• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Making a streamer with Intel Nuc/how

somebodyelse

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
3,682
Likes
2,962
Based on the photos of the insides from a quick web search, Innuos are taking standard decent PC parts, putting them in a hifi-style case, sometimes adding USB analog and/or digital outputs, and sometimes using a linear PSU in place of an external 12V power brick. They're also maintaining the software, and probably licensing agreements with streaming providers, which is a good portion of what you're paying for. If you don't have the skill or the inclination to assemble one yourself then a product like that is a perfectly reasonable approach, but don't expect a significant difference in performance.

For the SotM we have a review and internals here - again respectable, but not significantly different from a Pi or similar SBC. The S2 Ultra contains the compute module version of the Pi, as seen in the Stereophile review (it's the one in the SODIMM socket, mostly hidden under a heatsink) and appears to be a production derivative of this board. The situation is pretty much that with the Innuos above.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,627
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
And he said that he gladly put anyone besides him and listen to the setups and tell him that there is no difference.

Ask him how he would set up the listening comparison...
 
OP
B

Bliman

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Likes
150
Location
Belgium
Thanks already for the answers.
It is very difficult for me. Somebody else says yeah it is a standard cd drive with linear power supply and BillG says it doesn't really matter and computer is good enough.
But take for example my RME ADI DAC, couldn't you say the same about that too. Couldn't you say, it uses this dac and such.
But still, there is a big difference in measuring devices with the same dac chip. Those differences must come from somewhere, no? And doesn't those differences come from design and material used?
BDWoody would you like to hear how he would set up the listening comparison when he would like to convince someone? To test his knowledge?
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,627
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
BDWoody would you like to hear how he would set up the listening comparison when he would like to convince someone? To test his knowledge?

If it doesn't involve meaningful controls (output levels matched closely) with some kind of no peeking switching, it will be more of a guided listening/sales session, with many tricks available to 'help you' hear differences that aren't really there.

If he or you really want to find out if there's an audible difference to you, go through the effort to make it meaningful by implementing some basic controls.
 
OP
B

Bliman

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Likes
150
Location
Belgium
If it doesn't involve meaningful controls (output levels matched closely) with some kind of no peeking switching, it will be more of a guided listening/sales session, with many tricks available to 'help you' hear differences that aren't really there.

If he or you really want to find out if there's an audible difference to you, go through the effort to make it meaningful by implementing some basic controls.
Yeah I know. I have learned that from here ;). I shall ask him. It could be difficult I think because these products work differently I think.
 
OP
B

Bliman

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Likes
150
Location
Belgium
The problem I am also having is. You see many measurements here. And that is great. And you see many use the same dac and such but different measurements. Those differences must come from somewhere. So where else would they come from then from the design and material used? That's why I think that implementation is also key.
The difficulty is sorting out those that are genuine and those that are conning people.
The next problem is that I don't think we have all the measurements already. That would be arrogant to assume. I still think we have still much to discover.
But this makes choosing things much more difficult.
 

somebodyelse

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
3,682
Likes
2,962
Thanks already for the answers.
It is very difficult for me. Somebody else says yeah it is a standard cd drive with linear power supply and BillG says it doesn't really matter and computer is good enough.
But take for example my RME ADI DAC, couldn't you say the same about that too. Couldn't you say, it uses this dac and such.
But still, there is a big difference in measuring devices with the same dac chip. Those differences must come from somewhere, no? And doesn't those differences come from design and material used?
BDWoody would you like to hear how he would set up the listening comparison when he would like to convince someone? To test his knowledge?
The job of various parts of your HiFi is to isolate one sensitive part from undue influence in another. A good power supply is insensitive to the quality of the mains supply so long as it's with nominal range - that's pretty much the definition of its job. Likewise a good digital receiver is insensitive to the quality of the digital source so long as it provides the correct data within specification. The receiver delivers the data to the DAC chip with the correct timing to achieve good performance. The ESS DAC chip itself is most certainly sensitive to the quality of the circuitry around it, particularly on the analog side, which is why we see some large variations in the measured performance between different DACs using the same ESS chip. Probably the most obvious manifestation is the 'ESS hump' which some manufacturers had sorted right from the start, some took a while to work it out, and some still suffer from. The output buffer then isolates the sensitive DAC chip from the incluence of cable capacitance and the input characteristics of the next part in the signal chain.

We know from testing that the RME ADI is insensitive to the digital source so long as it's within spec - in other words it's doing its job properly, RME built an excellent DAC and you bought wisely. Most (but not all) modern DACs manage this, but it used to be much more common for DACs to be sensitive to the quality of the digital source. In those days it wasn't unlikely that the quality of a CD transport could make an audible difference, and it was noteworthy in reviews that the Benchmark DAC1 didn't sound any different with good or poor transports. Luckily for us technology has improved in that respect over the years. Occasionally a manufacturer still gets it wrong, sometimes only on one input, and it shows up in the j-test results.

We know that the standard PC, streamer etc. can deliver the data unaltered to the DAC because RME provide a test signal to verify that, described towards the end of this post covering the changes introduced in a firmware update. Doing lots of stuff to digital data without unintentionally altering it is the computer's job, and the standard bits in modern computers are very good at it. Standard parts are all you need to get the right data to the DAC within spec, which is all a properly designed DAC needs.
 

Sounchasr

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
75
Likes
12
I've been using standard, off the shelf, consumer grade computers since the mid 90's in high fidelity audio systems as servers and players. Not once have I had to do anything particularly special to them.

On the very odd occasion, I might run into some electrical interference issue. However, I can usually resolve that in a few minutes by checking that the grounding is proper, which takes care of any humming, and ferrite rings enveloping cables takes care of any high pitched noise.

Please keep in mind that it's a dealer's job to sell products; some are ethical in their approach, but many aren't, and they'll lie to make the sale. Also, their knowledge usually isn't any more comprehensive than that of an educated consumer, and often times less, especially when dealing with consumers that work in science and engineering... :rolleyes:

BillG:

What is your setup? Always like to hear what people are using.

Right now (meaning this week......) I'm using a Lenovo W520 > iFi iUSBPower >Ayre Codex > Jolida 1501
 
OP
B

Bliman

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Likes
150
Location
Belgium
The job of various parts of your HiFi is to isolate one sensitive part from undue influence in another. A good power supply is insensitive to the quality of the mains supply so long as it's with nominal range - that's pretty much the definition of its job. Likewise a good digital receiver is insensitive to the quality of the digital source so long as it provides the correct data within specification. The receiver delivers the data to the DAC chip with the correct timing to achieve good performance. The ESS DAC chip itself is most certainly sensitive to the quality of the circuitry around it, particularly on the analog side, which is why we see some large variations in the measured performance between different DACs using the same ESS chip. Probably the most obvious manifestation is the 'ESS hump' which some manufacturers had sorted right from the start, some took a while to work it out, and some still suffer from. The output buffer then isolates the sensitive DAC chip from the incluence of cable capacitance and the input characteristics of the next part in the signal chain.

We know from testing that the RME ADI is insensitive to the digital source so long as it's within spec - in other words it's doing its job properly, RME built an excellent DAC and you bought wisely. Most (but not all) modern DACs manage this, but it used to be much more common for DACs to be sensitive to the quality of the digital source. In those days it wasn't unlikely that the quality of a CD transport could make an audible difference, and it was noteworthy in reviews that the Benchmark DAC1 didn't sound any different with good or poor transports. Luckily for us technology has improved in that respect over the years. Occasionally a manufacturer still gets it wrong, sometimes only on one input, and it shows up in the j-test results.

We know that the standard PC, streamer etc. can deliver the data unaltered to the DAC because RME provide a test signal to verify that, described towards the end of this post covering the changes introduced in a firmware update. Doing lots of stuff to digital data without unintentionally altering it is the computer's job, and the standard bits in modern computers are very good at it. Standard parts are all you need to get the right data to the DAC within spec, which is all a properly designed DAC needs.
I think the only thing I can do is try to arrange a blind listening test between two products. If I don't hear a difference then it would be easier for me to decide. If I can arrange it we have to see.
I hate this hobby sometimes. From one side you have this site that promotes hardware that sometimes costs less then 100€ and claiming it to be better than hardware costing 6000€. From the other side you have reviewers (many who also know their stuff and also the technical bit) and they claim there are differences.
It is not nice.
I am also of the opinion that we are only at the beginning of learning everything and how to measure.
So yes the measurements are great but do we know enough? It doesn't help that I am very insecure.
It is hard for the brain to accept that something that is reviewed well is worse than something that is not built for the same job and only cost a fraction. I think only a blind test would help for that.
Like I said finding to buy the right thing is sometimes not easy if you do the research.
 

Jmudrick

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
778
Likes
701
BillG:

What is your setup? Always like to hear what people are using.

Right now (meaning this week......) I'm using a Lenovo W520 > iFi iUSBPower >Ayre Codex > Jolida 1501
I'm using a similar vintage (2011) Thinkpad X220 (RME DAC). Siting in my listening chair my right ear is 5.5 feet away from the X220 "fan", noise from which has never been an issue. When the X220 dies I'd probably get another Thinkpad before a dedicated Pi or NUC.
 

Sounchasr

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
75
Likes
12
I'm using a similar vintage (2011) Thinkpad X220 (RME DAC). Siting in my listening chair my right ear is 5.5 feet away from the X220 "fan", noise from which has never been an issue. When the X220 dies I'd probably get another Thinkpad before a dedicated Pi or NUC.

Have you tried tpfancontrol? I've never really noticed the fan but tpfancontrol really makes it quiet.
 

Jmudrick

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
778
Likes
701
Have you tried tpfancontrol? I've never really noticed the fan but tpfancontrol really makes it quiet.

I have used it on some older Thinkpads where the fan was annoying but I simply don't hear it on the X220.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,627
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
And you see many use the same dac and such but different measurements. Those differences must come from somewhere

I'm not really sure what that means. The chip isn't the DAC as such, the whole box is the DAC...so differences between DAC's with the same 'chip' reflect the success of failure of that specific design. Fortunately, what we need to know is easily (by Amir and others who know how to properly test these things) tested.

Whether the differences are at an audible level is the question, not whether they exist. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter as the devices will be basically indistinguishable...which is what you want! That means it's doing it's job competently.

If you can hear obvious differences, something is likely wrong or broken.
 

BillG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 12, 2018
Messages
1,699
Likes
2,266
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
What is your setup? Always like to hear what people are using.

Right now, my server and local playback machine is an old Dell Optiplex 990 i7 that I've fitted with a SSD as the OS drive. As I wrote, it's nothing special, nor does it need to be for audiocentric duties.

https://www.cnet.com/products/dell-optiplex-990-mt-core-i7-2600-3-4-ghz-monitor-none-series/

Local playback: Dell Optiplex 990 > Apple USB-C to 3.5mm dongle > amplifier > Infinity Reference 162 & Infinity RSUB 10.

I'm using the Apple dongle as an inexpensive DAC as I had my doubts about the Dell's onboard Realtek one.

Server: Dell Optiplex 990 (Emby Windows server) > WiFi > Android smartphone/tablet (Emby Android client) > WiFi > Chromecast Audio > amplifier > Infinity Reference 162 & Infinity RSUB 10.

The analog cable from the CCA is fitted with a ferrite bead as it was picking up some stray EMI from the PC, and that suppressed it. Interestingly enough, the Apple dongle seems to be immune to it, even though it's closer to the PC's power supply than the CCA... :cool:
 
OP
B

Bliman

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Likes
150
Location
Belgium
I'm not really sure what that means. The chip isn't the DAC as such, the whole box is the DAC...so differences between DAC's with the same 'chip' reflect the success of failure of that specific design. Fortunately, what we need to know is easily (by Amir and others who know how to properly test these things) tested.

Whether the differences are at an audible level is the question, not whether they exist. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter as the devices will be basically indistinguishable...which is what you want! That means it's doing it's job competently.

If you can hear obvious differences, something is likely wrong or broken.
Isn't the chip the heart of the DAC? And that is what I am saying the whole time that design and material are important too.
It is hard for me to accept that all the companies that for example sell streamers and such are worse and at their best is the equivalent as a computer that wasn't built for it.
So all those people are basically selling snake oil. Like you see for example with the SOtM it isn't better than a computer. All the while people are speaking highly of it.
It is very hard to accept this disconnect. What makes this harder is that people here are saying that we already can measure enough to know if it makes an audible difference or not.
I guess I should try to make a blind test (not simple with different streamers) and I bet that it still wouldn't be correct enough because then you should switch every couple of seconds and such.
It is so weird that there is such a disconnect in this hobby. And it is damn hard for the consumer who simply wants the best value/sound quality.
 

BillG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 12, 2018
Messages
1,699
Likes
2,266
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
It is hard for me to accept that all the companies that for example sell streamers and such are worse and at their best is the equivalent as a computer that wasn't built for it. So all those people are basically selling snake oil.

In essence, that's exactly what they're doing, especially when we examine the digital outputs of these devices and discover that the vast majority of them are capable of passing on a bitstream unimpeded, regardless of their costs, as long as their output is properly implemented.

With the above in mind, I personally have no desire for a streamer costing over $50USD, which is why I'm very happy with a Chromecast Audio. It handles all of the formats and services that I use regularly; its ease of use via a smart device is very convenient; I can tuck it away out of sight, out of mind, and maintainance free. It's perfect, except for the lack of native gapless playback support (this can be worked around server side, by the way) and that isn't a major hindrance for me... :cool:
 

Sounchasr

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
75
Likes
12
In essence, that's exactly what they're doing, especially when we examine the digital outputs of these devices and discover that the vast majority of them are capable of passing on a bitstream unimpeded, regardless of their costs, as long as their output is properly implemented.

With the above in mind, I personally have no desire for a streamer costing over $50USD, which is why I'm very happy with a Chromecast Audio. It handles all of the formats and services that I use regularly; its ease of use via a smart device is very convenient; I can tuck it away out of sight, out of mind, and maintainance free. It's perfect, except for the lack of native gapless playback support (this can be worked around server side, by the way) and that isn't a major hindrance for me... :cool:

You find the Chromecast Audio quality to be adequate compared to a "better" DAC?
 

BillG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 12, 2018
Messages
1,699
Likes
2,266
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
You find the Chromecast Audio quality to be adequate compared to a "better" DAC?

When using its optical output, its internal DAC is bypassed making it a non-issue. However, its internal one is sufficient to pass along Redbook transparently via analog - we've got the performance analysis here to prove it. Once we've achieved transparency, "better" becomes an engineering exercise.
 

testp

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
390
Likes
230
Im so confused..

so i have a NUC, bought for Roon Rock - 4 that works great. (dont want to use Roon at the moment)

Right now i bluetooth Spotify to DAC, plain and simple.

But ideally would like to send audio first to a Nuc ( later add a EQ plugin in Daphile or Volumio to make some REW corrections) - however, music still needs to be coming from my macbook air "spotify app" not some version of Daphile, Volumio.

so can i keep using my macbook air "Spotify app" , send music to my NUC -Lan connected to Router, usb connected to DAC, and not use Daphile web browser spotify remote thing, or volumio player web browser spotify thing.

is this possible, because i cant find straight answer from the web.. can i continue using macbook air Spotify app, if everything is set up (Daphile/Volumio)

much appreciated for the advice,
Tp
 

testp

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
390
Likes
230
little bit of more research, i guess i'll answer my own question.

NUC with Volumio can work as a renderer or endpoint to DAC, when using spotify app inside remote device: phone/pad/laptop etc.

Airplay & UPnP/DLNA is enabled by default in Volumio, means remote device does the hard work and sends audio to volumio (most instances should be unaltered audio, better than bluetooth),

installing spotify connect2 plugin in Volumio, means endpoint (NUC in my case) does the heavy lifting, remote devices kind of just do the browsing.., but this requires spotify premium account.

Room correction is also possible, theres a great guide for Room correction and other stuff of course

https://volumio.github.io/docs/Plugins_User_Manuals/brutefir/Drc_with_Volumio.html

i guess that's it, will give it a try my self..
 
Top Bottom