Topic: JRiver Synapse -- Would you consider a $395 Audiophile DLNA Renderer? (Read 68521 times)

JimH · « **on:** March 05, 2014, 03:16:42 pm »

We're probably going to introduce a hardware product this year. I'd like to ask you for your reaction.

[Edit June 15, 2014 -- We're shipping it now. The name changed to JRiver Id. Here's a new thread:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=89084.0 ]
One possibility is an audiophile digital media player based on the Intel NUC 2820, which can be purchased at retail for a little over $250 (with memory and small SSD). jmone reviewed it on Interact recently.

Ours would be this NUC plus Linux (probably Debian) plus JRiver Media Center for Linux, configured to be used as a DLNA Renderer, and possible to configure and use without a monitor. It would probably sell for $395.

The initial version would be audio only because that's what MC on Linux does now. Eventually, it might be upgradable to also play video and images.

Advantages over other DLNA Renderers:

1. Higher quality audio
2. JRiver reliability and bug fixes
3. JRiver's remote control options (for Android and iOS)
4. A device that could be repurposed if needed

Is this interesting?

6233638 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2014, 03:27:17 pm »

I have actually been considering a NUC as something to use for a Media Center client.
However, I would want Windows on it so that I can use it for video playback (with madVR) and from reading around, it seems like they can get quite noisy when used for demanding tasks like that.
I also have concerns about whether it would be capable of DSD playback. (conversion to PCM rather than bitstreaming)

$400 seems an awful lot simply for a DLNA audio renderer, especially as it will just be a "transport" for a DAC, without having a high quality audio output of its own.
If this was a custom box with a display and hardware controls (something like the old Squeezebox devices) I would be more interested.

cncb · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2014, 03:29:41 pm »

I also think it would be a hard sell given all the ~$100 boxes that can be DLNA renderers (including video) which also include many of the online services (Netflix, etc.).

mattkhan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2014, 03:32:17 pm »

Is it a linux box that is shipped with jriver or a locked down jriver appliance?

glynor · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2014, 04:01:58 pm »

As an all-in-one HTPC with video support?

HECK YES.

As audio only? Sorry bub.

fitbrit · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2014, 04:10:51 pm »

Quote from: glynor on March 05, 2014, 04:01:58 pm

As an all-in-one HTPC with video support?

HECK YES.

As audio only? Sorry bub.

Pretty much the same response from me. When I saw Linux, I got excited because it would be great as an MC server, but renderer only, audio only, $400 is too steep. It also seems like a waste of the power of the NUC. You might eb better of selling cheap Android tabs preconfigured with Gizmo, and developing a way to push audio to Gizmo as a zone.

millst · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2014, 04:34:40 pm »

I might pay in that range for JRiver software supporting encrypted DLNA (DTCP-IP?) so I could dump my cablecard TiVo for something from SiliconDust...

-tm

JimH · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:07:29 pm »

Quote from: cncb on March 05, 2014, 03:29:41 pm

I also think it would be a hard sell given all the ~$100 boxes that can be DLNA renderers (including video) which also include many of the online services (Netflix, etc.).

We haven't found a DLNA Renderer that works all the time on all file types.

They're also not audiophile quality.

pcstockton · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:08:51 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 05, 2014, 03:16:42 pm

Advantages over other DLNA Renderers:

1. Higher quality audio
2. JRiver reliability and bug fixes
3. A device that could be repurposed if needed

Is this interesting?

VERY interesting to me.

Although I would want a top notch audio digital output in SPDIF or BNC. If you are thinking it would be akin to a SqueezeBox with it's digital output quality, I could see it moving.

If it could do 1080 video without a hitch (like my WDTV) I would be able to replace my WDTV and HTPC for something like this. Run it headless with JRemote, and repurpose my HTPC as my server.

Regarding your comment above, what renderers are you referring to that this would best.

Thanks,
Patrick

JimH · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:10:54 pm »

Quote from: mattkhan on March 05, 2014, 03:32:17 pm

Is it a linux box that is shipped with jriver or a locked down jriver appliance?

A Linux box with JRiver. Not locked down.

JimH · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:11:55 pm »

Quote from: glynor on March 05, 2014, 04:01:58 pm

As an all-in-one HTPC with video support?

HECK YES.

As audio only? Sorry bub.

The Linux version of MC doesn't do video yet. That's the obstacle.

glynor · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:13:33 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 05, 2014, 05:11:55 pm

The Linux version of MC doesn't do video yet. That's the obstacle.

I get it. Just answering.

jmone · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:19:14 pm »

I agree - good value prop if MC had Video working on Linux. Not so much with just audio. The other option is to sell it with windows but I don't know how much the OEM Win version would push the price up.

6233638 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:40:00 pm »

If it can do video, it certainly gets a lot more interesting, though if it's Linux-based I would assume we should expect EVR (Red October Standard) quality video rather than madVR (ROHQ) quality video.

I'm guessing that the plan would be to use Linux for a couple of reasons:

No licensing fees.
Far more stable as an "appliance" with less to go wrong or support (and people are less likely to try and use it "as a PC")

Looking over jmone's review, I see that it has a JRmark score of 1014 - I thought ~2000 was the recommended minimum for stereo DSD playback? (and it won't cope with multichannel at all)

But I suppose I'm not the intended market, as I would be more likely to buy a NUC and a fanless enclosure and set it up myself, or build a small form-factor PC than this.

astromo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2014, 05:46:11 pm »

You do see users here from time to time purely wanting an audio only deal, because they ask how to disable the view tree from showing video and other items they don't want. So there is a market, it's just a question of how big.

It would help your assessment if MC could log and report usage patterns in an optional and up front way, so you've got your ethical bases covered. As long as this didn't come at a significant cpu overhead, it wouldn't get user performance complaint. Then with a question like this you could put the word out for users to submit their usage reports similar to the meta data and cover art process. You'd get better quality of feedback than a shout out and it would be easier than a survey. Too many of those turning up in inboxes as it is... just thinking out loud.

For myself, I would echo the thoughts of glynor and jmone.

leezer3 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 05, 2014, 06:30:47 pm »

An OEM windows licence would set you back ~$50 as a FWIW.

Now onto the more interesting part-
For something like this to be interesting to me, it needs it's own screen and basic controls.
A VFD is fine, but I need a way to see what's playing, and operate basic player controls (Play/ Pause, skip) without going into Android apps etc.

As a video player, you can get away with a remote & no screen, but not as an audio player

-Leezer-

JimH · « **Reply #16 on:** March 05, 2014, 06:41:49 pm »

I use Gizmo a lot for playback. The playback information is on the remote. I can see why you might expect it on the playback device, but it's a small mind shift required.

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** March 05, 2014, 06:43:54 pm »

It's 8 no's (72%) and 3 maybe's right now. I predict it will finish with two thirds maybe's.

bunglemebaby · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2014, 06:57:24 pm »

I added a maybe, but that maybe is only in the future. My current setup works pretty well for current needs, and $400 is a lot for purchasing on a whim to see how well a setup works. When we finally get our "library" room finished though, it might need some sweet audio streamed to it...

imugli · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2014, 07:25:50 pm »

Even down the track, if it becomes available with video, is thing going to be powerful enough to do on-the-fly video transcoding for DLNA?

JimH · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2014, 07:31:31 pm »

Any video conversion occurs on the server. The DLNA Renderer just decodes the video stream.

astromo · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2014, 07:38:55 pm »

Given the apparent cost expectations, for an audio only offering, cheap and cheerful appears to be a common line. The cheap hardware option that comes to my mind is via ARM architecture CPU based computing. Something like this:
http://www.solid-run.com/products/cubox
http://cubox-i.com/table/

From what I can make out these things can run with Android, which brings this discussion back to the surface:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=79567.0
or Linux. Here's a blog post from a guy who clean installed Debian Wheezy on a Cubox:
http://gwolf.org/content/cubox-i4pro

I'd think if you're not going to worry about displays, then keep going down the same path and don't carry the $ overhead that comes with an Intel hardware platform (even if a NUC is pretty cheap).

For people like me who really don't want to have to mess with learning a whole lot of command line language, I'd consider a deal in a 2 inch cube pre-loaded and ready to literally "rock and roll" out of the box to a bit-perfect audio standard assured by JRiver. You would really be adding value by providing a convenience factor for a fair proportion of the audio discerning user population who aren't IT wizzes.

cncb · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2014, 07:48:43 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 05, 2014, 05:07:29 pm

We haven't found a DLNA Renderer that works all the time on all file types.

They're also not audiophile quality.

You can just convert/transcode to WAV to solve the file type problem (and you also get volume leveling that way). And won't this just have HDMI and digital optical outputs which is what most of the cheap boxes (renderers) have too? What will this have that is more "audiophile quality"?

glynor · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2014, 08:05:03 pm »

Quote from: cncb on March 05, 2014, 07:48:43 pm

What will this have that is more "audiophile quality"?

It would be MC, with MC's DSPs and Audio Output configuration, that could directly access MC's Library just like any other client. It would work as a DLNA client too, of course, since MC does, but in a household with other installations of MC, I imagine it would be even more capable.

That said...

I think, perhaps, Jim, you'd do better to take the exact same idea, and reframe it at a MC Server-in-a-Box.

If you can set it up so that all the user has to do is plug it into their network, plug in a big USB3 hard drive, and it Just Works to import and share your media out? Like a File Transporter, optimized for all of your media use.

And, of course, if it happened to be on your AV Rack near your amp? So much the better.

I get that there is a deficit in the DLNA market. There is, but I don't know that the play works for that cost. But I think solving the "your media, wherever you are" problem? Yeah, people will pay for that.

But, it has to be consumer-electronics-easy, or close enough.

cncb · « **Reply #24 on:** March 05, 2014, 08:43:20 pm »

Quote from: glynor on March 05, 2014, 08:05:03 pm

It would be MC, with MC's DSPs and Audio Output configuration, that could directly access MC's Library just like any other client. It would work as a DLNA client too, of course, since MC does, but in a household with other installations of MC, I imagine it would be even more capable.

I would consider that an "MC Library Client" rather than a "DLNA Renderer". Even then the DSPs would mainly be important with analog audio output (since your AVR would most likely process the digital output) and I think most "audiophiles" would consider the built-in analog outputs on motherboards pretty poor.

rudyrednose · « **Reply #25 on:** March 05, 2014, 09:17:54 pm »

I think it is a good idea, but you're asking the wrong forum for two reasons:
- readers are already sold to MC, skewed audience...
- few of the readers would buy, they already have JR where they think it is important to.

Find an audiophile forum to poll (and place a few links to good "audiophile" reviews you had).

Audio only, good idea.
AV, great idea ! But you need Linux video, as Windows is both too expensive AND high maintenance if unlocked.

You may even offer at profit optional turnkey solution bundles with
- Logitech K400 or similar keyboard and JRiver remote
- Harmony remotes, low and higher costs. People would pay for that integration.

I know it is a great solution, as two of our TVs are JRiver NUC driven

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #26 on:** March 05, 2014, 09:34:53 pm »

The great thing is that it's Linux-based, so we can just install XBMC and use that for videos alongside JRiver for audio until videos are supported.

jmone · « **Reply #27 on:** March 05, 2014, 09:47:27 pm »

I'm with JimH's concept. My NUC is for a portable MC install (rather than a full blown HTPC) that I will control either with a RC or Gizmo pending the application I've got for it at the time. I'm setting up a 16th Birthday where I'm taking the NUC coupled to a PJ and an outside screen so the teenagers can then use Gizmo to push playlists (music and video however) to it.

glynor · « **Reply #28 on:** March 05, 2014, 10:12:58 pm »

Quote from: cncb on March 05, 2014, 08:43:20 pm

I would consider that an "MC Library Client" rather than a "DLNA Renderer".

Yes. Jim said that. It would be both.

It would be MC, built for you, on Linux. That would certainly include both a MC Library Client and a DLNA Renderer. You can do this now, they'd just be doing it for you.

Quote from: cncb on March 05, 2014, 08:43:20 pm

Even then the DSPs would mainly be important with analog audio output (since your AVR would most likely process the digital output)

I disagree. Why would your AVR do all of the processing?

I use MC for most of my processing, because it does a better job, and is far more flexible. I send my AVR PCM via HDMI. About the only thing my AVR does is Room Correction, because setting up MC's Room Correction is too complex. If it had a simpler system, I'd use that too.

I'm not sure how that plays in, technically. It is actually better than your AVR, in almost all ways, if you have an AVR.

That said... That's certainly a big part of why I'd argue that a value proposition here for many targeted consumers is not a sure thing. Its essentially selling the part of the AVR that does all of the "stuff", less the amp, HDMI switch, and DAC stages. It'd do network streaming like an AVR, do file format decoding like an AVR, etc, etc, and send out multichannel PCM. That's pretty cool, as it allows you to use whatever amp and DAC stages you want.

But the problem is that, in all but the highest end markets, you're not going to be able to buy an amp and DAC for a reasonable price in order to "recoup" the cost of the JRiver Audio Box. You're going to end up buying an AVR (like I did) and then not using any of those features and using it like a glorified HDMI switch and decoder (which is what I do, and I almost never change the HDMI switch from port one), which makes your average consumer feel like that money is wasted (even if the AVR software, interface, and often hardware asics are all terrible, as they often are).

I feel like if you want to sell at that high-end, where people will already have and want their own hand-picked discreet power amps, that they're going to want a high-quality, well-supported, integrated DAC to go with it.

Now, perhaps if JRiver had some kind of partnership with a DAC vendor (or better, a handful) where you could buy USB DAC X and plug it in and it would Just Work, they'd have something. I don't know, but I'm guessing that Linux drivers for those DACs are an even bigger crap-show than they are on Windows and OSX (which is bad), though, so I'm not sure how realistic that is of a target...

Without that, you're selling a $400 powerful pre-amp and processor, but I'm not sure there's a big enough market.

That's why I think you position it as both this, and a file-server for your home. Then, you get two potential classes of consumers. But, it would take some work to make that Storage configuration possible on a headless box, and reliable with a variety of USB storage devices on Linux.

I think it could work quite well, though. You plug it in. Plug in a USB drive (which can be anything from a WD My Book type drive, up to a big RAID-in-a-box thing with a USB port on it). It creates a SMB share and plunks it on the network, sets up MC to auto-import anything on the share, runs both the Library Server and the DLNA server, and lets you plug in a nice device via HDMI if you have one nearby. It lets you use Gizmo and JRemote out of the box (just gives you the access key via that web UI I was talking about), and if you open the port on your router, you can stream the stuff on the road too.

The storage and serving part is a substantial stumbling block for a LARGE class of potential JRiver customers. People would like to have this stuff, but setting up the storage and server aspect (leaving that PC on all the time, and maintaining it) is a big part of the issue. If JRiver could help solve that problem, even somewhat simply... You don't have to try to do the whole FreeNAS thing (though why not use ZFS if you're building it as a Linux box anyway), but it should help people like my friends who come over and see my setup and WANT it, get it, with this plus a 3TB USB drive or two, and a little Intel brick.

Again, I think Video is an even better value proposition (especially if it does all of the above too), but without it? I'm not sure it works at all, and I'm reasonably sure it doesn't work at any kind of volume without a better message, and some more thought. Of course, it depends on what scale they're trying to achieve too... So, meh?

All I can really say is... I wouldn't be interested without quality video support and Theater View, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it to my Dad either. But, the biggest reason is I've already built all of the above, but I'm a capable sysad. If it could solve more problems than just receiving and playing media stored elsewhere... Then maybe you'd have something pretty special, and worth $400-$500.

csimon · « **Reply #29 on:** March 06, 2014, 04:29:15 am »

Quote from: glynor on March 05, 2014, 10:12:58 pm

That's why I think you position it as both this, and a file-server for your home. Then, you get two potential classes of consumers. But, it would take some work to make that Storage configuration possible on a headless box, and reliable with a variety of USB storage devices on Linux.

There's no point surely in duplicating what, say, Synology have done who've already got the storage thing on headless servers with an amazing and well-developed UI and a complete package-management system, sewn up. JRiver should be concentrating on the audio engineering.

Of course, you know what I'm going to say!

Quote

I think it could work quite well, though. You plug it in. Plug in a USB drive (which can be anything from a WD My Book type drive, up to a big RAID-in-a-box thing with a USB port on it). It creates a SMB share and plunks it on the network, sets up MC to auto-import anything on the share, runs both the Library Server and the DLNA server, and lets you plug in a nice device via HDMI if you have one nearby. It lets you use Gizmo and JRemote out of the box (just gives you the access key via that web UI I was talking about), and if you open the port on your router, you can stream the stuff on the road too.

Doesn't this describe a NAS, with MC installed on it?

There are indeed two different appliances/markets/products here - a HTPC client, and a central database server. I think this Synapse is basically meant to be a HTPC client, something small and convenient and high quality to be used at the point of media consumption. But there are many capable devices out there already that can do this. The advantages stated:

1. Higher quality audio
2. JRiver reliability and bug fixes
3. JRiver's remote control options (for Android and iOS)
4. A device that could be repurposed if needed

Are all possible right now, with an MC server coupled with a DLNA renderer and/or DAC. The oft-requested ability to use DSP and other audio processing across DLNA, if it ever gets implemented, sort of scuppers the "higher quality audio" argument.

jmone · « **Reply #30 on:** March 06, 2014, 04:53:59 am »

For those talking about a Server product, this is the format that got me going a few years ago (was based on WHS) - a tranquil SQA-5H (I even had the extra 5 Bay add on). It was a great small format server but the big downside is the low spec'ed CPU's make for a terrible video server if transcoding is needed (eg Gizmo clients).... just not enough grunt. In my case it turned out just adding bays to the main PC was way better.

AndrewFG · « **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2014, 06:58:47 am »

I am a definite "no" on this one...

Reason is that I don't live in USA, and sorry to say it but I doubt JR has the competency (or interest) to build, deliver, or support non US boxes...

JimH · « **Reply #32 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:10:10 am »

I knew I was going to love being in the hardware business.

6233638 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:32:42 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 05, 2014, 06:41:49 pm

I use Gizmo a lot for playback. The playback information is on the remote. I can see why you might expect it on the playback device, but it's a small mind shift required.

Personally, I hate using touchscreen devices as a remote.

You have to unlock the device and wait for an app to load and connect before you can control anything.
You have to look at a screen to control anything.
It's easy to hit the wrong thing by accident.
It's a multi-functional device so it may be in use when you want to control playback. (e.g. wife is reading a book on it)
It's another point of failure - now you have three devices talking to each other instead of two.
I've paid $400 for the audio receiver, now I need to buy a tablet?
Why not just use a docked tablet as the media player? Then you have control and playback in one device.

Quote from: JimH on March 06, 2014, 07:10:10 am

I knew I was going to love being in the hardware business.

I know that it's not something you are likely to pursue, and probably not even something there is really a market for, but I would pay at least a couple of hundred dollars for a physical remote if it was done right. As far as I can see, everything on the market is crap.

Apple and Sony are the only companies that seem to know how to build a good remote, but neither of them are programmable and capable of controlling other devices.

csimon · « **Reply #34 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:33:10 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 06, 2014, 07:10:10 am

I knew I was going to love being in the hardware business.

Twice the fun, lol!

AndrewFG · « **Reply #35 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:13:34 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 06, 2014, 07:10:10 am

I knew I was going to love being in the hardware business.

On a personal note, I would advise you to really think carefully about stepping into the hardware business. You have spent many years of your life building up a company that is highly skilled, entrepreneurial and at the top of its game in software. There is an understandable tendency for entrepreneurs to get lured by the big bucks of selling boxes versus selling software. But be aware that you would be starting again from scratch as a new player in such a business. Today you may be seeing the lure of the big bucks on your top line, but do be aware of the risks of being hit by big bucks on your expense line, that you may not have foreseen. (Just think of shipping, warranty, returns, repairs, etc. as just a few topics that you currently don't have in your current business model...)

csimon · « **Reply #36 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:14:39 am »

Quote from: 6233638 on March 06, 2014, 07:32:42 am

Personally, I hate using touchscreen devices as a remote...

Two different use-cases I think. A touch device is perfect when you want to use your system remotely or headless and love flicking through your album covers and borwsing visually, you can also browse while your HTPC is playing video. Not so good for instant access to volume control, fast-forward/rewind and pause. I find a remote control awkward to use for browsing, a tablet is much more intuitive and direct. A touchscreen remote isn't really a remote, it's a mobile version of the desktop app. (Apart from the apps that emulate remote controls that is!) To that end, I'd love an IR or RF remote control that just had simple transport and volume controls to work alongside the tablet, but most PC remotes seem to have dozens of incredibly tiny buttons so you can't really use them without looking.

Multi-device remote controls are a pain to use too, with modes to select and remembering which buttons do what.

cncb · « **Reply #37 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:19:03 am »

Quote from: glynor on March 05, 2014, 10:12:58 pm

I disagree. Why would your AVR do all of the processing?

I use MC for most of my processing, because it does a better job, and is far more flexible. I send my AVR PCM via HDMI. About the only thing my AVR does is Room Correction, because setting up MC's Room Correction is too complex. If it had a simpler system, I'd use that too.

I'm not sure how that plays in, technically. It is actually better than your AVR, in almost all ways, if you have an AVR.

This seems like an uncommon use case. If you prefer MC's processing it seems like one would typically just buy a multi-channel analog amp since most claim it is a "better" amp than that in an AVR anyways. Personally, along with the auto EQ and room correction that you mentioned, my AVR has all the adjustments I need and I can make most of them on the fly with a remote control and an on screen display.

csimon · « **Reply #38 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:30:52 am »

Quote from: cncb on March 06, 2014, 08:19:03 am

This seems like an uncommon use case. If you prefer MC's processing it seems like one would typically just buy a multi-channel analog amp since most claim it is a "better" amp than that in an AVR anyways. Personally, along with the auto EQ and room correction that you mentioned, my AVR has all the adjustments I need and I can make most of them on the fly with a remote control and an on screen display.

I'm now using MC in the way Glynor describes! I prefer MC's fake-surround processing of music over Dolby Pro-Logic or DTS that my AVR would do, so I take multichannel output from MC into my AVR's external decoder inputs, however an AVR is required because my TV and BR player output to it, i.e. a decoder is required in it and therefore an analogue amp won't do.

6233638 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:34:11 am »

Quote from: cncb on March 06, 2014, 08:19:03 am

This seems like an uncommon use case. If you prefer MC's processing it seems like one would typically just buy a multi-channel analog amp since most claim it is a "better" amp than that in an AVR anyways. Personally, along with the auto EQ and room correction that you mentioned, my AVR has all the adjustments I need and I can make most of them on the fly with a remote control and an on screen display.

Most analog outputs from a PC are not very high quality - I would not want to spend a lot of money on a multichannel amplifier and run audio out from the PC into one of them.
An AVR is the ideal solution - a DAC and multichannel amplifier in one box, so the quality of the PC's analog output doesn't matter.

Hendrik · « **Reply #40 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:37:03 am »

Quote from: cncb on March 06, 2014, 08:19:03 am

This seems like an uncommon use case. If you prefer MC's processing it seems like one would typically just buy a multi-channel analog amp since most claim it is a "better" amp than that in an AVR anyways. Personally, along with the auto EQ and room correction that you mentioned, my AVR has all the adjustments I need and I can make most of them on the fly with a remote control and an on screen display.

I use my AVR the same way, most processing is in MC. The advantage over a multi-channel AMP is that I also get a decent DAC in the AVR without buying an expensive sound card.
I would actually wish for a simpler setup without HDMI, but alas there are no proper digital connections available to do it which also support up to 8 channel 192/24 (maybe a USB DAC could, but 8ch at decent quality sounds pricey), and analog requires a good sound card...

6233638 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:53:03 am »

Quote from: Hendrik on March 06, 2014, 08:37:03 am

I use my AVR the same way, most processing is in MC. The advantage over a multi-channel AMP is that I also get a decent DAC in the AVR without buying an expensive sound card.
I would actually wish for a simpler setup without HDMI, but alas there are no proper digital connections available to do it which also support up to 8 channel 192/24 (maybe a USB DAC could, but 8ch at decent quality sounds pricey), and analog requires a good sound card...

Pioneer now have an AVR which will function as a USB DAC. Unfortunately it's their highest-priced model, but hopefully this becomes a trend and something which other manufacturers adopt, and incorporate into lower-end AVRs as well.

Considering that no PC will output DSD over HDMI, it would be nice to see DSD-capable AVRs add USB support for native multichannel DSD playback.

cncb · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:58:18 am »

Quote from: 6233638 on March 06, 2014, 08:34:11 am

Most analog outputs from a PC are not very high quality - I would not want to spend a lot of money on a multichannel amplifier and run audio out from the PC into one of them.
An AVR is the ideal solution - a DAC and multichannel amplifier in one box, so the quality of the PC's analog output doesn't matter.

This was my original point: if you are going to tout this as "audiophile quality" and cater this towards audiophiles, you probably should include high-quality analog outputs since HDMI won't really distinguish it from the cheap DLNA networked boxes.

JimH · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2014, 09:10:03 am »

Quote from: AndrewFG on March 06, 2014, 08:13:34 am

On a personal note, I would advise you to really think carefully about stepping into the hardware business. You have spent many years of your life building up a company that is highly skilled, entrepreneurial and at the top of its game in software. There is an understandable tendency for entrepreneurs to get lured by the big bucks of selling boxes versus selling software. But be aware that you would be starting again from scratch as a new player in such a business. Today you may be seeing the lure of the big bucks on your top line, but do be aware of the risks of being hit by big bucks on your expense line, that you may not have foreseen. (Just think of shipping, warranty, returns, repairs, etc. as just a few topics that you currently don't have in your current business model...)

I'll start a thread on the beta board to explain our thinking.

csimon · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2014, 09:13:29 am »

Quote from: mwillems on March 06, 2014, 09:00:36 am

Depends on what you mean by pricey. There are currently nice 8 channel 192/24 USB DACs floating around in the $700-$800 range. Emotiva makes a pretty nice 7 channel standalone amp for $500.

Out of interest, could you give a couple of examples? Just tried Googling but it didn't really turn up anythign of relevance, at kleast not here in UK.

jimm2 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2014, 09:59:19 am »

Rather than head in this direction, my vote would be to focus more development effort on the Mac and Linux products you already have. At the current development pace, they are several years away from being considered full featured products similar to the Windows version.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:38:33 pm »

Quote from: jimm2 on March 06, 2014, 09:59:19 am

Rather than head in this direction, my vote would be to focus more development effort on the Mac and Linux products you already have. At the current development pace, they are several years away from being considered full featured products similar to the Windows version.

+1. I continue to read a lot of negatives on other forums about how far behind the Mac (and Linux) versions are compared to the Windows version of MC.

If it were me - once all three versions are on the same footing - and have the same level of stability - only then would I then consider a move in a new realm such as this.

VP

JimH · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:47:36 pm »

One of the reasons we did a Linux port was to offer complete hardware solutions.

In any case, this thread is about the proposed hardware. Discussion of JRiver priorities could go in another thread.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #48 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:50:07 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 06, 2014, 12:47:36 pm

One of the reasons we did a Linux port was to offer complete hardware solutions. In any case, this thread is about the proposed hardware. Discussion of JRiver priorities could go in another thread.

Understood. To stay on topic - my response would be no - for many of the reasons already stated.

I think I spent about 400 on my HTPC and it does everything a good MC box should do - and does it all very well.

Cheers,

VP

hlesser · « **Reply #49 on:** March 06, 2014, 02:49:32 pm »

(1) Would this work with JRemote?

(2) Would this be compatible with a Windows-compatible NAS on the same network?

(3) Support for DSD DoP protocol equivalent to what is offered on Windows version?

I had been considering a MacMini (Win or Mac OS) but this might be an option if the 2014 refresh is just vaporware.

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

Would you consider buying one?

Author Topic: JRiver Synapse -- Would you consider a $395 Audiophile DLNA Renderer? (Read 68521 times)