Raspberry Pi 2 vs. Beagle Bone Black for network renderer... which one is better? Why should I go with one over the other?
What I know thus far...
I know R-Pi 2 generally has more development and has the HiFiBerry line of DACs, Digital Converter, and Amp. I've heard that it isn't optimal in terms of power regulation and clocking.
The Beagle Bone Black has some greats developments from Miero, Acko, and Twisted Pear in terms of external re-clocking. But it doesn't have the same amount of general development because of a smaller user base. I've also read that the WiFi capabilities on the BBB aren't that good with no real explanation.
What I know thus far...
I know R-Pi 2 generally has more development and has the HiFiBerry line of DACs, Digital Converter, and Amp. I've heard that it isn't optimal in terms of power regulation and clocking.
The Beagle Bone Black has some greats developments from Miero, Acko, and Twisted Pear in terms of external re-clocking. But it doesn't have the same amount of general development because of a smaller user base. I've also read that the WiFi capabilities on the BBB aren't that good with no real explanation.
https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/raspberry-pi-b-digital-audio/
Scroll down on this link. The differences are much to do with sample rate support.
Scroll down on this link. The differences are much to do with sample rate support.
For a reasonably priced digital audio renderer based on an embedded computer + simple DA converter (PCM51xx or ES9023), there's not much to separate the Pi2 and BBB, price and quality-wise. The practical difference is that for the Pi2 you can get a PCM51xx/ES9023 DAC in the form of a plug-in board (HiFiBerry, etc) but for the BBB the equivalent DAC will typically be a separate board, which will require wired connection from the I2S output pins of the BBB's P9 connector.
Such DAC's are admirable performers, but IMO not "earth-shattering".
if you aim to use an embedded computer as the foundation for a serious high-end digital audio renderer, with various external clock methods, in combination with a high-end DAC (ES9018/PCM1794/AK4495/AD1865/R2R etc), the BBB then outshines all others. It's in a separate league, because it's the only commonly available embedded computer which will accept an external clock reference. Refer here -
https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/bbb-dac-developments/
Of course, once you add high quality clocks with associated circuitry and power supplies, plus high-end DAC, the total cost will be multiples of the base cost of the embedded computer.
Such DAC's are admirable performers, but IMO not "earth-shattering".
The DAC board will almost certainly benefit from a separate clean power supply, rather than taking its power from the embedded computer, especially if that supply is a basic SMPS wall-wart. Of course this applies equally to the BBB as to the Pi2.
As someone who has frequently compiled in-kernel and third party wifi kernel modules under various Linux distributions for the past 10 years, I consider that assertion to be nonsense.
Neither the Pi2 nor BBB has audio-grade onboard clock ... but read on:
if you aim to use an embedded computer as the foundation for a serious high-end digital audio renderer, with various external clock methods, in combination with a high-end DAC (ES9018/PCM1794/AK4495/AD1865/R2R etc), the BBB then outshines all others. It's in a separate league, because it's the only commonly available embedded computer which will accept an external clock reference. Refer here -
https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/bbb-dac-developments/
Of course, once you add high quality clocks with associated circuitry and power supplies, plus high-end DAC, the total cost will be multiples of the base cost of the embedded computer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.