Klimax DS & Akurate DS
Moderator: Staff
Some questions:
How does the Control Device (=handheld) communicate with the Akurate/Klimax DS? Using (W)LAN or IR?
What are the minimum requirements for running the LinnGUI software? I know about .NET 2.0, but else? Is really any (hand held) PC running .NET 2.0 working?
It's good to hear that you are not dependent on the LinnGUI software, but what other devices are sufficient to play the "Control Device" role? I searched the WWW about UPnP and hand held PCs, but must confess that I have absolutely no overview over the market situation, never needed such things. And how much someone has to spend for a usable but cheep device?
How does the Control Device (=handheld) communicate with the Akurate/Klimax DS? Using (W)LAN or IR?
What are the minimum requirements for running the LinnGUI software? I know about .NET 2.0, but else? Is really any (hand held) PC running .NET 2.0 working?
It's good to hear that you are not dependent on the LinnGUI software, but what other devices are sufficient to play the "Control Device" role? I searched the WWW about UPnP and hand held PCs, but must confess that I have absolutely no overview over the market situation, never needed such things. And how much someone has to spend for a usable but cheep device?
Last edited by sommerfee on 2008-01-30 19:29, edited 1 time in total.
You can use any UPnP Media Server software with a DS. The ReadyNAS NV+ comes with one as standard that you could make do with, but for a few tens of Euros Twonky is probably worth the extra.
I tried Slimserver on the ReadyNAS and found it to be very slow - indexing my collection took an hour and a half! Twonky is a much lighter weight piece of software that does the same task in a few minutes. This probably isn't an issue if you've got lots of spare CPU capacity, but the ReadyNAS clearly hasn't!
I tried Slimserver on the ReadyNAS and found it to be very slow - indexing my collection took an hour and a half! Twonky is a much lighter weight piece of software that does the same task in a few minutes. This probably isn't an issue if you've got lots of spare CPU capacity, but the ReadyNAS clearly hasn't!
Yes, I also tried the slimserver and slow is not an exaggeration. :?
The only reason I would like to use that instead of twonky is that there is an iPod Touch skin for slimserver (called iPeng) that looks quite OK (from the pictures I have seen, that is).
But I suppose the slimserver could be run on a Mac instead of on the ReadyNas.
On the other hand, now that I have finally bought a ReadyNas NV+ I am sure that an NV2, with significantly increased performance, is just around the corner.
:roll: :lol:
The only reason I would like to use that instead of twonky is that there is an iPod Touch skin for slimserver (called iPeng) that looks quite OK (from the pictures I have seen, that is).
But I suppose the slimserver could be run on a Mac instead of on the ReadyNas.
On the other hand, now that I have finally bought a ReadyNas NV+ I am sure that an NV2, with significantly increased performance, is just around the corner.
:roll: :lol:
Json, the iPeng for iPod Touch looks like exactly the thing I'm looking for!
http://penguinlovesmusic.de/?page_id=7
Then, if you could combine iPeng with Twonky, my wishes would come true! :D
EDIT: Here is the Klimax DS installation manual:http://www.cleverhome.com.au/manuals/Li ... manual.pdf
The question is if it as good as it looks:Pediatrik wrote:...but what I really want is the possibility to control the DS with an iPod touch, preferably with an application incorporating functions like Apple:s beatiful Cover Flow:
http://penguinlovesmusic.de/?page_id=7
Then, if you could combine iPeng with Twonky, my wishes would come true! :D
EDIT: Here is the Klimax DS installation manual:http://www.cleverhome.com.au/manuals/Li ... manual.pdf
Nokia N810 (price approx 470EUR) works, but then you are bound to their software:sommerfee wrote:...but what other devices are sufficient to play the "Control Device" role?
http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4630128
Good to know.Pediatrik wrote:Nokia N810 (price approx 470EUR) works
Does anybody here has experiences with their software?but then you are bound to their software:
Last edited by sommerfee on 2008-02-08 09:52, edited 1 time in total.
Agreed! I would love that kind of interface. Personally I wouldn't need all the bells and whistles creating playlists etc, but then again even if it's there it could be ignored....Pediatrik wrote:Json, the iPeng for iPod Touch looks like exactly the thing I'm looking for!
Yeah I think it would be great to have with Twonky (since slimserver seems so slow on the NV+ and also apparently has no support for the DS).Pediatrik wrote:
The question is if it as good as it looks:
Then, if you could combine iPeng with Twonky, my wishes would come true! :D
The question is of course if it would be easy to create an iPod version of the Twonky web interface.... the current mobile interface has maybe not yet the look and feel I would prefer....
Some answers to recent questions:
* All communication with the DS is over its Ethernet interface, which is wired. You can go wireless, but to do that you will need a wireless to 10BaseT bridging device.
* The Linn GUI really needs a full UMPC or Tablet PC to run on. You could run it on an 'ordinary' Vista/Windows XP laptop, but without a touchscreen there is no way to scroll the display without using the Page Up/Page Down keys and it all quickly gets very tedious.
* The Nokia 'Media Streamer' application is great - It's my favourite control Point by a long way. It supports album art and allows you to edit your play lists after you've created them, neither of which the Linn GUI does. It also has a volume slider and a mute control, which the DS ought to respond to - passing the control sequences on to your pre-amp via RS-232. This doesn't work yet, though, unless your pre-amp is either an Akurate or Klimax Kontrol. The others apparently need updated firmware...
* The Nokia N8x0 uses an open, Linux-based platform ('Maemo') and there are other developers writing for it. If you don't want the free Nokia app. there is also a package called Canola under development that looks as if it might be even better.
* All communication with the DS is over its Ethernet interface, which is wired. You can go wireless, but to do that you will need a wireless to 10BaseT bridging device.
* The Linn GUI really needs a full UMPC or Tablet PC to run on. You could run it on an 'ordinary' Vista/Windows XP laptop, but without a touchscreen there is no way to scroll the display without using the Page Up/Page Down keys and it all quickly gets very tedious.
* The Nokia 'Media Streamer' application is great - It's my favourite control Point by a long way. It supports album art and allows you to edit your play lists after you've created them, neither of which the Linn GUI does. It also has a volume slider and a mute control, which the DS ought to respond to - passing the control sequences on to your pre-amp via RS-232. This doesn't work yet, though, unless your pre-amp is either an Akurate or Klimax Kontrol. The others apparently need updated firmware...
* The Nokia N8x0 uses an open, Linux-based platform ('Maemo') and there are other developers writing for it. If you don't want the free Nokia app. there is also a package called Canola under development that looks as if it might be even better.
I read in the german DS-review that Linn have discussions with Nevo. Seems to be neat remotes. I hope that there will be some elegant solution out soon. The Samsung and the Nokia 800 (compare it with ipod touch :?) don't impress that much.
That sound issue with Nokia is disturbing. You need two remotes to control your stereo! (Or did I misunderstand?)
Can you control volume via RS-232 on a 5103 with the LinnGUI on a computer?
That sound issue with Nokia is disturbing. You need two remotes to control your stereo! (Or did I misunderstand?)
Can you control volume via RS-232 on a 5103 with the LinnGUI on a computer?
Hello Ianbak,
Thanks for your answers.
Axel
Thanks for your answers.
Will a Nokia 770 do the job, too?ianbak wrote: * The Nokia N8x0 uses an open, Linux-based platform ('Maemo') and there are other developers writing for it. If you don't want the free Nokia app. there is also a package called Canola under development that looks as if it might be even better.
Axel
No, the current Linn GUI doesn't do volume control. (Remember that it is very much a 1.0 version of the product, and that Linn are well aware of the functionality that they need to add to it!).Patrik wrote:That sound issue with Nokia is disturbing. You need two remotes to control your stereo! (Or did I misunderstand?) Can you control volume via RS-232 on a 5103 with the Linn GUI on a computer?
Nokia's Media Streamer and Cidero both have volume sliders that should work with the Klimax and Akurate Kontrol, but otherwise you will still need the pre-amp's remote control to adjust volume. Linn are apparently working on firmware updates for other pre-amps to allow them to talk to DSes as well.
A Nokia 770 will run Media Streamer just as well as an 800 or an 810, I believe.
Though the sound may not be the same from different rips on different computers as you point out. I can´t argue there, but I have compared the results from EAC and Ripstation and the files contains exacly the same music signal. The difference lies in the length of the silent part at the beginning (and possibly the end, I did not check) of the file. From this you can not conclue that the two programs does as good a job as the other on all discs, only that they produce the same result when there is no or negligible reading errors. Ofcourse, I didn´t compare the FLAC files but the resulting WAV-files from each of the FLAC files.paolo wrote:About ripping, I've compared some flac files ripped with both Ripsattion and EAC (Linn profile). The files ripped with EAC sound better by a good margin. Moreover, I've tried ripping with EAC using two different PCs (and consequently CD drivers). The result is not the same, infact the flac files created are different by a bit-to-bit comparison. They sound different too, though the difference is smaller than that between EAC and Ripstation. The CD driver which behaves better seems to be the older one, it is both faster and rips better sounding files.
We have still to learn a lot I fear.....
Paolo
Very interesting hlc!hcl wrote: Though the sound may not be the same from different rips on different computers as you point out. I can´t argue there, but I have compared the results from EAC and Ripstation and the files contains exacly the same music signal. The difference lies in the length of the silent part at the beginning (and possibly the end, I did not check) of the file. From this you can not conclue that the two programs does as good a job as the other on all discs, only that they produce the same result when there is no or negligible reading errors. Ofcourse, I didn´t compare the FLAC files but the resulting WAV-files from each of the FLAC files.
Yes, of course there could be differences ripping different discs with these two softwares, anyway I've found the sound quality from EAC to be better regardless of the disc ripped - I've compared several discs infact. I've spoken today with a friend who has made a similar test and he is reporting the same result about sound quality - EAC (flac) files sound consistently better. The difference is very small as for the SOUND but is IMO quite significative musically.
So where's the reason? I've not really an answer. The only thing that comes to my mind is that there could be differences in the way the two softwares create the FLAC files. Given the same song infact, Ripstation always makes bigger FLAC files than EAC - considerably bigger. I doubt the lenght difference between EAC-flacs and RS-flacs are only due the silent part at the beginning of the song - it seems too big infact.
Being flac an "open" format, I suppose that the algorithms used by the two softwares to generate flacs from the extracted wav-files are different. The end result should be identical, i.e. IF for a specific song both EAC and RS generate the same wav file, then converting back from the subsequently produced EAC-flac-file and RS-flac-file will give the same identical initial Wav-file. I understand you've successfully verified this is true. So, if a sound difference between EAC-flacs and RS-flacs can still be detected, the only explanation is that the DS manages differently the two flac types. I know it is hard to believe this but I cannot think any other reason at the moment. In other words this would mean that the digital data processing before the DA conversion (also relatively simple as the decompression from flac to wav) has an effect on the sound quality. Just to add on this matter, I've heard comments from a trusty person who has compared wav-files with the corresponding flacs with the DS: he says the flacs sound better!:?
I'll stop here cause I've not by far enough knowledge of this matter to get into details, take my comments as pure speculations infact. I'll just add that I find all this both interesting and hard to believe indeed!
Paolo
Well this is the only difference I have found when comparing the RS-FLAC->WAV and EAC-FLCA->WAV files.paolo wrote:I doubt the lenght difference between EAC-flacs and RS-flacs are only due the silent part at the beginning of the song - it seems too big infact.
However, depending on what kind of signal processing that the DS-machines do there could be differences due to the initial zeros padded to the EAC file, though I would expect this to only affect the first second or so of the music.
Yes.paolo wrote:Being flac an "open" format, I suppose that the algorithms used by the two softwares to generate flacs from the extracted wav-files are different. The end result should be identical, i.e. IF for a specific song both EAC and RS generate the same wav file, then converting back from the subsequently produced EAC-flac-file and RS-flac-file will give the same identical initial Wav-file. I understand you've successfully verified this is true.
Hopefully Linn has the answer and is preparing a solution. If they know that there is a difference but does not have a solution up there sleeves I would require from them to give such information to the dealers so that we (the customers) does not have to make the same mistake of ripping using wrong ripping programs. As the produced WAV files are the same I would think it is possible to covert the RS-ripps to WAV and back to FLAC using EAC producing an identcal result as ripping using EAC in the first place!? Maybe You could try this and come back with the listening results?paolo wrote:So, if a sound difference between EAC-flacs and RS-flacs can still be detected, the only explanation is that the DS manages differently the two flac types. I know it is hard to believe this but I cannot think any other reason at the moment. In other words this would mean that the digital data processing before the DA conversion (also relatively simple as the decompression from flac to wav) has an effect on the sound quality. Just to add on this matter, I've heard comments from a trusty person who has compared wav-files with the corresponding flacs with the DS: he says the flacs sound better!:?
I'll stop here cause I've not by far enough knowledge of this matter to get into details, take my comments as pure speculations infact. I'll just add that I find all this both interesting and hard to believe indeed!
Paolo
Yesterday evening I finally found some time for a little battle EAC vs. Ripstation. I ripped the CD layer of a SACD containing 25 tracks with both software on three DVD/CD-ROM drives: A no-name DVD-RW inside a Dell PC, a LG GSA-4120B DVD-RW, and finally a Plextor PX-W4012A CD-RW. (The Plextor one caches audio data which is negative for ripping according EAC.) EAC was configured as described in the DS installation manual.
So I had six CD images to compare and this is the result:
Ripstation has read 28 wrong samples in track 3 with the LG drive. On the two other drives, and with all the other tracks, it had not make a single mistake.
EAC has read the disc correct on the no-name drive, too. But on the LG drive, it had 1137 wrong samples (on track 25), and on the Plextor drive it had 40711 wrong samples (on track 25, too).
So as summary both, EAC and Ripstation, had no problems on 23 (off 25) tracks on all three drives. Both had no problems with the no-name drive; anyway I would say the score is 1:0 for Ripstation. Will do the same test with other CDs on the next days and report...
So I had six CD images to compare and this is the result:
Ripstation has read 28 wrong samples in track 3 with the LG drive. On the two other drives, and with all the other tracks, it had not make a single mistake.
EAC has read the disc correct on the no-name drive, too. But on the LG drive, it had 1137 wrong samples (on track 25), and on the Plextor drive it had 40711 wrong samples (on track 25, too).
So as summary both, EAC and Ripstation, had no problems on 23 (off 25) tracks on all three drives. Both had no problems with the no-name drive; anyway I would say the score is 1:0 for Ripstation. Will do the same test with other CDs on the next days and report...
Hello Paolo,
I used a software for comparing the WAV files. Just search for "WavDiff" on the Internet, it's a command line tool for Windows and Linux/Unix (no GUI).
The first problem is that you can't compare the FLAC files. (Because they might be different anyway; if you compress a file with 5 different implementations of ZIP you get 5 different files, too, although the contents is the same.) The second problem is that you can't use a ordinary software for comparing binary files since the start of the tracks is not exact, therefore you usually get a "shift of data" when comparing different CD drives or rip software. (You can even get a different "shift" when ripping a track on the same CD drive twice!) This "shift" needs to be detected when you want to compare the WAVs, and the WavDiff software does that. (BTW: The shift can be detected and corrected with EAC, see option "Use read sample offset correction")
I used a software for comparing the WAV files. Just search for "WavDiff" on the Internet, it's a command line tool for Windows and Linux/Unix (no GUI).
The first problem is that you can't compare the FLAC files. (Because they might be different anyway; if you compress a file with 5 different implementations of ZIP you get 5 different files, too, although the contents is the same.) The second problem is that you can't use a ordinary software for comparing binary files since the start of the tracks is not exact, therefore you usually get a "shift of data" when comparing different CD drives or rip software. (You can even get a different "shift" when ripping a track on the same CD drive twice!) This "shift" needs to be detected when you want to compare the WAVs, and the WavDiff software does that. (BTW: The shift can be detected and corrected with EAC, see option "Use read sample offset correction")
Interesting tool, thanks Axel.
BTW, I think I'm still missing something: I understand that with WavDiff you can compare two or more wav files, for instance, taken a certain song, one from RipStation and one from EAC. You can get the differences between the two, but how can you know which of the two contains more errors compared to the "original" content? How do you identify the wrong samples?
Paolo
P.S.:
As for EAC, I've found that I get the best sound with the Dell laptop drive I'm using (BPDS DVD+-RW DS-8W1P) with "Secure mode" drive options like these:
1) Drive has Accurate Stream feature: not flagged
2) Drive caches audio data: flagged
3) Drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information: not flagged
BTW, I think I'm still missing something: I understand that with WavDiff you can compare two or more wav files, for instance, taken a certain song, one from RipStation and one from EAC. You can get the differences between the two, but how can you know which of the two contains more errors compared to the "original" content? How do you identify the wrong samples?
Paolo
P.S.:
As for EAC, I've found that I get the best sound with the Dell laptop drive I'm using (BPDS DVD+-RW DS-8W1P) with "Secure mode" drive options like these:
1) Drive has Accurate Stream feature: not flagged
2) Drive caches audio data: flagged
3) Drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information: not flagged
Of course you can't say when you are comparing two rips, but I have compared six ones. If five of them are identical (like track 3), I can assume that these contain the "original" content and the one which is different not.paolo wrote:You can get the differences between the two, but how can you know which of the two contains more errors compared to the "original" content?