Bluesound Node Icon Streamer Review

[Vive la dissonance!]

AES Convention Papers Forum » The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

JSmith

Care to summarize? As is, a link to purchase a paper, this is not helpful in answering the question for a layperson.

 

[Vive la dissonance!]

...if it doesn't actually affect what we hear, is it worth withholding a "recommended" note on an otherwise well-engineered device?

This is what I'm not quite getting, myself. If I understand correctly what this issue with the filter is, Amir is refusing a recommendation for something that has no actual audible effect in terms of listening to music, at least not for human ears. Am I really supposed to care about this ultrasonic noise? I know I'm well behind most of you in terms of understanding the jargon. But this doesn't accord with the ethos of ASR, it seems to me.

If I'm wrong here, I'd appreciate a clear explanation.

 

[Koeitje]

Not terrible simply because of the shit filter used.

This is what I'm not quite getting, myself. If I understand correctly what this issue with the filter is, Amir is refusing a recommendation for something that has no actual audible effect in terms of listening to music, at least not for human ears. Am I really supposed to care about this ultrasonic noise? I know I'm well behind most of you in terms of understanding the jargon. But this doesn't accord with the ethos of ASR, it seems to me.

If I'm wrong here, I'd appreciate a clear explanation.

Because its elementary to have a proper filter. Clearly Bluesound doesn't give a shit about this product, so why should we?

 

[kyuu]

This is what I'm not quite getting, myself. If I understand correctly what this issue with the filter is, Amir is refusing a recommendation for something that has no actual audible effect in terms of listening to music, at least not for human ears. Am I really supposed to care about this ultrasonic noise? I know I'm well behind most of you in terms of understanding the jargon. But this doesn't accord with the ethos of ASR, it seems to me.

If I'm wrong here, I'd appreciate a clear explanation.

I'm not a technical expert on this by any means, but I don't understand your complaint. What exactly do you think the "ethos of ASR" is? Many products have been dinged and not received a recommendation from Amir due to technical faults that don't necessarily have an audible impact. The most common example of this would be DACs with less than stellar SINAD but which are almost certainly still beyond the bounds of causing audible issues.

For this filter issue in particular (again with the qualification that I'm not a technical expert), having a slow/crappy filter that doesn't quickly attenuate frequencies beyond Nyquist can potentially result in aliasing which can affect audible frequencies (but it certainly isn't a guarantee that it will happen). The bottom line is that there's no good reason or excuse to use such a filter and there's no cost to implementing a correct filter or at least offering the option to select the filters that are already included by the manufacturer of the DAC chip.

 

[tjf]

source?

this would be the "many users" at Lenbrook marketing HQ no doubt...

 

[amirm]

Is the notion that it sounds worse supported by real world testing?

I didn't say it sounded worse. There is a theory that says it can, by causing intermodulation distortion in the tweeter. I recall a study indicating this as a a reason ultrasonic noise is not audible by itself but becomes one due to this intermodulation effect. I don't remember the details though.

 

[amirm]

Care to summarize? As is, a link to purchase a paper, this is not helpful in answering the question for a layperson.

I have some of the information in the paper contained in this article I wrote years ago: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

Net, net, statistically significant audible difference was found between a sharp and slow filter. It was not remotely night and day, nor was it with respect to this specific implementation. It was a simulation using different filters in Adobe Audition software.

 

[Vive la dissonance!]

What exactly do you think the "ethos of ASR" is?

Fact-based evaluation, in accordance with principles verified by use of the scientific method, with an understanding of the established limits of human perception.

I just don't see the point, neither in praising nor condemning a device for effects that are not audible, or are extraordinarily unlikey to be, in real-world usage.

 

[ivayvr]

I was aware that Bluesound in general, does not have a big fan base on ASR, but did not expect this level of hostility!
The aluminum case looks plasticky?! No subjective listening test?
Expensive when you add Dirac? What about WIIM with Roon? Cheap?
App bad? Obviously, all the companies licensing the Blue Os for their machines are plain stupid when they can buy WIIM with its app for the fraction of the price.
I had Node 2i and after reading the stellar reviews here, I bought the WIIM Pro +.
I did not hear any sound improvement and the set up procedure was much more complicated than the Bluesound. Their windows app, that is what I use most of the time, is atrocious. I had to download Logitech something, to make it presentable. After a few months of struggling to find my way through various menus, most of them I would never need, I decided that I had enough, sold it and purchased Node 130.
If we are so concerned about the price, I believe that all amplifiers costing more than $6K should be banned from ASR. Simply, all realistic needs could be fulfilled by amps costing less than the set limit.
I absolutely can't understand why it is so hard to understand that different people have different needs, likes, priorities and financial means.
My budget is fairly tight, but I would never consider a streamer based on Pi (or whatever) because that is not something I am competent to deal with.

 

[TNT]

potentially result in aliasing

Please describe the mechanism and how these alias are created.

//

 

[kyuu]

Fact-based evaluation, in accordance with principles verified by use of the scientific method, with an understanding of the established limits of human perception.

Again, poor technical performance has always been dinged in ASR reviews. If you haven't noticed that you haven't read many reviews or haven't been paying attention. You can choose whether or not you care, but that doesn't change the fact that it is something taken into account.

I just don't see the point, neither in praising nor condemning a device for effects that are not audible, or are extraordinarily unlikey to be, in real-world usage.

Even if we assume that is definitely isn't audible (which may or may not be the case, see Amir's response above), what exactly is the reason to tolerate the implementation of poor filters when proper filters are widely available and cost literally nothing to implement?

Please describe the mechanism and how these alias are created.

//

No. I already stated I'm not a technical expert. I'm merely reporting my understanding of the issue.

 

[antcollinet]

No better performance than a wiim ultra but 3x the cost.

Doesn't even look as nice. In fact the ultra looks better. Bit of a no brainer.

 

[id.ray]

Streamers are the one component which befuddle me the most--particularly their pricing. This unit is a streamer DAC costing $999 USD. Is there any reason to believe it's sonically superior to using a Google Chromecast Audio with, say. a Topping D10? That combination should run less than $200, or one fifth the price of this unit. Never mind the bells and whistles, any reason to believe it does a better job of conveying the signal? Or, for that matter, is it superior to a PC and a USB Dac? or a RPI with a hat?

And its filter is terrible, which means ultrasonic noise when rendering 16/44, which is the large majority of all music. How could they get something so basic, so wrong?

The basic function of this thing is to transmit digital LPCM streams from a router to a DAC, no DSP, no bass management, no PEQ, so why are all these streamers so stratospherically priced? Piggybank Panther seems well deserved in almost every case!

As always, very thorough and professional review, Amir. So thank you.

I only switched to bluesound from chromecast for one reason. True gapless playback as some of my favorite albums are gapless

 

[darth]

Doesn't even look as nice. In fact the ultra looks better. Bit of a no brainer.

Screen of the icon is better imo, while I had it side by side. Also allows you to keep the clock on as the playback screen (useful for HDMI users since info on screen is garbage otherwise). It's a very requested feature for wiim ultra so hopefully they add it one day.

 

[mr_bill]

@ivayvr you are making a lot of common sense. Great comments!

 

[SoundsGood2Me]

Get 'em @amirm !

Always amazing watching you show a room full of Engineers how to do things right.

Thanks for all the valuable knowledge, this site has been a boon.

Especially since John Atkinson is retiring, but they have another kid now.

Pic not related - does anyone remember RoboCop?

 

[amirm]

I was aware that Bluesound in general, does not have a big fan base on ASR, but did not expect this level of hostility!

The brand is super popular here as evidenced by a member wanting it tested and me getting a number of requests for it.

 

[bigbertha]

I’ve had both the N132 and the Icon in my system recently. I also have the Auralic Vega G2. I’ve spent some time listening to all three. I started looking at Bluesound mainly for the eARC and because the streaming functionality in the Vega is clunky and slow. And there are times when I want AirPlay 2. All measurements aside, I am VERY happy with sound of the Vega and the Icon, each on their own, as well as the Icon feeding Vega via USB. I did not like the N132 after some back and forth between it and the Icon, so it went back to Bluesound. Due to a shipping issue, I was able to get the Icon at a 30% discount, so I ended up getting it at a bit of a “bargain”. I actually find myself listening to AND enjoying it more with each passing day. I’ve been trying to just “enjoy the music”. I love that it has eARC. Lip-sync issues while watching TV are gone. My wife has finally stopped complaining about not being able to watch TV in my listening room. BluOS has been a bit of a mixed-bag. It works AND then it doesn’t for no obvious reason. Tidal Connect and Roon work flawlessly. I tried both Ethernet and Wi-Fi. No obvious difference, so I stuck with Wi-Fi because it works. Not a single drop. Things I like are being able to program my Apple Remote to control playback, volume, etc. I have one button programmed to select HDMI input, as I prefer manual over auto detect. Boot up time is fast, which the Vega is not. I like the clock face. Could care less about touchscreen. I like the programmable touch buttons on top, which I have set for Roon, HDMI, and a few Tidal playlists. For casual listening, I find myself using the Icon and happy with ease of use and feel there’s no compromise in quality. For critical listening, I use Icon as streamer only to my Vega, which is much more detailed (IMO), and a bit wider soundstage (also IMO). I also like that my Vega has a bunch of filter options if I feel like a different flavour. Icon is much more laid back in presentation. No one who has the budget to pay $1000 for a streamer, will hate it.

 

[JSmith]

eARC offers superior automatic lip sync correction.

It's HDMI 2.1 more so (i.e. sync protocols), not really eARC itself.


JSmith

 

[Vive la dissonance!]

For the record, I have great respect for Amir, and read every review of his carefully. I've certainly learned a lot, and I have happily taken his advice on a few occasions in my own purchasing. In general, he has well earned the benefit of the doubt, and I do appreciate his responses up thread.

This is simply an example where I guess I just don't get it. In theory, there are better filters at 44.1khz/16bit: that I totally get, and I think I get why. I know what the Nyquist frequency is, and what happens if you don't filter properly for it. I took electronic sound synthesis in graduate school, and had fun abusing it.

But if there are zero audible consequences in this case, I can't understand all the lambasting. It seems more like exaggerative blowback against something for being popular, rather than a legitimate concern for the consumer.

I mean, no recording at 44.1khz that will be played through the Icon is potentially going to have any information at all above 22khz. And Amir's review confirms that the filter for higher resolution sources doesn't employ the same filter. So...

Really, help me out, here. Should I be planning to sell my unit, and replace it with something else? It seems like it fills an excellent niche in my setup, and the UI doesn't bother me.

Of course, having written that, I always like having more options.