[Flac] Inexpensive Flac player for separates system?

[Brian Willoughby]

On Jan 14, 2010, at 20:59, Nicholas Bower wrote:
> I'm after the cheapest way to decode a flac stream with following  
> criteria;
> - Transport from UPnP (DNLA) NAS using either WiFi or Cat5 networking
> - Toslink digital out for using existing HiFi DAC.
> - Low power consuption (eg just few Watts - it's just a decoder  
> anyway).
Your criteria fall short of the full potential for quality when you  
separate the transport from the DAC via TOSLINK.  I suppose that if  
you mention "cheapest" then you're perhaps not concerned about  
sacrificing quality.  The problem is that the only remaining choices  
are FireWire (or USB) or integrating the DAC into the device which  
handles the UPnP transport.  The reason the latter choices are better  
than TOSLINK is that it allows the transport speed to be throttled by  
the DAC clock, instead of the other way around.


> There seems a real lack of Flac players that are cheap and HiFi  
> separates integratable like current-day CD players.  All solutions  
> I've seen are either expensive boutique heavy-weights or portable  
> devices.
There are certain some over-priced boutique devices out there, but  
I'd say that much of the price goes into working around the  
deficiencies in unidirectional digital audio connections such as  
SPDIF and AES3.  The real problem is that there is not a better  
interconnect for HiFi separates other than FireWire and USB, which  
each require a level of complexity in the device which is more  
difficult for the average person than pure analog or traditional  
digital I/O.

However, what's wrong with portable devices?  I realize they aren't  
as convenient to install as typical HiFi components, but they surely  
meet your low-cost and low-power requirements.


> Squeezebox doesn't count for me - requires PC to be on, thus  
> breaking rule 3 above as a few-hundred Watt music player system  
> (pretty irresponsible solution if you ask me in these times).
Excellent point.  Low power is a great goal, and it should be  
possible.  Personally, I would relax the "cheapest" part of the  
requirements, and focus on the low power aspect.  Of course, I'm  
already excluding the more expensive options because I think SPDIF  
and AES3 should be left in the past because of their compromises in  
audio quality. So, what remains is not terribly expensive in my view  
point.  The bigger problem is not so much expense as it is that  
nobody really seems to be targeting a move forward, but instead focus  
on remaining compatible with older (flawed) designs.

I do not know of any solutions, and you can count me as interested in  
hearing about what already exists.

I look at the problem as a designer, realizing that what you want is  
certainly possible with today's technology.  The real question is how  
a good design can fit into the existing marketplace when it cannot be  
compatible apart from FireWire or USB.  An ideal product would have  
an integrated DAC and would only connect via WiFi/CAT5 input and  
analog output to a preamp.  Another option would be FireWire (or USB)  
output to an existing audio interface, but that requires drivers and  
more complexity as a tradeoff with being more of a component system.

Brian Willoughby
Sound Consulting