Uniti Core via BNC input / Remote Control

The answer, surely, is to use it as a upnp server. With a 272, why would you  do otherwise?

To see (well listen) if the Digital input via BNC is better than UPNP.

and what's the outcome? would really like know how the digial output stands against aurender, melco and co;-)

tx

T38.45 posted:

and what's the outcome? would really like know how the digial output stands against aurender, melco and co;-)

tx

&co may include Innuos Zenith, and NDX used as a renderer (ie digital out into a separate DAC.

Hungryhalibut posted:

The answer, surely, is to use it as a upnp server. With a 272, why would you  do otherwise?

If there is a functionality for which I could imagine buying a Core, it is the combination of BNC output and clean power supply. And if I had bought a Core for whatever other reason, I would certainly test its BNC output. Nothing wrong with being curious.     

Lorenz posted:

Do I simply oversee a volume control (for my 272) when in the Core section of the app?

No, there is no volume control functionality from the Core section of the app, because you're controlling a server. Volume control is only available via UPnP, because there you're controlling the streaming client (your 272).

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Lorenz posted:

Do I simply oversee a volume control (for my 272) when in the Core section of the app?

No, there is no volume control functionality from the Core section of the app, because you're controlling a server. Volume control is only available via UPnP, because there you're controlling the streaming client (your 272).

UPNP across a network to a 'streamer'  or separate renderer and DAC, vs rendered output from Core through SPDIF direct to DAC is no different with regard to volume control: the VC is after the DAC in the preamp (or in the DAC in a few cases). 

272 just combines the DAC and preamp, and also has a renderer, so IIUC you have a choice with the 272 of using its renderer or the Core's (and so network or not).

All else being equal the direct rather than network approach is better because it removes the attendant risk of the network affecting it,  which causes some people problems.

 

All else being equal the direct rather than network approach is better because it removes the attendant risk of the network affecting it,  which causes some people problems.

I couldn't write it better. As a matter of fact this covers again Core's  primarily intended object. Offer greatest ripping, storing (caddy ported interchangeable HDD or SSD), playing and incidentally serving, integrated functions for greater signal sourcing integrity and enhanced SQ. 

Chag -

Chag... posted:

 

All else being equal the direct rather than network approach is better because it removes the attendant risk of the network affecting it,  which causes some people problems.

I couldn't write it better. As a matter of fact this covers again Core's  primarily intended object. Offer greatest ripping, storing (caddy ported interchangeable HDD or SSD), playing and incidentally serving, integrated functions for greater signal sourcing integrity and enhanced SQ. 

Chag -

It all depends on whether they have achieved it! Great if they have.

"storing (caddy ported interchangeable HDD or SSD),"

I would question whether the connectors and tray are designed for multiple insertion.

Far better to use an external USB storage solution connected via the USB socket on the rear of the Core. 

Another set of tests to conduct then. All SPDIF UC USB vs. UC HDD vs. UC SSD.

Chag -

Hi,

If using the Core as a 'transport' then you will not get volume control functionality as there is no volume control functionality provided by the Core - if you start something playing on the Core in this case and then switch back to controlling the 272 then you will be able to control the volume of the 272.

Best

Phil