The thing is that I don't need the level of integration of the Solo. For my own reasons, I prefer to keep the DAC by itself.
And, I do have micro form factor PCs and a couple of older PC laptops. Those are bit perfect going into the DACs, not needing the Ultra at all.
Recall... I don't use the Ultra's DAC in my own systems... only for my wife's set up... and only because she doesn't want ANOTHER black box.
But, I'm working from home, bored out of my mind, so I like the challenge, and at 350 bucks per charge my wife doesn't notice... plus she likes the way it works with the phone in the den. She refuses to use her PC to run the music. Crazy woman indeed....
Not Solo, Eversolo.
I do not understand the way of comparing stuff by seeing differences in things that are in fact equal (possibly better executed) and mentioning a complete IT environment that has nothing to do with the device. Sorry.
For example both have internal DACs that you can choose to use or not. That is not a discerning difference. One of the 2 having the possibility to have an internal SSD is a difference. In the recent past one of my criteria therefor was a minimum of 2 USB ports. If you purchase on criteria of what you actually desire/require efficiency usually is improved and you don't end up with a pile of devices (in storage 🙂) that all lack one or another feature you actually could have known before you bought them. It also improves resistance against impulse based buying and wasting more time/resources/energy than necessary.
I do not understand the way of comparing stuff by seeing differences in things that are in fact equal (possibly better executed) and mentioning a complete IT environment that has nothing to do with the device. Sorry.
For example both have internal DACs that you can choose to use or not. That is not a discerning difference. One of the 2 having the possibility to have an internal SSD is a difference. In the recent past one of my criteria therefor was a minimum of 2 USB ports. If you purchase on criteria of what you actually desire/require efficiency usually is improved and you don't end up with a pile of devices (in storage 🙂) that all lack one or another feature you actually could have known before you bought them. It also improves resistance against impulse based buying and wasting more time/resources/energy than necessary.
Last edited:
^ it would be a USB hub, not a splitter.
The concern will be on the effects of the traffic from the Ultra to the DAC input. You would be interleaving the traffic in and out of the USB in the Ultra.
Not to be nuts on this... but this would be jitter of some kind... Although with USB-3 this might not be an issue if the DAC's USB input is good enough.
I do think it would be better to try the IP network to the NASs. It has the bandwidth and much better jitter protection.
The concern will be on the effects of the traffic from the Ultra to the DAC input. You would be interleaving the traffic in and out of the USB in the Ultra.
Not to be nuts on this... but this would be jitter of some kind... Although with USB-3 this might not be an issue if the DAC's USB input is good enough.
I do think it would be better to try the IP network to the NASs. It has the bandwidth and much better jitter protection.
Last edited:
A way of something the same thing. Eversolo sounds so lonely....
OK, so, I've spent the best part of a year writing firmware for AFDX.
Designed in Germany for the 380.
The differences between Ethernet/IP/TCP and Ethernet/IP/UDP/AFDX say it all. They reflect different ways of technical analysis and cultures. You and I come from different technical backgrounds. I don't expect you to understand the loose American way of doing such things.
We have been trained differently.
Anyhow, I see the Ultra as a tool and a toy. It does what I need: bitperfect USB from Android/Chromebook into the USB port of a DAC. The rest is just implementations that I would prefer to be more "suave" and conformant across different host platforms.
It also keeps my wife happy in her set up. ( THAT is a biggie... ).
So, now I got three months to save 3000 bucks to get the Schiit Byggy... unless Nitsch comes out with balanced output device with a single USB input.
I'll let you know if I get to fix the issues with static IP address programming of the Ultra and getting a stable PC connection to Tidal Connect....
Last edited:
So does my Topping D90LE and Burson Swing with the Burson v7 opamps. So does the RME ADI-2 FS...
They first two sound fantastic driven by the Ultra in bit perfect mode... I haven't tried driving the RME that way yet.
(Yep, the RME is German... That's a case when overkill is very valuable.... and I mean, OVERKILL )...
There is another thread about "inexpensive Chinese DACs."...
They first two sound fantastic driven by the Ultra in bit perfect mode... I haven't tried driving the RME that way yet.
(Yep, the RME is German... That's a case when overkill is very valuable.... and I mean, OVERKILL )...
There is another thread about "inexpensive Chinese DACs."...
No problem... we're planning on expanding two of our bedrooms... might even add more rooms upstairs. ;-)
Let's say it is enough to not look further nor to join DAC discussions with DAC Meisters anymore. Waste of time and energy. In 2025 one can have excellent performing matured DAC technology for 100 to 200 Euro and a very good source starting at around 400 Euro. What else is there to say?
Last edited:
^ " What else is there to say?"
You amaze me.
Are you serious?
BTW, that statement belongs in the "inexpensive chinese DAC forum"... not discussing the WiiM Ultra because it does a lot more than just being a DAC.
You amaze me.
Are you serious?
BTW, that statement belongs in the "inexpensive chinese DAC forum"... not discussing the WiiM Ultra because it does a lot more than just being a DAC.
It is strictly your opinion.
If you think I's doing "IT" then, well, so be it.
In any hobby there are levels...
In this case, you opened a forum to discuss the WIiM Ultra... then you wrote that you didn't like it and decided to get an all in one device that costs a lot more.
Fine with me. But there are others who looked into the WiiM Ultra and found out it does other things that you are not imporatnt.
Fine with me again. But then you complain that we're diving into it too much. And want to shut it down?
This is a DIY hobby, so you'd expect to have people get involved greatly into the details. When it comes to an IP based audio device, you open the door into network configuration designs... which are to a streamer what a JFET selection is for an analog front end.
To me, finding a proper IP configuration for my digital audio is part of the DIY hobby.
You seem to dismiss it... as plain "IT".
Which is not. "IT" people have no clue about networking, they just follow some rules they were given. They are lucky to have achieved a CCNA certification. You might not be aware of this. but to call networking an "IT" issue is an insult to us R&D guys. Go tell Nelson Pass that he's just a technician with a soldering iron. Let's see how far that takes you.
So just because you do not fully understand -or want to ignore- that part of audio, don't criticize it... just as I don't make any comments about long tailed pairs nor discuss the output filters in a PWM amplifier.
In the meantime, have fun. Having achieved wireless/wired IP based bitperfect audio from an Android and Chromebook is awesome.
The cost of the combined front end streamer is about 500 bucks ( Chromebook with 1TB uSDcard is 250 at Costco and WiiM Ultra on sale is 275 bucks on eBay. ).
To that you can add whatever USB based DAC you want. And you can mount network NASs and access to the Internet.
550 bucks.... plus the DAC for bit perfect wireless, roaming connection between streamer and DAC.
Last edited:
You might not know this, but already in '91 I was in a team back where we wrote the firmware for routers and switches. We were making the hardware too.
By '94 IP was no longer doing routing, it had become a switching affair -much faster.
By the mid 90s we were implementing QoS (Quality of Service) at the switch level... so we had different streams for voice (audio), video and data. And different QoS for different subscriptions. The idea was to avoid congestion and shape the traffic according to the needs of the different Levels Of Service.
At that point, contention based ethernet started to surpass ATM and the global telcos all moved to IP based voice. Why do you think the cost of long distance voice dropped like a rock.. except for the National Tariffs of course... The telcos kept ATM for a while because it made it easy to do multi mode fiber backbones for inter and intra metro. Think of limited access freeways vs main boulevards.
So, based upon the fact that congestion avoidance was an issue that was solved by 1995, the notion of an "audiophile ethernet switch" is ridiculous.
However, the cost to develop an ethernet switch is quite high. The reason why we buy them so cheap nowadays is because of volume. If the people at Melco developed that from scratch, you can imagine that the non recurring R&D costs per unit are sky high since the low production volumes do not much amortize that cost. It's the old cost issue with low production High End products.
Unfortunately for Melco, they chose a device that has no bearing on the ultimate sound quality.... at home I run a switched GigE network... and with Spanning Tree the traffic is segregated... so there are no congestion issues with traffic. ( See above with QoS ). So, this Melco device solves no real technical issues.
However, if you are still running an 801.11b wireless network with a dial up ISDN, well, then... yes, you might have issues with congestion.
Last edited:
AFAIK you asked what I think of it. You also see to mix up subjects and to who things are addressed to, sorry. I was replying to acko.
With regards to the LAN, I could not care less. If it works it works. The goal for most here is audio, not IT.
With regards to the LAN, I could not care less. If it works it works. The goal for most here is audio, not IT.
Oh, OK.... Normally when I do such, and I can not include the replied to email... I preface the post with a
' ^ '
Still, my point stands.
There is NO technical or listening reason for a megabuck audiophile ethernet switch nor for an USB reclocker.
The former is a cruel joke, the latter is a patch for a badly executed USB hardware design.
' ^ '
Still, my point stands.
There is NO technical or listening reason for a megabuck audiophile ethernet switch nor for an USB reclocker.
The former is a cruel joke, the latter is a patch for a badly executed USB hardware design.
Given that the M in MELCO stands for the surname of the owner of Buffalo Technology, it probably didn't cost them that much.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.