DLNA DAC .. USB DAC.. Is the DLNA DAC the future?

Your high level message is right but the details not . FLAC is not a supported format for DLNA. Indeed, the only mandatory format (unless something has changed recently) is LPCM (uncompressed). The "server" software running on the PC will decode the FLAC stream then and send it out as uncompressed to your player.

You are very correct that the process is now asynchronus. The PC/Server is a "data pump" and the DAC clock a master which means nothing the PC will do will impact jitter. As always, this doesn't mean jitter goes away, it only means that your only problem is in the player, not how the source acts.

As to whether it is as good as USB bridges, the above factor comes into play. A USB bridge doesn't have much software in it. So in theory, can produce a more accurate clock. DLNA requires boatload of networking software to run so requires a high-speed processor, and fair amount of local activity. Such a system can be designed to have low jitter but all else being equal, it is a more challenging job than the simple USB Bridge.

I have not seen jitter measurements of Oppo streaming DLNA content. Perhaps it is good. Seeing the measurements is necessary to establish whether it is as good or superior.

The other consideration with DLNA is that your player becomes your user interface. That usually means a less well executed interface than say, an iPad scrolling through your music library on the PC. Of course, similar software can be written but historically, the bar has been lower.

Even today asynch USB DACs are a tiny minority of all DACs, and many manufacturers are obtaining acceptable performance without this level of complexity.


There are a goodly number of DLNA DACs being sold in the form of new Blu Ray players. Prices start around $100. I am unaware of any reliable testing that shows that they cause reliably audible degradation of the audio signal.

The individual costs of the various components of a Blu Ray player are each becoming low enough that mainstream manufacturers seem to be questioning the need to separate out the player's component parts.

I tried foobar2000 using foo_upnp and set up my HTPC as a renderer, controlling it from a laptop set up as a controller (also using foo_upnp). Everything worked great except I could not get gapless playback, which is a deal-breaker for me.

Just joined this thread...most discussions on digital audio seem to center on eliminating jitter, how best to stream and the nuisance of having one' PC near/in the listening room. I've been ripping and storing audio on tons of individual USB HDDs only to have to manage files accross several drives and eventually experience platter and power supply failures. Next started to data rescues and migration process...

Finally I simply plunked down for a Synology NAS server and PS Audio's Perfectwave DAC/media server. All problems solved. Best 2-channel sound you can imagine and all digital streaming goodness protected by RAID 5 redundancy. Robust low jitter solution. Rip you files with dbpower amp first for reference accuracy. My $.02

That wasn't my point. Yes, the code is more complicated but complication by itself doesn't cause any audibility problems. One can license DLNA software stacks and build the box you are envisioning as PS Audio has done with a two-box solution. Assuming you get a reliable implementation (a significant concern), the reason that there may be more fidelity issues is that you need a more sophisticated digital subsystem to run the TCP/IP/HTTP/DLNA. This faster processor will create more potential problems for keeping the DAC clock absolutely clean. Reports I have seen from PS Audio Bridge users points anecdotally to a performance degradation when being used in DLNA streaming mode vs local playback. And to the earlier point, reliability is also a challenge. This data is a couple of months old so maybe they have improved things.


Large buffers do nothing here. If you run out of buffer, playback stops. Having it lets you keep up with LAN latency but doesn't do anything to lower clock jitter.


Right now, I would put my money on local playback using a USB bridge. These devices are usually driver free (for < 96 Khz on Windows) and pretty much plug and play with your favorite interface. While I very much like to see a high-quality streaming solution, I think it will be a while before a reliable and performant one shows up .

True as far as it goes, but is it not the whole answer.

When you attach a music player to a music server via a LAN, it is presumed that the server and the LAN will stream data at any reasonable rate that is requested by the music player.

IOW, the LAN, the server and the data path and buffers that it naturally implies provide a truly asynchronous connection that is able to easily provide data at whatever rate is desired by the listener.

The difference between a DLNA client and any other kind of LAN-attached music player is in the details, not the basic technology or the basic strategy, or the general functional units, or the general implementation.

The DAC clock in a LAN-attached music player calls the shots, sets the tempo, and dictates the rate at which everything else runs. DLNA is just another computer protocol for building a file server/client network.

Yes. The ones that I am familiar with are made by Sony and Samsung.

I have hands-on experience with DLNA operation with a friend's Samsung Blu Ray player.

The story is that my friend had bought a higher-end Blu Ray player used, but as we were setting it up for a Hi Fi club meeting, we found that the player on hand was not operating reliably.

So being on a very short timetable, we did some quick research on the web and found that we could buy a Samsung Blu Ray player at the local Target store, which we did. I think the out-the door price was about $225 including the proprietary USB wireless LAN adapter.

One the Samsung player was working well as a music/video player we attached it to the local wireless LAN, I grabbed a laptop, downloaded the DLNA server software, loaded it, and set the wireless-attached laptop up as a DLNA music server on the wireless LAN. It worked.

Elapsed time about 2 hours including the trip to the Target store.

BTW here is Samsung's list of supported formats:

Compatible files: DLNA-supported file types and extensions are listed below.
Music - MP3 (.mp3)
Photos - JPEG (.jpg, .jpeg)
Video - MPEG1 (.mpg, .mpeg) MPEG2 (.mpg, .mpeg, .trp, .ts, .tp) DIVX (.mpg, .mpeg, .avi) MPEG4 AVC (.mpg, .mpeg)

Source: http://www.samsung.com/us/pdf/dlna_guide.pdf

And your Samsung does not support either Flac or PCM. They are not on your list.

Interesting comment. According to the DLNA association web site, PCM audio support is manditory.

Why Samsung doesn't list it is a question. I'm trying to think what file typies I tested at my friend's house and it seems to me that I did test some .wav files as well as the obvious MP3s.

http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dln.../media_format/


I only know what I read and do, and both can get a little fuzzy - sorry.

I heartily agree with you that AFAIK there is no documented DLNA FLAC support at this time.

While FLAC is technically PCM, it isn't the same as .wav in most people's eyes when it comes to file types.

There is indeed more to the story than the bit I mentioned. You probably don't know that my previous employer, Microsoft, was a founding member of DLNA and I had the dubious job of negotiating the charter structure and formats for DLNA for executives from the other companies. I say dubious because despite my best attempt, I failed to get the support of the other two core members to agree to anything but MPEG-2 for video and uncompressed PCM for audio. Here we are, creating a format for the age of Internet and folks want the server to decompress a 128kbps MP3 and ship it at 1.4 mbit/sec over a home network. And don't realize the emergence of more advanced formats such as MPEG-4 which had a fraction of royalties of MPEG-2.

After much pushing, some of these other formats were allowed as optional. Of course, there is nothing more of an oxymoron than an "optional standard." Instead of letting consumers enjoy the technology by just having it work, we force them now to learn the obscure language of formats and codes. And the result is this:


So here we are with OP and you guessing as to what is supported and what is not. The right architecture would allow the server and client to fully negotiate any format they both understand and just play the darn file.

Even worse is lack of quality control in implementation.

We went on to support DLNA server in the Windows Media Player since it was becoming a checklist item (started in Japan). So we did our thing to help out but when you start with a broken foundation, it is had to create the right solution end-to-end.

Is there any wonder that Apple is eating everyone else's lunch here?

As to your comments further in that post, you just paraphrased what I already said. So not sure what other thing you were answering that I had not in fewer words. But if it made you feel good to post it, why not?