bit perfect” way either. But this is the way I prefer.
Computer, hard disk, cables, software seems to have an influence even on “bit perfect data”. And eventually it is up to the taste of each of us to decide what is the best sound. I definitely want to read and learn more about this subject.
Thanks
philoouu
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - mauidan - 10-Sep-2014
I haven't received my D200, but I'm looking forward to trying AIR and comparing it to my Auraliti PK 90 w/linear psu file player and PS Audio PWT's AES/EBU output.
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - Confused - 10-Sep-2014
(09-Sep-2014, 19:58)PhilP Wrote: If clocking is the main reason for the difference in sound between AIR and Totaldac AES/EBU and both mechanisms provide bit-perfect data to the DAC then the implication is that Devialet's buffering and re-clocking of AIR-transported data is sub-optimal. If so, I'm very surprised that Devialet would have made that compromise given that AIR is one of their flagship technologies. And it sounds pretty good to me anyway
I would agree that AIR does indeed sound very good. AIR does seem to outperform most things, with the one exception appearing to be the Totaldac D1. However, I think it is helpful to remember that the Totaldac D1 is not far off the full price of a complete Devialet amplifier, with AIR, phono stage, ADH amplifier, shiny case and nice remote all included. So yes, if you throw large amounts of cash at something, you can perhaps get a more "optimal" solution. At one time AIR was effectively free with some Devialet models. So for the money, I would say AIR is very, very, optimal indeed. You could perhaps argue that this is a compromise by Devialet. The truth is that there are probably very many compromises made by the designers, but to lose this particular compromise would add maybe 4000 Euros to the Devialet's asking price.
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - GuillaumeB - 10-Sep-2014
(10-Sep-2014, 08:33)Confused Wrote:(09-Sep-2014, 19:58)PhilP Wrote: If clocking is the main reason for the difference in sound between AIR and Totaldac AES/EBU and both mechanisms provide bit-perfect data to the DAC then the implication is that Devialet's buffering and re-clocking of AIR-transported data is sub-optimal. If so, I'm very surprised that Devialet would have made that compromise given that AIR is one of their flagship technologies. And it sounds pretty good to me anyway
I would agree that AIR does indeed sound very good. AIR does seem to outperform most things, with the one exception appearing to be the Totaldac D1. However, I think it is helpful to remember that the Totaldac D1 is not far off the full price of a complete Devialet amplifier, with AIR, phono stage, ADH amplifier, shiny case and nice remote all included. So yes, if you throw large amounts of cash at something, you can perhaps get a more "optimal" solution. At one time AIR was effectively free with some Devialet models. So for the money, I would say AIR is very, very, optimal indeed. You could perhaps argue that this is a compromise by Devialet. The truth is that there are probably very many compromises made by the designers, but to lose this particular compromise would add maybe 4000 Euros to the Devialet's asking price.
In the context of my system 5k euros (or £4k) actually seems like quite good value in terms of improvements that I have achieved. So I think price is relative really, which is why I said in an earlier post that it's probably a good idea to think about optimising the rest of the system first before considering something like a d1 server. For someone with a 200/250 unit it might make more sense to think about getting a second unit and going dual mono. Or getting better speakers.
I agree AIR sounds good. But going back to one of my earlier points re usability, it's not for everyone either. There is a certain amount of complexity involved in bringing a PC/Mac into the audio chain. And let us not forget the issue of reliability with dropouts and white noise. Admittedly many are running AIR successfully but this will still be off-putting to some.
Guillaume
RE: Mac AIR v MiND 180 v Auralic ARIES v totaldac d1 server - thumb5 - 10-Sep-2014
(09-Sep-2014, 13:12)Confused Wrote:(09-Sep-2014, 12:41)IanG-UK Wrote: Where I differ a bit with "Confused" is his conclusion that the Totaldac clocking ability is superior to AIR. Surely it is just audibly different to two individuals' sets of ears in a way which pleases them!
Actually I would have to stick with a conclusion that the Totaldac may have superior clocking ability. The fact is I have never listened to a Totaldac D1, and hearing is believing for me. However, looking a some of Guillaume's and Rufus' previous posts, it is clear that they think that they are hearing a most definate improvement, i.e. they sound like they are a little beyond the subjective range. As I mentioned, I would need to hear one myself before stating anything more than a tentative "may have".
Please excuse me if I go into pedantic mode for a while. (Maybe that should be a given
)Guillaume and Rufus clearly agree that the Totaldac d1 server sounds better than AIR, and I certainly don't doubt their judgement. But in the absence of measurement that is by definition a subjective judgement. That being the case I don't think one can or should conclude from their comparison that the Totaldac is providing technical (objectively measurable) improvements over AIR, for example in the area of clocking. It may or may not be measurably different but the subjective improvement in sound quality does not necessarily means it's technically better than AIR - "lower jitter", "more bit perfect", however you might interpret those terms.