Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
Addendum: (to be fair) One thing I did not add to my last post and something that is obviously pertinent when discussing the Transporter, is the matter of sample rates. I only compared the TP with the Cullen-modded DAC using 44.1/16 (Redbook) sample rates. I did not listen to anything higher via the TP. I am not a big fan of up-sampling DACs (which the Cullen DAC is) and I can only imagine that higher sample rates (i.e.: 92/24, 196/24) would sound superior fed native via the TP as compared to up-sampling. Additionally, for me, the Cullen DAC and the TP fall short of true high-end playback. For that reason I am moving on. I am however, committed to staying the course with digital and music servers, as I believe continued improvements in digital hardware and the advancements in, and availability of, high sample rates will effectively bridge the gap between digital and analog playback. I also believe that Logitech/SB will continue to be an innovator. -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
The A/B comparison was done precisely everything was matched, gain matched, same cables, etc .come on, were talking about a bunch of audiophiles here. Everyone wanted the transporter to sound better (including me). I was actually auditioning the transporter. All five of us (not one of use with less than twenty years of experience) heard an immediate difference when switching between the two aforementioned devices. Now, I tell you, I really hate to use the same old rhetoric here, but quite frankly, it was like lifting a veil. There is really no better way to explain the difference. I cant say the sound stage was bigger, I cant say that the central image was better; I wont even say that the bass was more defined. The resolution was just better. There was a difference in clarity and it was definitely not shrill, bright, or forward. The sound to all five of us was better. The Cullen Stage IV DAC is no slouch whats so hard to believe about this? SB hasnt cornered the market on DACs ..I will be leaving my Cullen-modded DAC for the new PS Audio PWD, as it is improves upon the Cullen DAC even more so than the Cullen DAC improved over the TP. You can call this subjective which, of course it is, but truly, I know what I heard. I was actually hoping that I would like the TP more. -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
Phil Leigh;427831 Wrote: I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an extended home demo. Our brains and our senses are tuned to identify tiny differences - that's what kept the species alive to-date. Difference!=better. Difference=different. You can easily detect differences in an A/B of some gear. Only by living with the gear over time can you decide if it really is better to your taste. Totally agree with that and is the reason why I don't believe ABX testing really works as well as some people believe. -- sxr71 sxr71's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18773 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
sxr71;429729 Wrote: Totally agree with that and is the reason why I don't believe ABX testing really works as well as some people believe. ABX is intended to discover if a listener can detect a difference between A and B. If so it says nothing about which is the listener's preference. AB testing is intended to discover the listener's preference between A and B. It says nothing about which is better for other listeners i.e. the result is subjective. Most objections I've read to ABX and AB are not fundamental objections. They're about how particular tests are carried out in practice, for example the structure or length of the listening sessions. (Doing a long-term AB(X) isn't impossible, just difficult.) Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Laptop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 SB3 / Rio Karma / Laptop - Roberts Sound 43 / Sennheiser PX-100 / JVC UX-C30 darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
NewBuyer;427826 Wrote: But if your taste is that you think it sounds subjectively better, than obviously you should buy it and enjoy it! I agree with Newbuyer, but I'd point out that an A/B dealer demo is absolutely the worst method of choosing (top-end) gear. You need an extended home demo. Our brains and our senses are tuned to identify tiny differences - that's what kept the species alive to-date. Difference!=better. Difference=different. You can easily detect differences in an A/B of some gear. Only by living with the gear over time can you decide if it really is better to your taste. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
duke43j;427380 Wrote: There is a lot of bad information floating around with respect to hi-fi equipment. A digital cable either works, or it doesn't work. If it doesn't work you would hear pops, skips or dropouts in the audio. There is no way you would hear a change in tonality. A digital cable carries 1's and 0's. If it was faulty, 1's would be mistaken for 0's, and vice-versa. This would cause the data to fail an error check and the sample would be discarded. If one or two samples are discarded, the unit is supposed to keep playing the same sound as the last good sample; but this can go on for only about 1/1000 of a second. If it continues, then the unit will mute the output (a dropout). With this kind of operation, there is no way you would characterize the resulting sound as not having enough air, or losing detail. Im afraid you're a ways off the mark here. You need to get caught up on the subject before debunking the bad information. What jitter does is it smears the high frequencies, and this phenomenon is readily observed with just an audio spectrum analyzer, regardless of what anyone thinks it does or doesn't sound like. However, I would say that a loss of detail is a perfectly reasonable description. The older DACs had a clock that was tied to the rate at which the data appeared on its input. If the input data appeared at irregular times (jitter), then the clock in the DAC would tick at irregular intervals (although it would try to smoothe it out as best it could). Reclockers try to smoothe the data rate before they get to the DAC unit. This extra smoothing reduced the jitter even further. Newer DACs with an asynchronous rate converter have two clocks; one to clock in the jittery input data, and a second, very stable clock, to clock the D/A chip. What you're talking about is properly called ASRC or Asynchronous sample rate conversion. In the Benchmark DAC1 it is implemented by an AD1896 chip, and prior to this chip's availability I don't think any off the shelf DACs did it. However, it is NOT _generally_ a feature of newer DACs, and it is not simply a means of having a second more stable local clock. In ASRC, the data stream is mathematically resampled to a completely different rate (eg 110KHz), not merely re-clocked. This certainly eliminates susceptibility to the conventional mechanism of s/pdif jitter, but it also completely reconstructs the data stream and the potential audible impact of resampling should not be overlooked. As long as you don't starve the unit by not feeding it data, or the opposite problem of feeding it too much data, jitter on the input data shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. s/pdif uses only a continuous clock signal that is embedded (manchester encoded) in the data. It does not rely on the kind starving or not flow control you're imagining. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
Not all clocks seem to be created equal either. According to an engineer from Linn Products (admittedly a comptetor, but he did write a Squeezecenter emulator for Linn's DS range, so may know what he is talking about): -As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can drift as much as 10s on an average length track, whilst I have seen a duet with minimal drift. The DS clock is extremely accurate, the SB clocks are obviously not as good in some cases.- http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=2848 10 seconds a track!! -- JezA JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
JezA;427392 Wrote: -As for the clocks - within SBs they vary widely - an old SB1 can drift as much as 10s on an average length track, whilst I have seen a duet with minimal drift. The DS clock is extremely accurate, the SB clocks are obviously not as good in some cases.- True, SB1 had poor clocking, and a number of other bugs related to PCM passthrough mode, due to bugs in its black-box DSP chip. I don't know about 10s (maybe 10ms?) over the length of a track, but by modern standards not good. All products since SB2 have extremely good clocks and correct handling of raw PCM, so his statement is quite disingenuous in extrapolating that observation to current models, or the SB clocks in general. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
I sent an inquiry to S.N., whose response is not surprising, but does support the validity of why re-clocking is necessary in reducing jitter. From what I interpret from the information I have read recently, the claims made by the DAC manufacturers are not, shall I say accurate. Evidently, even the low rated jitter of some DACs (say 0.0003%) is still (very) audible; this is what I just read, but its hard to believe that such low measurements could be (very) audible. We do however see quite a few reviewers who say re-clocking makes an audible difference in their systems. The question for me is one of cost vs return (isnt it always). I can get a new PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC for $2,000 (with a trade in), or a Pace-Car with all the added options for about the same price. I will certainly wait to hear the PWD before making any decisions. I would love to hear a demonstration on jitter, so I would know whether, or not, (I) can even hear any differences. -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My point is that if one uses a DAC with an ASRC, jitter from all external sources (including cables) should be largely eliminated. So, cables shouldn't be an issue unless they are so bad that the input device can't read the data at all, in which case you will have dropouts. So to address the original question -- Do I need a reclocker if my DAC uses an ASRC?, and a subsequent question -- Do I need expensive cables? My opinion on both is No, because external jitter should not be an issue when using a well designed DAC having an asynchronous rate converter. I stand by my statement that there is a lot of bad information out there regarding this area. -- duke43j duke43j's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15911 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
duke43j;427428 Wrote: Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My point is that if one uses a DAC with an ASRC, jitter from all external sources (including cables) should be largely eliminated. So, cables shouldn't be an issue unless they are so bad that the input device can't read the data at all, in which case you will have dropouts. So to address the original question -- Do I need a reclocker if my DAC uses an ASRC?, and a subsequent question -- Do I need expensive cables? My opinion on both is No, because external jitter should not be an issue when using a well designed DAC having an asynchronous rate converter. I stand by my statement that there is a lot of bad information out there regarding this area. I believe you are correct, however I don't think this is bad information: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm This article does make sense, but for me the question remains; just how audible is audible? -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
duke43j;427428 Wrote: Jitter in the digital world is like noise in the analog world; it's everwhere. Every component, including cables, contributes to jitter. You can't avoid it. Of course, if you don't reduce jitter from wherever it comes from (including cables), you will have problems. My point is that if one uses a DAC with an ASRC, jitter from all external sources (including cables) should be largely eliminated. So, cables shouldn't be an issue unless they are so bad that the input device can't read the data at all, in which case you will have dropouts. So to address the original question -- Do I need a reclocker if my DAC uses an ASRC?, and a subsequent question -- Do I need expensive cables? My opinion on both is No, because external jitter should not be an issue when using a well designed DAC having an asynchronous rate converter. I stand by my statement that there is a lot of bad information out there regarding this area. I agree you don't need expensive SPDIF cables - $18 from Blue Jeans for 1.5m is fine :-) Even better than relying on ASRC (and I have one in my TACT) is using the DAC clock to drive the transport. Sadly, this gets into some quite complicated mods...(for me anyway) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding, and these products simply sound fantastic. -- NewBuyer NewBuyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7862 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
NewBuyer;427564 Wrote: These are all the reasons why I feel the SqueezeBox Classic and Transporter (analog outs) are the ideal right now. Interface jitter issues are -completely- eliminated, the server software is outstanding, and these products simply sound fantastic. Well that's interesting. I was under the impression, from most of what I have read, that the digital out sounded better than the analog outs (all SM devices), especially when fed through an external (i.e.: better) DAC. -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
seanadams;427570 Wrote: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better DAC than Transporter's. And even if you did, it would have to support word clock mode to even compete on the same playing field (s/pdif is a huge disadvantage). As for SB3, duet et al, it's analog outputs are not going to blow away a high-end DAC, but yes they would make a fine pairing. I love the Transporter, don't get me wrong. Truth is, immediate A/B comparisons on the dealers best system reveled that the Cullen Stage IV PS Audio DL-III clearly sounded better than the TP (DAC connected to TP A/B with/without) - there's no other way to say it, everyone there heard the difference. I want to get the newest PSA DAC, the PWD, which has true I2S inputs (in the way of HDMI connectors). I really want to see if I can mod the Duet receiver with an I2S output. Is that doable? -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
timequest;427581 Wrote: I really want to see if I can mod the Duet receiver with an I2S output. Is that doable? Not much you need to mod, the signals are there. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
timequest;427581 Wrote: I love the Transporter, don't get me wrong. Truth is, immediate A/B comparisons on the dealers best system reveled that the Cullen Stage IV PS Audio DL-III clearly sounded better than the TP (DAC connected to TP A/B with/without) - there's no other way to say it, everyone there heard the difference. I want to get the newest PSA DAC, the PWD, which has true I2S inputs (in the way of HDMI connectors). I really want to see if I can mod the Duet receiver with an I2S output. Is that doable? Hmmm... so how carefully was this test done? - were the outputs of the TP and DAC level matched to within 0.5dB? If not, the test is highly suspect. Can you describe why you felt the DAC was better? There are two fundamental differences in play... the digital/jitter aspect where TP has a theoretically much better implementation than anything using SPDIF...and the final analogue circuitry where component choices and circuit design will voice the sound differently in the two products. The DAC chip itself is involved in both aspects as are the power supply arrangements. IMHO you should look for a DAC with word-clock out and try that with the duet(suitably modded). This will outperform using i2s into a DAC. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
duke43j;426889 Wrote: I've been doing some reading on this in my search for an external DAC for my own system. I believe that older DAC designs were very susceptible to jitter, and reclockers had a useful function in reducing the jitter before it reached the DAC. The more modern DAC designs that contain asynchronous rate converters are much more tolerant of jitter. That being the case, I believe a reclocker won't give you much of an improvement when used with a modern DAC. (I expect a loud chorus of replies with that remark.) Also, the older DACs were based on a resistive ladder approach which had linearity problems. The newer designs are based on a delta-sigma scheme and are much more linear. I would suggest you try a modern DAC such as the Benchmark or Cambridge Audio and see how it sounds. I think you will be quite pleased with the performance without an external reclocker. You could always add a reclocker later, but I don't think you'll find it necessary. I tend to agree, however I continue to read about SB users utilizing the Pace-Car re-clocker in conjunction with very high quality modern external DACs. Why would this be necessary unless the external DAC isnt effective at reducing the jitter it is being fed? Obviously marketing comes into play but whos marketing the re-clockers, or the DAC manufacturers? I realize too, that there is some real science at play here. According to the designer, my external DAC is measured at less than 1ps jitter (0.005% @ 10 kHz; 0.0038 @14 kHz; 0.002% @20 kHz); but what do these low numbers really mean? Does this mean that the DAC is reducing the jitter from the transport down to these very low specs? If so, I cant see the need for a re-clocking device (unless 0.005% jitter is audible). However, there appears to be some science (and marketing) behind the concept that a re-clocker can significantly improve jitter in devices like the SB3/Duet even when these devices are used in conjunction with external DACs. Can someone help me understand this maybe sort through the science/marketing? -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
timequest;427061 Wrote: I tend to agree, however I continue to read about SB users utilizing the Pace-Car re-clocker in conjunction with very high quality modern external DACs. Why would this be necessary unless the external DAC isnt effective at reducing the jitter it is being fed? Obviously marketing comes into play but whos marketing the re-clockers, or the DAC manufacturers? I realize too, that there is some real science at play here. According to the designer, my external DAC is measured at less than 1ps jitter (0.005% @ 10 kHz; 0.0038 @14 kHz; 0.002% @20 kHz); but what do these low numbers really mean? Does this mean that the DAC is reducing the jitter from the transport down to these very low specs? If so, I cant see the need for a re-clocking device (unless 0.005% jitter is audible). However, there appears to be some science (and marketing) behind the concept that a re-clocker can significantly improve jitter in devices like the SB3/Duet even when these devices are used in conjunction with external DACs. Can someone help me understand this maybe sort through the science/marketing? If we take the Benchmark as an example they publish specs showing that output distortion doesn't change as input jitter is increased. The take-home point is that the measurements (whatever you think of them) don't change when the input jitter changes. http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/system1/files/documents/DAC1.pdf Either they are printing drivel or you don't need a re-clocker. There doesn't appear to be a middle ground. I don't have a Benchmark and I've no plans to buy one so I've no point to prove. I'm just saying. :) Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Laptop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 SB3 / Rio Karma / Laptop - JVC UX-C30 / Sennheiser PX-100 darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone. That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics. Less boxes too! ;) Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Laptop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 SB3 / Rio Karma / Laptop - JVC UX-C30 / Sennheiser PX-100 darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
darrenyeats;427088 Wrote: I ought to add, if you're worried about jitter, or worried that you should be worried, you can always just use the SB3 or TP standalone. That avoids the brain-dead S/PDIF interface without needing any clever and apparently controversial jitter-killing electronics. Less boxes too! ;) Darren All true - but unfortunately there is still jitter in the SB3 DAC (much less in the TP however...). I don't have the SB3 specs to hand but they are merely good - not stellar like the TP's. SPDIF is not the only source of jitter. Power supplies are also involved... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
darrenyeats;427085 Wrote: If we take the Benchmark as an example they publish specs showing that output distortion doesn't change as input jitter is increased. The take-home point is that the measurements (whatever you think of them) don't change when the input jitter changes. http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/system1/files/documents/DAC1.pdf Either they are printing drivel or you don't need a re-clocker. There doesn't appear to be a middle ground. I don't have a Benchmark and I've no plans to buy one so I've no point to prove. I'm just saying. :) Darren This is what I want to believe, that the jitter issue is resolved by using a good DAC with low jitter measurements. If this was simply the case however, then why would the minimum length of the digital cable necessarily be a factor; if the DAC would correct any jitter issues, why even worry about whats upstream from the DAC? Discussions regarding the importance of minimizing jitter in the digital cable (i.e.: lengths of 1.5 meters or more), or by re-clocking the signal before the DAC, leads me to believe there is more to the issue of reducing jitter than simply incorporating a low-jitter DAC. I would like to have a better understanding -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
timequest;427138 Wrote: This is what I want to believe, that the jitter issue is resolved by using a good DAC with low jitter measurements. If this was simply the case however, then why would the minimum length of the digital cable necessarily be a factor; if the DAC would correct any jitter issues, why even worry about whats upstream from the DAC? Discussions regarding the importance of minimizing jitter in the digital cable (i.e.: lengths of 1.5 meters or more), or by re-clocking the signal before the DAC, leads me to believe there is more to the issue of reducing jitter than simply incorporating a low-jitter DAC. I would like to have a better understanding These are two different issues...the 1.5m cable is NOT to do with jitter, it's to do with reflections on the transdmission line... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
Happy to toss in my 2 cents. I'm no audio engineer, but I'm a music lover, trained musician across quite a few instruments, and have played/orchestrated/arranged and listened to live music in a variety of venue types (which I recognize in an audiophile community is very common of course! I'm always humbled reading these forums!). What I can say is that to my ears (and a few others who have heard it) and in my particular audio setup the PaceCar2 reclocker has had a surprisingly positive impact. I've had it for almost 2 weeks as has been breaking in nicely. I use the Transporter, feed the PaceCar, SPDIF to a Meridian 568.2 (which I recognize isn't as good as today's 2 ch DACs of equivalent price or even lower as it's a few years old now, but very musical and impressive for a multi-channel processor when paired with quality cabling/power/etc.). I have it set up to do A/B comparisons between (1) Transporter's analog output (using it's internal DAC), (2) T's digital coax output using Meridian's DAC, and (3) Toslink out to PaceCar to Meridian. Frankly the comparison is almost silly to the point that it's a tad depressing switching back to (1) or (2). Listening to 24/96 music is truly a treat with this system. I don't have any personal experience with the Benchmark DAC or some of the top DAC's in the market today to know if the relative impact on performance would be the same or not, so just giving you all one data point. -- silverlight silverlight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=29788 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why Reclock If Using Low Jitter DAC
There are a couple of threads here, and many elsewhere, regarding re-clocking - specifically, the Empirical Audio Pace-Car. My question has to do with an external DAC and the role it plays with reducing jitter. If you have a good DAC with very low jitter measurements, doesnt it already do some correcting/or eliminating of jitter fed to it by the transport (i.e.: SB Duet receiver)? I assume a re-clocker is installed before the DAC? Is the theory (reality whatever) that re-clocking the signal greatly reduces the jitter, even more than a good DAC? I see by the articles that Ive read that the Pace-Car was being utilized in conjunction with an external DAC, fed by SB ?? -- timequest timequest's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25640 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63796 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
