CES: Auraliti's Fascinating PK100 High Resolution File Player
January 9th, 2010 -- by Tom Martin
Source:
Source:
My intuition is that the Auraliti PK100 player would be one of the more significant products of the audio part of CES if it were marketed by a major manufacturer. Anyone who has heard high-res 176.4khz and 192khz digital files is likely to testify that the sound takes a small but very very important step in the direction of naturalness. It is the kind of experience where it is hard to go back to conventional red book (44.1khz) files conventionally decoded (Meridian's 808.2 and new 808.3 produce a similar effect, as may other minimum phase d/a converters). But there isn't a huge catalog of high res files, even though Reference Recordings, Chesky and several other lables have growing offerings.
The Auraliti PK100 is therefore significant in my mind because it decodes high-res files and costs $899. At that price, many people could buy a PK100 to see if high res floats their boats the way it does mine (and many others). The PK100 provides everything you need except storage (assuming you have a home network and an iPod).
Here's basically how it works. You download files or transfer them from your CD collection to an external USB hard disk or USB key. Note that 1TB of USB hard drive costs about $149 or less. Then you plug the hard drive into the PK100 or access the hard drive via hardwired ethernet. The PK100 builds a catalog of your files. A fee app gets installed on your iPod Touch or iPhone.Via Wi-Fi, the iPod gives you remote control over the catalog, so you can play songs. The PK100 is plugged into your preamp/amp and the PK100 does D/A conversion of the files.
You wouldn't be throwing your hard earned dollars away either, if you don't fall in love with high-res. That's because the PK100 can be used primarily as an easy to use access device for digital files. It can output to any D/A converter if you decide the built-in decoder isn't good enough, but you still like the iPod-based user interface and the ease of working with external and expandable mass storage.
Auraliti's technology may appear in other devices, so if you're uncomfortable buying directly from a start-up, you may have other choices. On the other hand, at $899, you might decide the risk is low to see what's up beyond standard CD. There are cheaper ways to get high-res, but I haven't seen one that integrates with your audio system so well.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Sounds like a great product. The problem I am having with hi-rez right now, though, is that it's a ghetto, much like half-mastered vinyl before it. I have over 900 cds already recorded to a 1 tb hard drive which is hooked to my Belkin Router and played over Squeezecenter relayed to a Squeezebox, and it's seamless, and only cost me $299, so I find it hard to figure where a product like this fits in. It would certainly be more attractive if it had a very high quality DAC something of the quality of a Lavry or a Benchmark, and also why not offer room and speaker correction in the same box? That way the customer gets a porduct that will not be obsoleted anytime soon, plays all the important formats, offers an easy interface, and actually makes a qualitative improvement in the quality of the system in one handy little box. If someone could offer hi end buyers something like that for under $3000, they could probably sell it to a large portion of the high end looking to migrate to a computer audio format.
2 phoenix
Benchmark is far from high quality DAC
As the owner of a label that makes exclusively HD recordings for DVD-Au and now BD (AIX Records) AND a download site that offers exclusively HD soundfiles in surround and stereo (iTrax.com), I take issue with the post that somehow Benchmark's DAC products are not high quality. I have used their equipment throughout my production chain since we started 10 years ago and use their DAC-1 at my primary workstation everyday...the sound meets my exacting standards. The equipment is solid, sounds great and the customer support is superlative!
As for HD soundfiles and downloading to computer type playback...all you need is a Mac Mini, iTunes and a Benchmark USB DAC. If you download recordings that have been made in HD and produced with care at 96 kHz/24-bits and play them through this system, it will top any CD transport and playback on the planet.
The secret is in the recordings. Many download sites offer "HD" tracks that actually started life as analog tape or standard definition digital. The entire production chain needs to be HD for the end result to qualify as HD. Analog tape and vinyl are standard definition. I have done extensive spectragraphs of so-called HD tracks from all of the download sites and from those offering DVD-Rs with 176.4 kHz files and can tell that most of them are barely better than compact discs. It's not the numbers that count but the content and production methodology. An anlog tape transferred to 192 kHz/24-bit PCM digital is unnecessary...unless you want to hear the bias frequency.
Doc,
I can't agree more with you regarding the first sentence of your last paragraph: "The secret is in the recordings." No amount of bit depth, sample rates or "pre-echo" elimination will offset the shortcomings of poorly miked, recorded and/or engineered recordings. I'm particularly amazed and dissappointed by how often the shortcomings of the production chain are apparent when listening with my hi-rez two channel system. Thank goodness for folks like T. Bone Burnett, Ry Cooder, Lee Townsend and their ilk who don't dip their fingers too deeply in the bowl when producing fine recording performances (particularly staying away from the dreaded enemy of compressing realisting dynamics). Thanks for championing the fundamentally important aspects associated with the software we audiophiles seek w/r/t our favorite artists.
Sincerely,
I think this product is for someone just starting the migration and who wants to try hi-res capability. Until I get a test unit, I can't comment on the quality of the DAC, but I from talking to Ray Burnham at Auraliti, I believe they've endeavored to make the quality quite good by using the AKM device.
At a higher price point, Bryston will offer the Auraliti interface in a package to pair with Bryston's DAC (which has a good reputation). And of course, with the PK100 you can always use any DAC you like (Lavry, Benchmark, Berkeley for example).
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
A person who has a system that can show what 192 can really do should take a pass at this IMO. Before long they will want to sell it and get a more sincere system. Those who have great systems that can show what 24/96 can do are better off with a $500 Mac Mini.
The Mac Mini is often mentioned in this application, so there must be something there. I'm not a Mac person, so I'm wondering what would be entailed, assuming I just have an audio system based around a CD player and turntable?
I need a Mac Mini, which is $599.
I need an external hard disc for storing my music files, which is ~$149?
I need a D/A converter that will do 176 and 192k files? Price point?
Is there an iPod app to run iTunes (or something) as a user interface for controlling this?
Is the Mac Mini fanless, so I can put it in the room with my audio system?
Do I need anything else?
Thanks.
The MacMini can only do up to 96khz. If you think that your ears, system and library make sense to go up to 192kz, then this option isn't for you. But if 96khz meets your needs, then you only need to network the Mini if you exhaust the 500GB of internal storage. I have mine connected via HDMI to my plasma, so I run iTunes on my 60" plasma along with the iPod Touch to have complete control. It works very sweet.
Thanks, it sounds good. But the Mac Mini approach seems to be just as expensive ($999 for 500GB) as the Auraliti ($999 if I add 1TB external) and with the Mini I give up the chance to try higher resolution, which I think was the point of the OP. Clearly the Auraliti presumes you have a PC and a network, so maybe the Mac Mini approach is easier. And I guess I could always get a smaller Mini and add the same 1TB external to save a few $. OTOH, having the storage on a network, gets fans out of the listening room.
The Mini does not play 192k, and there is very little music recorded above 96k that I'm interested in. I navigate iTunes via my iTouch or on my plasma, so I can view album covers. The music files are available to all other computers on my network. The only thing that sucks is that you have to close iTunes and go to preferences to switch the bitrate (not buying Amarra for that feature!). For $500 you have 500GB of storage included, access to iTunes video content if you connect the Mini to your plasma. Most importantly, I wouldn't want the Auralati to be doing the D/A conversion. My Mini passes a digital signal to my high end DAC. The Mini is the best device for trying out 96khz music IMO. If you end up finding a substantial library that you like, you will probably end up investing in a high end DAC and needing to replace the Auralatti.
NB: I am extremely sensitive to fan noise, and I can't hear the Mini from 10ft away even when no music is playing.
Thanks for the info on the fan.
If I understand the OP, the Auraliti can connect to an external DAC, so if you need to upgrade you simply skip the internal DAC rather than replacing the Auraliti. In that case, the Auraliti acts as a music client only.
Mmm... where do I start. First of all, thank you Tom for introducing our product to your readers. Your explanation of the product is accurate and yes in fact we are a small start up. Of course most audiophile brands would be considered start ups by the business community at large but I take your meaning. And yes we are working with other brands to bring additional products to market.
Lets talk about the basis for our product, what it is and why buyers should feel confident in considering a purchase. The Player is built on a standard computer motherboard sourced from Intel. The operating system is Linux. So while we are new the core of our system has legs. So, with the Player based on industry standard computer hardware and software, you may ask why not a Mac Mini or other general use computer for music playback? The answer to that is, do you want to work on spread sheets or listen to a bit of music. The Auraliti Player is based on Linux because it has become the most used and tested platform for imbedded applications. This means very high reliability and a device that knows it is a music player when you turn it on. No messing with launching a program or setting preferences or properties. Just turn it on and play music files. A selected music file will play at its native sampling frequency be that 44.1 or 192KHz or any standard resolution in between.
Regarding our internal D/A. While the internal converter will allow one to hear the difference between standard resolution CD files and higher resolution files we agree that most listeners will want to migrate to an external DAC. One of our earliest buyers is enjoying our product running into a Benchmark DAC-1 so I would agree with Mark Waldrep that the Benchmark should not be so quickly dismissed. Where he and I would disagree is his dismissal of recordings made at sampling frequencies above 96KHz or analog source material for that matter. The cool thing about our new product and the really great thing about record companies releasing music at these very high resolutions is that you the listener do not have to take anyones word for it, you can now hear and decide for yourself!
This is all about connecting with the music. If you find music you like and it was recorded well and the native file is at 176.4 KHz, why not listen to it that way. That is what we offer along with ease of use that will remind audiophiles of using a music playback component rather than something that might remind them of work.
By the way, we are sincere. We would not be spending time responding to audiophiles and music lovers if we were not. I could spend less time at a higher return with other products in other markets. The thing is, I like this stuff. Anyone that works in the music business would likely agree with that sentiment.
Comparing a Mac Mini to our product. Why is a Mac Mini always $100 less than its retail price? A Mac Mini is a fine product. The curious thing is that sometimes folks want it to be an end all so badly that anything else is dismissed without consideration. The respondent claims to know what will work for others and further claims that noise from the Mac Mini fan and presumably noise from his Plasma screen (used to reproduce album cover art) allow him to make clear distinctions regarding products he has not heard. Sounds like noise to me...
Finally, there are many clients that can control our Player from a laptop, desktop or smart phone if you do not own or wish to purchase an iPod or iPhone.
"A free app gets installed on your iPod Touch or iPhone".
cool... as I own neither I also have to add this to the purchase cost.
I saw the news piece here on the Micromega device that seems conceptually similar:
http://www.avguide.com/article/ces-micromega-s-airstream-wm-10-wireless-...
Why doesn't the Auraliti use wireless? Or is this just to keep the cost down (I see the Micromega is more $)?
The unreliability of WiFi makes it less suitable for high resolution audio playback. We find we get much higher stability from wired connections. We think that a bit of work up front installing a cat-5 wired connection or using ethernet over power-line devices between the Player and the house network router is much better than waiting for a buffer to fill each time you press play. We did not leave out WiFi for cost reasons. Perhaps I need to publish a photo showing the inside of our Player to assuage any fear that we are selling a box of air. On the other hand, anyone preferring the use of a local volume connected to the Auraliti Player via USB and therefor only using ethernet for connection to an iPod for control of playback, a wireless adapter could be used successfully.
Regarding electronic isolation of audio components from computer components, in particular network activity. We use galvanic isolation to isolate and avoid charge-carrying particles moving from one section to another. By the way, this technique is not unique to us and has been used in the computer industry for some time.