ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Hello,
A weekend at home alone has left me some time to think ...
I designed my current set-up 8 years ago while renovating my apartment, so it is based on ML. Listening to music this weekend made me wonder if there is anything I can do to improve things.
My source of music is a Mac Mini. I run Audirvana integrated to iTunes to output music. Audirvana is nice because it talks to the DAC (to reset sampling rate) and because it can read (and transcode) high definition audio files.
I also use LinkPlayer 2 on the Mac Mini allowing it to distribute to N.Music and to play the role of the Audio Master.
The Mac Mini is connected to a Musical Fidelity V-DAC II. It can handle music up to 24 bit 96 kHz. It outputs analog by RCA which are connected to a BeoPort. And thus to ML.
Quality playback happens on a BV-7 40 Mk V and on a pair of BL3. Playback also happens on a BC6-26, BC1, BL3500, and BL Passive.
My experiments with high-definition audio have left me with some doubts about this way of doing things... I wonder if the BeoPort is still the best way to 'inject' music into a ML system ?
Are any of the new products able to accept a high quality analog input and inject it into ML ? Or am I doomed to stay in the 20th century ?
Any and all comments, ideas, or other ramblings welcome !
- Scott
What do you mean by 'high quality analog input'?
And why should an analog input be better in the 21th century than in the past?
Just my rambling
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
hello,
of course analog is what analog was. and if i had the time and energy i would go back to vinyl for a lot of things i listen to.
i've been listening to sacd and high-definition audio files (dsf and 24/96). and looking at the beoport made me wonder if it was the weak link in the chain. i don't really know what is inside it or what it does to inject the analog signal into the ml network.
i'm sure the signal is high-quality coming out of the dac because of the quality of the connections and the components. i wonder if the beoport is not reducing the quality of the signal in some way.
i would love to know more about how the beoport works, and if newer products can improve on this in a ml distributed setup. thanks again !
- scott
I would think that Beoport - pricipially - works in the same way as any ML-BeoMaster would do.
Don't know if anyone ever made a comparison.
Maybe it is MasterLink, that is the 'weak' connection
But I doubt that you will here any difference playing back through your BC6-26 et cetera.
'Upgrading' on the analog side won't bring much improvement.
Since the BL3's seems to be the best speakers in your setup, you could try to connect the DAC directly to the BV7-40. Even better - if the DAC has a digital coax output - you should try connecting this to one of the digital-input of the BV.
Mostly you can run both outputs (analog and digital) from a DAC parallel (which DAC are you using?).
Surely that would mean, that you would have to play directly from your mac (to the BV7) - you would not benefit from the LinkPlayer (on the BV7).
But you could use the 'Remote-app' as an interface for the playback.
Looking at the specs of the Beoport it uses a 16-bit sound card. Probably very standard... If the input of your signal is processed again, AD- > DA-conversion, I would say the Beoport is your weakest link and defeats the purpose to use high-resolution audio.
Thanks - but what happens in an AudioMaster, when using the AUX-port to ML route?
Is that better? (probably it is)
And are there differences in the different AudioMasters?
Speaking of soundcards - what are the specs of the soundcard in the BM5? Do you know that?
N.B. as already noted above, I doubt if anyone can benefit from highres files played back through a BC6 et cetera anyway!
I would concentrate on getting the best sound from the best (and most used for listening) loudspeakers. That was the reason for my advice to ake a direct conection from the DAC to the BV7.
Optimizing anything via BeoPort/ML won't bring much.
I'm going to try connecting the DAC directly to the BV7-40 and see if it sounds better. I hope there will be no dealy between the BV7-40 and the link rooms when I play music, or at least that i won't notice it ....
Millemissen is asking a good question, if an AudioMaster is used to inject the audio to ML, are there devices that do it better than others, or better than my BV7-40 ?
I would not use the digital connect to my BeoDevices as I assume that my external DAC is better.
Thanks !
Using your own DAC is also better, so you won't have any delay with analog signal. Also, if your DAC is left out and feed the digital signal into the 7-40, you won't get any sound on the ML-network.
Good luck!
That is exactly, what I asked in my post above - "And are there differences in the different AudioMasters?"
So you see, that I don't know that - but that I would like to know it
Personally I am very content with the sound quality of the 'A-Tape'-in of my BM4500, which I use for a Playmaker - on the MasterLink Network.
The only B&O devices that feature digital in's are the BeoVisions.
And none of them (BV or BM) but the BM5 has a digital-out connection. OK - I know that the CD-players have, but that is not the point here.
DoubleU: Using your own DAC is also better, so you won't have any delay with analog signal. Also, if your DAC is left out and feed the digital signal into the 7-40, you won't get any sound on the ML-network.
Often it is possible to use the analog and the digital-out's on a DAC (if the DAC has a digital-out) simultaneously. This way a 'two-way feed' can be possible - digital to the BV/ and analog (as usual) to the BeoPort/ML.
First thing would be to try out how things are if the DAC is connected to the BV7 - to see/hear if the sound is improved.
Edit: I just looked up the Musical Fidelity V-DAC II - it has only analog-out.
But then again - this could be used to feed the ML through the BV7, which leaves the BM-Link out for good
Scot said: I hope there will be no dealy between the BV7-40 and the link rooms when I play music, or at least that i won't notice it ....
So a 2-way feed is not an option if it was possible.
And yes, no more BM-link, which is too bad..
DoubleU: Scot said: I hope there will be no dealy between the BV7-40 and the link rooms when I play music, or at least that i won't notice it .... So a 2-way feed is not an option if it was possible.
That would have to be tested at Scots, before saying that it is not an option.
Hi,
I'll test as soon as I can ; I just need to find a longer cable. :-p
I am assuming that I will be able to distribute sound via the bv7-40 (as it does already for my set-top box). My concerns are 1\ that the distribution will introduce a delay and 2\ that because the link room will see it as a video source it will turn on the screen (bc6-23 & bc1).
Thanks for the exchange of ideas. I will let you know what I find out !
1: testing will tell.
2: just push the 'AV' button before you push the 'Source' button.
ok,
i have had a few hours to test... i connected the dac to av5 of my bv7-40 with rca cables ; source choices are "pc", "dvd2", and "dtv2". i was hoping to find "cd" as it exists as a button on the beo4. any idea why this is not proposed, or how to use it ?
i choose pc to start to get the ball rolling ...
good news is it works and it sounds great. not so good news, the bv7-40 screen comes on. even when i use av+pc. this is annoying.
bad news is that no sound is distributed over ml to link rooms. my bv6-23 recognizes pc (and turns on the screen, even with av+pc) but no sound. :-(
am i missing something ? help !
yes indeed,
ml is analog only. i have connected just an analog audio signal (l+r) from a dac to av5 on the bv7. it plays wonderfully (with screen on ...) on the bv7. but does not distribute over ml. :-(
Scott Needham: i have had a few hours to test... i connected the dac to av5 of my bv7-40 with rca cables ; source choices are "pc", "dvd2", and "dtv2". i was hoping to find "cd" as it exists as a button on the beo4. any idea why this is not proposed, or how to use it ?
The CD-button is reserved for a Beosound, so you can't use it.
Because you can choose DTV2, means DTV is taken. If the DTV is taken for the internal DVB-HD, or external settopbox, you could go in the settings, and assign it to TV. That would free your DTV-button to use in AV5.
Scott Needham: i choose pc to start to get the ball rolling ... good news is it works and it sounds great. not so good news, the bv7-40 screen comes on. even when i use av+pc. this is annoying. bad news is that no sound is distributed over ml to link rooms. my bv6-23 recognizes pc (and turns on the screen, even with av+pc) but no sound. :-( am i missing something ? help !
A Beovision is default in V.option 1. AV + PC (p.mute) will only work if the BV7 is in V.option 2. I assume you know to do this. Oherwise let us know!
But you shouldn't use PC in this setup, which will answer your "bad news" comment. If you choose PC on your BV6-23, it will open the DVI-port on your BV6-23. The command L.PC (link PC) will open the ML from your BV7 and that will work in the current setup. That's why you should free your DTV-button on your BV7 to make it easier with the remote. Unless you use the DTV already on your BV6. Then it would be L.DTV to open the ML.
So BV7 should be in V.option 2
BV6 should be in V.option 6
Hope this makes sense!
hi,
i am happy to report that i got it working !
i finally got it to work by defining the bv7-40 av5 source as "tv". strangely enough it never worked when i defined the source as "dvd2" or "v.aux2".
the bv7-40 is defined as v.opt 2 and all other b&o devices are in option 6.
i activate on the :
and with these choices the screen does not light up for the vdieos devices. :-)
now that i've got it working, i'm checking the sound. my initial impression is positive, and i do not notice an echo.
thanks for all your input !
Have had the same thought in the past regarding how to improve the sound quality in my own system using BeoPort as the bridge to the ML-network.
From the initial start I've been using a BeoPort together with a VIA Tech VIA EPIA MII-Series (same board used in BeoMedia) based system where I thought the audio output sounded a bit flat from the EPIA vinyl audio chipset. So I bought and added a Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS PCMCIA 24-bit card, which I didn't have the significant hope for improvement, but boy was a wrong! The output now sounded much more vivid and dynamic. Two years ago I bought a Sonos Connect (got feed up with the BeoPlayer interface) which is optical connected to the Audigy card which is then connected to the BeoPort.
For me this is the only way which I figured out to improve the audio input to the ML-network from digital media. Furthermore, as I also have have 24/96 audio files; the Audigy card lets me play this as well, and yes, playing classical and aucustic music sounds far better in 24/96 than 16-bit rips with the proper audio card.
Another bonus for me getting the Sonos Connect is that I'm using the analog input on the Sonos Connect to connect my Beogram to the ML-network via NAD PP-1 preamp.
Hi kimhav,
the Sonos Connect does not support files in 24/96 quality - is restricted to 16/44.1.
How do you manage to play highres files through that?
For the 24/96 I'm then using the VIA Tech PC which has the Audigy 2 ZS audio card.
Well done, Scott.
Kimhav, you might want to check these guys to upgrade your Sonos. They have nothing but raving reviews. The price is about the same as the Sonos itself. Make sure they enable the optical output!
kimhav: For the 24/96 I'm then using the VIA Tech PC which has the Audigy 2 ZS audio card.
Means that you play them directly through the PC - using the interface of the Via - and not through the Sonos?
DoubleU: Kimhav, you might want to check these guys to upgrade your Sonos. They have nothing but raving reviews. The price is about the same as the Sonos itself. Make sure they enable the optical output!
Thanks for that link.
This modification would surely raise the sound quality to where it ought to be by default!
But it does not enable playback of highres files.
Millemissen: DoubleU: Kimhav, you might want to check these guys to upgrade your Sonos. They have nothing but raving reviews. The price is about the same as the Sonos itself. Make sure they enable the optical output! Thanks for that link. This modification would surely raise the sound quality to where it ought to be by default! But it does not enable playback of highres files. MM
The Hawthorne Effect is alive and well. I would think the TRANQUILITY from Magna upgrade would be better than the RELAXED sound you get from the Ultimo.
The Magna upgrade / modification is described as improving musicality, tranquility, spaciousness and detailing. The characteristic "ragged" (digital) noise, which is caused by jitter, is history after upgrading.
One step further is the Magna Ultimo. The sound is smooth and relaxed compared to that of the Magna. One would completely forget that this is a digital source!
symmes: Millemissen: DoubleU: Kimhav, you might want to check these guys to upgrade your Sonos. They have nothing but raving reviews. The price is about the same as the Sonos itself. Make sure they enable the optical output! Thanks for that link. This modification would surely raise the sound quality to where it ought to be by default! But it does not enable playback of highres files. MM The Hawthorne Effect is alive and well. I would think the TRANQUILITY from Magna upgrade would be better than the RELAXED sound you get from the Ultimo. The Magna upgrade / modification is described as improving musicality, tranquility, spaciousness and detailing. The characteristic "ragged" (digital) noise, which is caused by jitter, is history after upgrading. One step further is the Magna Ultimo. The sound is smooth and relaxed compared to that of the Magna. One would completely forget that this is a digital source!
Does the Ultimo include magic wood dots? If it don't got magic wood dots, it can't be any good! Mpingo wood smooths out those digital nasties just by being in the same room!
I would have thought tranquil trumped relaxed...
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
@Millemissen: Yes, as mentioned, all audio is anyway played through the PC to ensure that the Audigy card is used for the analog audio output to the BeoPort. The Sonos is directly connected to the Audigy card using optical cabel. So the PC is the audio hub.
@DoubleU: Thanks for this one; haven't read about these guys. But, I've in the past looked at Herr Doktor Vogel who does a similar upgrade on his side. Some init reading about the topic can be found here http://www.aktives-hoeren.de/viewtopic.php?p=21753#p21753 But, what Dr. Vogel explains his updates as following:
1) What I did: The original clock has been removed and a very pricise new clock came in (jitter is about 1ps!). Very important for the performance of the clock ist the power supply, so I did everything what can be done concerning the supply. Now the superclock controls the data acquisition. Anyhow, on the way through the chips the rising edge of data and clock becomes a little bit fuzzy - so reclocking of the s/pdif data stream by the same superclock is done. The reclocker is a FIFO memory (first in first out).
2) The most important voltage is the supply for the clock. The original clock is supplied by very raw stabilized 3.3V from the switching PSU. I cut the supply of the original clock and the clock line. A new board is implemented. The function is: I take the 12V analogue voltage, witch comes from the switching PSU (13V) and is stabililized by an analogue regulator to 12V. This voltage (the ripple on it is already ok) passes a passiv RC filter, realized by a metal film resistor and a Panasonic FC cap. Now we have 11V. Next step is an LM317 which regulates the voltage down to 7.8V. But it's not the normal circuit taken from the datasheet - it comes together with a shunt regulator, what outplays the normal LM317 circuit by a factor of 100. But this is only the appetizer! Now comes a circuit called superreg by the experts. It's a special calculated current source followed by a special very low noise shunt regulator. Now we are down to very clean 5V. This is the supply for the reclocker, and be assured, a battery is something like a noisy source compared to this voltage. But from there I use another 1,7V as fuel to get 3.3V used as the final supply for the clock, passing a combination of activ and passiv RC filters (Panasonic FC, one of the best caps in the world, is used for it of course). Ok, I forgot a LC filter for the remaining hign frequency rubbish on this PSU line, but now it is as clean as possible. There is nothing more to do for the best possible supply a clock can get in this world, I think. And the digital stream coming from this player is as clean as possible, too. Because one of the best clocks in the world, Guido's tentclock, is fed by the power supply as described above. And the remaining little grunge on the outcoming signal is removed by the reclocking circuit, a first in first out memory, that is supplied by the 5V described above and clocked by the same clock as the streamer is - the tentclock. So I think this is the maximum I can get from a ZP90."
For 24 bit upgrade there is also a kit from Arcam http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,rseries,Wired-DACs,SonLink.htm and there is Wyred4Sound who has an upgrade as well for 96kHz http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p/74030/117839/539960 and I recall that there where couple of upgrades to make hte Sonos Connect to play 24-bit native (it will then not be able to work in bridge mode and stream wireless).
I have made the choice to cut BeoPort and MasterLink out of the loop for listening to music in my main room. In hindsight, this seems an obviously good idea.
However, I am still wonderning what effect, if any, there is on the input by the device 'injecting' the sound onto the MasterLink.
If the signal is losslessly injected then there is no problem. If not, we can relaunch the discussion about what is the best injection device, the BeoPort, a BSX, a BVX, ...
Does anyone have any information on this ?
Well, looking at the BeoPort this box might very well be the weaker component when injecting the audio to the ML-network and of course beside the quality of the ML-cable. So looking at my own setup then; I'm using the Sonos Connect to play audio connected via optical link to media pc with a SB Audigy 24-bit which then feeds the audio to the BeoPort. The BeoPort then feeds the audio to the ML-network which is based on CAT7 1200MHz installation cable. So I would guess of course if I go way beyond the max cable lenght it will have an impact on the audio including lot of other factors on how well the cables are isolated, etc, the BeoPort would be the component in my audio chain which would have the biggest impact. But, I would imagine that the BeoPort is a quite straight forward "audio switch" to be controlled by the media PC; but that the audio is pass throught directly to the ML-network. Saying this as I still need of course to chose N.MUSIC when I want to play something from the media pc (in my case, sonos).
So above doesn't say anything at all; but it would be of interest if anyone actually analysed the quality of the audio from a ML-network with and without the BeoPort. Anyone?
If you do have an Beomaster / Beosound: can you tell a difference if the sonos is connected to the aux Input of them?
Thanks for your feedback.
Ralf, a Sonos user (via Beosound 3000 aux in Connection)
Living Room: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-2 (Center), Beolab 9 (Fronts), Beolab 8000 (Rears), no Subwoofer. Screen: Sony KD-85XH9096Dining Room: Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 4000 on stands, fed by Amazon Echo Show 8Home Cinema: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-4 (Center), Beolab 1 (Fronts), Beolab 4000 (Rears). Projector: Sony VPL-HW55Home Office: Beosystem 3, Beolab 7-4, Beolab 5000, Screen: Sony KD-55XH9005 on Beovision 7-40 stand, ML to Beosound 9000 MK3 and Beosound 5/Beomaster 5 (1 TB SSD version)Bedroom: Sony KD-65XH9077, Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 6002 and Beolab 11 (all white, wall-mounted)
In storage: Beolab 5000/Beomaster 5000 (1960s).
While hard wiring something does make sense, today with reliable wireless routers, and the technology being able to stream massive amounts of data per sec, the idea of hard-wiring things still in 2014, is beyond me...
Imagine how easy it would be to have most B&O speakers with a wireless option. I'd love to have one in my bathroom, but I'm not going to cut up an old house just to have it installed with 40meters of masterlink/netlink
Too long to list....
Wireless MasterLink has been around for years.
And Powerline technology too.
Millemissen: Wireless MasterLink has been around for years. And Powerline technology too. MM
And that was not exactly working properly... (Masterlink wireless)
Just imagine if a Bl3500 could connect wirelessly (proper wireless, without the need of extra boxes) to my Beomaster. That would be nice. Would make me buy again.
bayerische: And that was not exactly working properly... (Masterlink wireless)
Maybe because it was/is wireless
Well, knock on aluminum, so far my Beolink Wireless is working really well and reliably. But I know its reputation is not good so I'm probably lucky.
I still think WISA would work better for a future ML wireless. Use an alternate side channel, something like the Beolink Wireless, to handle commands to the audio master, run sound out via WISA to speakers. If there are dropouts or issues as the Beolink Wireless has if it were only commands it would be less of an issue. Or do a new architecture.
The wired architecture used on the training audio setups we did were interesting. Audio was sent in compressed format and decoded by the receiver, to save bandwidth, and each receiver was IP addressable. Same thing could, and was, done wirelessly as well. It allowed you to take a building that hadn't been setup for training and rapidly put audio in all the rooms then pull it all out with no damage, though some buildings had issues with concrete walls and lots of rebar that made it impossible to use wireless for anything.
The new ML structure is called NL.
Every NL-BV can connect wireless to the NL-network - if one wants to.
The reason why B&O isn't actively 'supporting' wireless connection (as part of the NL structure), will be that they find it too sensible, too unstable.
There will never be a 'new ML Wireless'.
The WiSA technology is limited to transfer sound in one room and can't be used for protocols like ML.
Going WISA I think is a good idea; but still as it's using the 5GHz-band, so it's short range and if I dont recall it wrong B&O says 25m range in open view; so with a couple of walls in the way it's going to drop quite fast. One of the reason why I choose to go the wired ML-route when doing a massive renovation of an old house was that I really wanted to be able to pull the audio from the various sources; radio, tv, cd, beogram, etc. all around in the house. Do I need multi room feature which my Sonos offers; No I don't. But, what I don't get with B&N is why the don't make a full wireless ML network; which could be done by having a dongle with the appropiated needed hardware; proper DAC and wifi wihch would be pluged in to the ML-port on the B&O component which you want to link into the system. In that aspect I think that the B&O community often come up with really great ideas (and to be fair as useless ideas as well) which I think Stuer should try to pick the best ideas; it's a free R&D resource.
Millemissen: The new ML structure is called NL. Every NL-BV can connect wireless to the NL-network - if one wants to. The reason why B&O isn't actively 'supporting' wireless connection (as part of the NL structure), will be that they find it too sensible, too unstable. There will never be a 'new ML Wireless'. The WiSA technology is limited to transfer sound in one room and can't be used for protocols like ML. MM
I don't buy that at all. It's simply because it's cheaper to make a wired option.
They have fiddled around for years to make NL, something I'm sure would take months to do, tops. It's not rocket science. What B&O desperately need is a new captain and good programmers.
MM, is your home wireless network unstable? Mine isn't.