<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi glad you're interested - comments below.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Brian Willoughby <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brianw@sounds.wa.com"><a href="mailto:brianw@sounds.wa.com">brianw@sounds.wa.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
On Jan 14, 2010, at 20:59, Nicholas Bower wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm after the cheapest way to decode a flac stream with following criteria;<br>
- Transport from UPnP (DNLA) NAS using either WiFi or Cat5 networking<br>
- Toslink digital out for using existing HiFi DAC.<br>
- Low power consuption (eg just few Watts - it's just a decoder anyway).<br>
</blockquote></div>
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.</blockquote>
<div><br>Actually on the contrary. Cheap in terms of simple to spend money where it's going to make a difference on audio quality (not in a Flac decoder device containing knocked up electronics from a PC manufacturer). Besides cheap can mean reasonable design too:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111597/article.html"><a href="http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111597/article.html">http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111597/article.html</a></a><br><br>Regarding Toslink, my understanding (albeit limited) is that if an external DAC is going to reclock the bitstream anyway (right?), and there is no video to sync, why wouldn't you want the DAC (and pre-amp and power source and line level amp) completely external from componentary like embedded OS, TCP stack, NIC and WiFi radio (especially)? That's where the boutique money goes in my guess - integrating the latter complexity sufficiently well to obtain a level of quality that is fairly straight forward to obtain with a simple separates system using established principles.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
</blockquote></div>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote><div><br>Know of one with optical out? This is one approach I suppose. I was curious about DIY solutions also however.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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).<br>
</blockquote></div>
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.<br>
<br>
I do not know of any solutions, and you can count me as interested in hearing about what already exists.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I agree it should be possible - just not cheaply to a high level of audio quality if you put those things in the same box (would be happy to be corrected). The thing has to match a good CD player (cheap being relatively speaking here) for audio quality would people not agree?<br>
<br><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>