Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
And that is not being talked about. So.someone here has seen fit to point out my TDR work on AC. Has anyone noticed that an important person here also does not like SC transformers? Can we finally agree that they are mostly marketing hype? As for the bead...for those of you who did not read closely... Yes, it is there for EMI compliance. Try making millions of something without one. Recovered jitter is affected by TX and RX impedance, but any manufacturer has to weigh the benefits of higher output dv/dt, BW, etc., with all the grief it will cause gaining compliance acceptance. Small companies, and the hordes of after-market weeines, can skate by without such measures. BTW..why do so many of you send off these units to be modded..at an exorbitant price, in some case..so willingly? The logic of paying 2-3X the cost of the unit to be improved, by sometimes dubious means, escapes me. But..you paid for it: enjoy it! Regards to all, Pat -- ar-t ar-t's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13619 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ar-t;236631 Wrote: The logic of paying 2-3X the cost of the unit to be improved, by sometimes dubious means, escapes me. That's because logic hasn't got anything to do with it. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Hey Pat welcome to the Slim Devices forum. Looking forward to your insights! -- crooner Customized dual chassis Super Squeezebox EAD DSP-7000 Series III DAC with HDCD and mods. VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2 Marantz 10B tube FM tuner Audio Research PH3, SP16L and VS110 Vandersteen 2Ce signatures, 2W subwoofer. crooner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3379 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229431 Wrote: I'll admit it, I'm new around here, but have spent several days reading through hundreds if not thousands of posts here and on other boards, and come to the conclusion that many, if not most (!) audiophiles are looking for exactly the same product as I am: an easy-to-use streaming client to feed data into their high-end D/A-converter, in other words, an already existing stereo in which it would replace the CD-transport. I appear not to be alone in looking for something like the Squeezebox, with all the necessary digital outputs (AES/EBU still seems the choice of audiophiles), a word clock input (to complete the wish list, 24/96 or higher resolution capability appears on many people's wish list - but I understand the latter could not be implemented in the current Squeezbox), with *NO* unnecessary expenses for DAC, output stages, extra power supply and regulators (nor even, necessarily, a costly aluminum chassis - most users seem wholly satisfied with their Squeezebox). At this point in time, all there seems to be is the Transporter, at (depending on the source) rougly seven times the cost. Looks like a neat product to me, just not what any audiophile not born yesterday needs (i.e. it aims at people who are in the market to buy their first high-end stereo). Maybe the product I'm alluding to, a streaming client to replace one's high-end CD-Transport can be had from some Squeezebox modder and I just haven't found it yet? Of course, the existence of modders merely proves my point, that there are others looking for a streaming client to replace their high-end CD-transport. Makes me wonder, is Slim Devices/Logitech going to offer an audiophile Squeezebox anytime soon? I mean, since it's so obvious from these (and other forums') pages that if fairly priced, it would sell like hotcakes? Greetings from Switzerland, David. I support this idea 100%. I would love to have a SB-like purely digital device, a transport with maximum possible connection versatility, without being have to pay for rather expensive high quality analog stage that I don't need anyways. I always believed in modular architecture, and even though modularity has it's obvious overhead over integrated devices, the inherent flexibility makes it worth the trouble for me. -- 325xi sb3 || simaudio nova cdp simaudio moon i-5 revel performa m20 on *skylan* stands via acoustic zen matrix reference ii and acoustic zen satori sb3 audioengine 5 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
crooner;236650 Wrote: Oh, BTW, who's the fella that doesn't like the SC transformers, ezkcdude? Sean Adams, IIRC. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;229635 Wrote: David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago. If you get time, here is a paper by Ashihara et al. (in AES, 2005) that shows *random jitter is not detected unless greater than several hundred nanoseconds (ns)*: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/26_50/_article So, I gave you some evidence that jitter must be in the ns range to be audible. We know that jitter in most consumer devices is well below the ns level these days. If you have some evidence that jitter in the picosecond range (three orders of magnitude lower) is audible, please let us know. Take your time, and get a good night's sleep. Not all kind of jitter are created equal: random jitter is innocuos as it does not degrades sound. Data correlated jitter is unfortunately another matter: this is the worst kind of jitter and this is the kind of jitter we are dealing with mostly when data and clock are travelling together from the transport to the DAC via SPDIF link . Cheers, Betton -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
jhm731;230631 Wrote: Contact www.mauimods.com or www.db-system.ms/ hmmm...so it is possible - thanks! -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230829 Wrote: 11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of this modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant. Greetings from Switzerland, David. Yes - not exactly a cheap mod. Also, not one I am contemplating at this time. I find that using the Altmann JISCO+UPCI in-between the SB3 SPDIF out and the TACT SPDIF in (and then running the TACT at 96kHz to my DAC via SPDIF) gives me what I perceive to be (rightly or wrongly) a jitter-free sound. Certainly it doesn't have any glare or timing issues that I can hear. Also it goes loud without fatigue. YMMV. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
The XP is a pretty major rework of the 2.2X - the entire brain is redone. The Altmann works perfectly with everything else. Your answer is what TacT gave me though. :) Vinnie at Red Wine Audio is going to do the surgery on my SB. I don't believe he is generally offering SB mods any more but he does continue to service those he built before. I would call Wayne at Bolder as he seems like the go-to guy for SB mods nowadays. Empirical also can do this, for sure, but they're trying to get folks into their Pace Car clock device that I think has some special hardware requirements elsewhere, i.e. this doesn't SEEM like the most streamlined approach. Of course, the mod I'm planning is based on the fact I already have a copascetic DAC. From what I gather, the mod is really simple if your clock output uses the same frequency as the SB main clock. Vinnie had it figured out in about a half-hour. -- miklorsmith miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT 2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away but I still have the Altmann. I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock kind. It will natively work with the clock frequency of the SB and this mod will actually be pretty cheap, though I don't have an exact quote. Certainly, it will be cheaper than the price quoted above. -- miklorsmith miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock linking sounded better in this context. -- miklorsmith miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
miklorsmith;230858 Wrote: Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT 2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away but I still have the Altmann. I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock kind. It will natively work with the clock frequency of the SB and this mod will actually be pretty cheap, though I don't have an exact quote. Certainly, it will be cheaper than the price quoted above. Phil Leigh's Altmann DAC works with his TacT 2.2(the 2.2XP uses the same digital I/O cards) your Altmann DAC must be defective. Who's going to do the clock mod on your SB? -- CPC CPC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
miklorsmith;230875 Wrote: I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock linking sounded better in this context. I wouldn't disagree. Clock linking of a spinning transport with all its noisy servos etc potentially messing with the SPDIF should sound better... Now, the SB3 on the other hand... :o) -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it? As Sean said earlier, the only reason to use wordclock in the context of hi-fi is to minimise jitter. There are other techniques which also achieve similarly effective results. Not just my opinion - I believe this to be a widely held view. Instead of agonising about the theoretical correctness of things, perhaps you should try some of the alternatives? - just to see if you like the sound? -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230824 Wrote: hmmm...so it is possible - thanks! 11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of this modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230845 Wrote: I find that using the Altmann JISCO+UPCI in-between the SB3 SPDIF out and the TACT SPDIF in (and then running the TACT at 96kHz to my DAC via SPDIF) gives me what I perceive to be (rightly or wrongly) a jitter-free sound. I won't say this works to some extent, but if jitter-bugging were the subject of this thread, using a dCS Upsampler would seem like the end of all discussion in what's available on the market today (sure, one might say the reclocking is just a side product there, but that device is one hell of a jitter bug all the same). But note that even dCS recommends slaving the source to the DAC or an external masterclock. As someone said before, correcting an error is inferior to avoiding it. A notion with which I tend to agree. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230874 Wrote: If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it? Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
CPC;230884 Wrote: Who's going to do the clock mod on your SB? That's what I'd like to know, too. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230943 Wrote: You do realise, however, that there are transports with lower intrinsic jitter? So if jitter is what this discussion is about, I may be missing your point. Greetings from Switzerland, David. Not spinning ones... -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230942 Wrote: Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal. Greetings from Switzerland, David. You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some extent) and then more gets added... -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230960 Wrote: You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some extent) and then more gets added... I'm talking about the path: the point of clocking backwards is avoidance, whereas jitter bugs are devices or in-built receiver chips that clean up - at least that's the terminology this side of the ocean. No one claims there's no jitter to begin with. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
seanadams;230265 Wrote: In fact the ASRC does make it quite unaffected by input jitter, although personally I prefer to avoid the problem entirely by not using s/pdif to transmit the clock. And do what instead? Slave the source to the DAC? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230375 Wrote: And do what instead? Slave the source to the DAC? Greetings from Switzerland, David. Definitely YES. At present, all of the DACs wich have a masterclock inside require a dedicated transport-that's why we have so many DAC wich can can work only when slaved to the source: such DACs are considered a universal upgrade. Now think of a Squeezebox wich can be slaved to the DAC (it is possible right now but it requires a mod): this could turn the hiend world upside down! Cheers, Betto -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
betto;230382 Wrote: Definitely YES. At present, all of the DACs wich have a masterclock inside require a dedicated transport-that's why we have so many DAC wich can can work only when slaved to the source: such DACs are considered a universal upgrade. Now think of a Squeezebox wich can be slaved to the DAC (it is possible right now but it requires a mod): this could turn the hiend world upside down! Cheers, Betto Wasn't this what I was asking about in the first place, why such a Squeezebox isn't already available? Who would I have to turn to for this modification? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
So far the conversation has been: 1. I want an AES/EBU connection with word clock input on a squeezebox. 2. Are you sure there's a difference? Did you test it blind? 3. Yes. 4. Blind with the latest jitter-immune DACs? 5. Hang on are they jitter immune or not? 6. Yes, we have measurements. 7. Random argument follows about OVERALL SQ of products from Slim Devices, TNT and other 8. Someone posts some graphs which shows that the SB3 digi output isn't perfect 9. Discussion of the benefits of a S/PDIF-less design Everything from 7 onwards is white smoke IMHO. *I note question 4 hasn't been answered.* We are talking about the audibility of connections. Given our example of a manufacturer *providing measurements* showing jitter immunity I would be convinced by a DBT involving that product. Otherwise, forgive me for paying any heed to /appropriate/ measurements, which I find personally more trustworthy than sighted listening. I am repeating myself again, so I might as well do it thoroughly. It doesn't mean I think the Benchmark DAC1 sounds better than a Transporter or SB+. _That's a different discussion because it's about more than audibility of connections!_ Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
The original suggestion (a SB with some kind of higher-quality digital out) was a bad one, in my opinion. It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same circuit board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying to slave one box to another, or design a jitter immune DAC. So why would you want to spoil that ideal arrangement? If anything one should improve the SB's output stage, DAC, or whatever. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230386 Wrote: I think Sean was referring to a product known as the squeezebox. Impossible: there the clock signal is embedded in the S/PDIF, and there is no word clock input. He may have referred to the Transporter, which you can slav to a DAC, but I may be forgiven for thinking that 1700 USD extra for just that is out of the question. Note I don't say the Transporter is overpriced, but that it's not targeted at that majority of audiophiles whose posts I read on this and other, German among other, forums, people who like me weren't born yesterday and all own a DAC already. Were the Transporter available in a version without DAC, without output stages, without additional power supply and regulators etc. - in short, a CD-transport replacement, thus roughly at half the price, that would still be costly, but given the aluminum cabinet, rotary knob, easy handling, nice looks and all, and most importantly, the knowledge one doesn't pay too much extra for something one doesn't need, worth consideration. To me certainly - from what I've read, what most of the people on those forums appear to want is a Squeezebox with WC input and (impossible in the current design) high resolution capability, and all that at little or no extra cost. If that were available, I obviously wouldn't complain either. ;^) Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230404 Wrote: It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same circuit board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying to slave one box to another, or design a jitter immune DAC. So why would you want to spoil that ideal arrangement? If anything one should try to improve the SB's output stage, DAC, or power supply. No disagreement. But that kind of product Slim Devices is already offering: the Transporter. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230404 Wrote: It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same circuit board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying to slave one box to another, or design a jitter immune DAC. So why would you want to spoil that ideal arrangement? If anything one should try to improve the SB's output stage, DAC, or power supply. Absolutely - although whether it's the same bit of fibreglass or not is rather moot. Although an external DAC feeding a clock sync back to the transport, should render all transports sonically identical - assuming good design etc, etc. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;230399 Wrote: So far the conversation has been: 1. I want an AES/EBU connection with word clock input on a squeezebox. 2. Are you sure there's a difference? Did you test it blind? 3. Yes. 4. Blind with the latest jitter-immune DACs? 5. Hang on are they jitter immune or not? 6. Yes, we have measurements. 7. Random argument follows about OVERALL SQ of products from Slim Devices, TNT and other 8. Someone posts some graphs which shows that the SB3 digi output isn't perfect 9. Discussion of the benefits of a S/PDIF-less design Everything from 7 onwards is white smoke IMHO. *I note question 4 hasn't been answered.* We are talking about the audibility of connections. Given our example of a manufacturer *providing measurements* showing jitter immunity I would be convinced by a DBT involving that product. Otherwise, forgive me for paying any heed to /appropriate/ measurements, which I find personally more trustworthy than sighted listening. I am repeating myself again, so I might as well do it thoroughly. It doesn't mean I think the Benchmark DAC1 sounds better than a Transporter or SB+. _That's a different discussion because it's about more than audibility of connections!_ Darren Huh? Missed #3 - that's the first hand experience I'd want to hear about!! Someone compared Squeezebox with an external DAC slaved to it versus Transporter with the same DAC slaved to it versus Transporter slaved to that same DAC? Can you point me to that post or review? Or is what you merely that #2 has been answered (= by me)? Agree wholeheartedly, all the theoretical discussion, however interesting (partially), doesn't answer what I'm interested in. Anyone please step in who's got first hand experience with the digital outputs/WC input of these products... (sigh!) Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230409 Wrote: #2 has been answered (= by me) is what I meant. Regards, Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230405 Wrote: Impossible: there the clock signal is embedded in the S/PDIF, and there is no word clock input. He may have referred to the Transporter, which you can slav to a DAC, but I may be forgiven for thinking that 1700 USD extra for just that is out of the question. I think you're missing his point (or maybe I am), which was that the SB and/or TP, when used with its internal DAC, avoids this problem entirely. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks who would want one. I don't know if there would be enough demand for it to make sense financially for SD/Logitech, but all the same, I'm with acoustic on this one. I think we should just forget about the why?, and simply ask who?. Who would want one? What will the market bear? It seems to me going on and on about the jitter debate is counterproductive (yeah, I know I've contributed to it) at this point. If there is a market, then it will be made. There is quite a bit of in between between the SB3 and the Transporter. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230411 Wrote: I think you're missing his point (or maybe I am), which was that the SB and/or TP, when used with its internal DAC, avoids this problem entirely. If so, again, no disagreement, just the wrong thread. See the original post, it's about what most audiophiles not born yesterday need (= people who already have a stereo including CD-transport and DAC, but want in an audio server/streaming client in addition): something to replace their transport with. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks who would want one.[/b] I got that impression reading posts, here and initially on German forums (people being quite high on the Squeezebox there, but everyone modifying it one way or the other, which is why I ended up posting here). http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frPace-Car.html#Squeezebox Application ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: There is quite a bit of in between between the SB3 and the Transporter. That appears to be the general consensus. ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: BTW, ACOUSTIC, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, I BELIEVE YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT A PRODUCT CALLED THE PACE-CAR. IT'S A MOD THAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE SB3 THAT ADDS A WORD CLOCK INPUT: http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frPace-Car.html#Squeezebox Application Already had a look at that. That thing basically *is* an external masterclock with word clock outputs. That is, the wordclock signal will be handed forward, the DAC slaved to it, not vice versa. That's superfluous and/or overkill if you have a DAC with wordclock in- and output (the Pacecar probably being most interesting to people who insist on I2S). In all this, don't forget: it's on/next to the DAC board that the WC should be placed (physically!). Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks who would want one. I got that impression reading posts, here of course, though initially on German forums (people being quite high on the Squeezebox there, but everyone modifying it one way or the other, which is why I ended up posting here). ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: There is quite a bit of in between between the SB3 and the Transporter. That appears to be the general consensus. ezkcdude;230412 Wrote: BTW, ACOUSTIC, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, I BELIEVE YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT A PRODUCT CALLED THE PACE-CAR. IT'S A MOD THAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE SB3 THAT ADDS A WORD CLOCK INPUT: http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frPace-Car.html#Squeezebox Application Already had a look at that. That thing basically *is* an external masterclock with word clock outputs. That is, the wordclock signal will be handed forward, the DAC slaved to it, not vice versa. That's superfluous and/or overkill if you have a DAC with wordclock in- and output (the Pacecar probably being most interesting to people who insist on I2S). In all this, don't forget: it's on/next to the DAC board that the WC should be placed (physically!). Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
seanadams;230299 Wrote: The ferrite bead (usually not called an inductor) is there for EMI suppression and should be left in place for regulatory compliance. Although it smooths the waveform just slightly, I don't think it materially affects jitter either way. The different TDR response is not surprising, but I have not read art's thread yet... Start here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41593.0 (you need this part for how it all started), then go here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0 then here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45590.0 -- tonyptony tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3397 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230225 Wrote: I realise ezkcdude is able to defend himself and don't mean to patronize you people, but that's probably not why he said that (Because there aren't enough of you guys?), just that if there were more people like me, that audiophile Squeezebox to replace one's CD-transport (without DAC and output stage, but a WC input and the relevant digital outputs) might already be a reality. Needless to say, this is where I started this thread from: reading through forums here and elsewhere, I got the impression I'm not alone in wanting this. *Proven?* Where? Greetings from Switzerland, David. Sorry my mistake - I should have said demonstrated not proven - clearly these products are not bedevilled by the effects of jitter, measurable and/or audible. So a wordclock is not essential for that purpose, there are other methods. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
tonyptony;230497 Wrote: Start here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41593.0 (you need this part for how it all started), then go here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0 then here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45590.0 thanks, tony. This will make things very interesting... -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
seanadams;230164 Wrote: You're thinking of house sync, not word clock. House sync is so _multiple_ devices (usually video+audio) can share one clock master. Word clock (as in, a point-to-point audio sample clock going from the DAC to the source) has no purpose except to reduce jitter. Sorry - this must be a bit of transatlantic terminology! I've never used the term house-sync - but it makes sense as a term. I've only ever used master clock or wordclock, since I'm usually talking about something like a MOTU clock, or devices that have wordclock sockets on them.. Anyway my point (which I admit was poorly made) was that IMHO wordclock really came to prominence as a solution to the problem of connecting multiple digital items together with independant drifting clocks. The effect of this is audible as clear and intrusive clicks/pops, rather than the more subtle forms of jitter. I accept this is probably a special form of jitter. However, if I read you correctly, Sean, what you are saying is that with wordclock driving the transport from the DAC jitter is banished? IF that is what you mean, then can someone advise as to how to get wordclock fitted (modded) to my SB, TACT and DAC? Alternatively, should the digital loop on the TP ever be made to work (the only reason why I haven't bought a TP), could I get my TACT wordclocked and drive it from the TP wordclock? -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
tonyptony;230497 Wrote: Start here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41593.0 (you need this part for how it all started), then go here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0 then here http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45590.0 Interesting... so I'm not the only one to have found the SC transformers to be utterly craptastic. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230395 Wrote: Ironically, if not predictably, separating the DAC from the transport only lead to more (different) problems, that took approximately another decade to fix - and maybe not even? Of course it wouldn't have, had it been done right from the start, as in studio applications, where either the DAC's or an external clock is the master, and has been since - goodness, don't even remember - since there is digital audio? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230519 Wrote: IF that is what you mean, then can someone advise as to how to get wordclock fitted (modded) to my SB, TACT and DAC? Now we're talking! Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
TacT told me this is not possible - I asked. For the DAC, if it's outfitted for this, you're good. Otherwise I wouldn't bother - it'll be cheaper and probably better to buy one that was designed for such from the outset. For the SB, Vinnie at RWA has told me he will do this. When I get the dough, I'll be sending mine to him. He's not currently doing SB mods, but he built both of mine and their battery power supplies. I'm sure Wayne at Bolder could do this as well. It appears Empirical Audio is doing such a mod for use with his Pace Car clock. I'm unsure whether the SB could be used with another clocking device (DAC) or if the Pace Car is needed. My experience with the Lessloss DAC, both in standard and clock-linked modes has me convinced this is a superior way to go. Apparently as well, there is Superclock linking which operates in the megahertz range and Wordclock which operates in the kilohertz range. Lessloss claims their primary solution, Superclock, is better though they also offer a Wordclock option. -- miklorsmith miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230395 Wrote: What's funny to me is that we had at least a decade there (the 90's) where external D/A was considered the -sine qua non- for cd playback. Ironically, if not predictably, separating the DAC from the transport only lead to more (different) problems, that took approximately another decade to fix - and maybe not even? You know the saying - the more things change... To say this is probably unfair: Pink Triangle, Arcam, Deltec-DPA,Cambridge Audio had in the 90's the correct clock architecture (tranport slaved to DAC). But marketing hype won all over... Cheers, Betto -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230519 Wrote: IF that is what you mean, then can someone advise as to how to get wordclock fitted (modded) to my SB, TACT and DAC? Contact www.mauimods.com or www.db-system.ms/ -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Just now reading the Stereophile reviews on Squeezebox and Transporter - Wes Phillips saying in the latter: Is the Transporter perfect? If you ask me, it's pretty darn close. I'm not sure I could ask for more, but I could see a market for a Transporter that offered less. Remove its DAC and source switching for audiophiles who already have a digital processor they're in love with and you might have a product that offered all things to all comers. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229887 Wrote: How good of you to go into somewhat more detail, but why would the above apply to S/PDIF only, and not AES/EBU as well (up to that point, you took care to include both or compare)? Just a momentary lapse in your train of thought? Read my initial post at the start of this thread: isn't this what I was asking for? Glad to have found someone who picks this up at last. Greetings from Switzerland, David. P.S. Sorry to say this, but you -are- aware you're not giving a reason for audible differences between S/PDIF and AES/EBU connections (all else being equal, of course), but that it follows from what you're saying that there shouldn't be one? No offense, just trying to make sure I understand you correctly. I seem to have missed any implication that you know of a/the reason. Hi David, you may take a look at this www.lessloss.com/about.html Cheers, Betto -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229954 Wrote: Can't possibly enumerate all the systems in which I was shown differences between connections and/or cables in sighted comparisons (note that difference with me does not automatically imply that it's worthwhile, let alone from a quality-price-ratio perspective). But *feel free to have a good laugh* at me trying to remember a handful key moments that either made me reconsider my scepticism/prejudice, ordering them (I hope correctly) historically: Well certainly I'm not going to laugh at anyone's comments. betto;229970 Wrote: Hi David, you may take a look at this www.lessloss.com/about.html Cheers, Betto I hate to repeat myself, but I'm going to. The technology has got better. In theory it is possible to remove jitter from an incoming S/PDIF stream without a shared clock. More importantly, to the best of my knowledge, some widely available DACs have finally turned theory into reality and are resistant to input jitter (assuming a working connection within S/PDIF spec). One example is the Benchmark DAC. Couple such welcome developments with modern transports such as the SB3 or Transporter - which have no moving parts and no read-errors - and you may find the differences in connections have become moot, since the surrounding hardware is doing its digital job much better. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system (old, cheap, loved) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;23 Wrote: I hate to repeat myself, but I'm going to. The technology has got better. Is this in answer to me or someone else? Judging from personal experience, I would agree: as (perhaps only indirectly, and if you read closely) follows from my super-lengthy impressions (or whatever you want to call it) post, I used to find all connection options disappointing in some way or other once, now find all of them rather great-sounding (if not perfect). What globally remained identical is their sonic imprint, so to speak. Thus one might say, the differences have largely remained the same, but are gradually loosing relevance. Greetings from David, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;23 Wrote: Couple such welcome developments with modern transports such as the SB3 or Transporter - which have no moving parts and no read-errors - and you may find the differences in connections have become moot, since the surrounding hardware is doing its digital job much better. Thanks for you patience! You may have noticed that as interesting as some of the contributions (not my own) to this thread may be, no one seems to show much interest in what I wanted to know, though. I'm basically being told there can be no difference by people who have not compared the two items in described manner, all of whom support Slim Device's products with more or less severity (some - not you - barely skim-reading what I asked or had to say, constantly on the defense, using circular argumentation). Ironically, despite the apparent enthusiasm for the product, what each of them (yourself included) has to say can only lead to the conclusion that AES/EBU and WC input must have implemented into the Transporter for no apparent reason other than to to have included it, presumably so the item has greater appeal - with the question remaining unanswered, to whom and why (note no one's gone down the studio application/synchronisation of multiple units path, secretly assuming, like I do, that both Squeezebox and Transporter are pieces of consumer electronics). Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230021 Wrote: Thanks for you patience! You may have noticed that as interesting as some of the contributions (not my own) to this thread may be, no one seems to show much interest in what I wanted to know, though. I'm basically being told there can be no difference by people who have not compared the two items in described manner, all of whom support Slim Device's products with more or less severity (some - not you - barely skim-reading what I asked or had to say, constantly on the defense, using circular argumentation). Ironically, despite the apparent enthusiasm for the product, what each of them (yourself included) has to say can only lead to the conclusion that AES/EBU and WC input must have implemented into the Transporter for no apparent reason other than to to have included it, presumably so the item has greater appeal - with the question remaining unanswered, to whom and why (note no one's gone down the studio application/synchronisation of multiple units path, secretly assuming, like I do, that both Squeezebox and Transporter are pieces of consumer electronics). Greetings from Switzerland, David. My take on it. Importantly to this explanation, there is more to the sound of a DAC than jitter. There might be plenty of audiophile customers who like the sound of (and have invested a lot of money into) their DAC. And those DACs might not have as good jitter rejection of a generic S/PDIF connection as the DACs I was referring to, yet have excellent jitter performance with WC. Those guys wouldn't buy a Transporter without WC input. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229955 Wrote: I probably will. Let me ask you this, though: you're with Slim Devices/Logitech in some indirect or direct way (likely a staff member/on their payroll), correct? No. Dead wrong. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230021 Wrote: Ironically, despite the apparent enthusiasm for the product, what each of them (yourself included) has to say can only lead to the conclusion that AES/EBU and WC input must have implemented into the Transporter for no apparent reason other than to to have included it, presumably so the item has greater appeal - with the question remaining unanswered, to whom and why (note no one's gone down the studio application/synchronisation of multiple units path, secretly assuming, like I do, that both Squeezebox and Transporter are pieces of consumer electronics). Greetings from Switzerland, David. You accuse us of not reading the entirety of your posts, which I admit I am guilty. However, did you read my post on the last page? I clearly said that I think there could be differences due to SPDIF vs. AES/EBU. You even responded to me. Are you just playing the victim now? -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229954 Wrote: snip Oh, and ere I forget to remind us all, myself included, of the obvous: what does all of the above prove? Nothing! Greetings from Switzerland, David. Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for some other reason. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;23 Wrote: In theory it is possible to remove jitter from an incoming S/PDIF stream without a shared clock.Well that's what Benchmark would have you believe anyway ... opaqueice;230035 Wrote: Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for some other reason.Like they are not measuring the right thing for example? (Or rather that they have tailored the design and produced the measurements to impress people who buy on specs, rather than on what they hear.) -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230035 Wrote: Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for some other reason. To be fair, this is what is written on the Benchmark website: The Benchmark UltraLock#8482; system is nearly 100% jitter immune. The D/A conversion clock is totally isolated from the input digital audio clock in a topology that outperforms two-stage PLL designs. In fact, no jitter-induced artifacts can be detected using an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade test set. Measurement limits include detection of artifacts as low as -140 dBFS, application of jitter amplitudes as high as 12.75 unit intervals (UI) and application of jitter over a frequency range of 2 Hz to 200 kHz. Any signal that can be decoded by the USB or AES/EBU receivers will be reproduced without the addition of any measurable jitter artifacts. The AES/EBU receiver IC has been selected for its ability to accurately recover data in the presence of very high jitter levels. Note it says nearly immune. And in the last paragraph, will be reproduced without the *addition of any measurable jitter artifacts*. That is pretty clever ad writing. It does not say totally immune to jitter or 100% jitter rejection. With the ASRC they are using, that would be impossible. Sure, jitter can be reduced a lot, and while I personally doubt that jitter at these low levels is audible, it is wrong to say there is *no jitter*. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Generally spaking, I prefer to avoid a problem rather than try to correct it. Jitter is an analogue fenomenon that do harm the AD convertion only. If you put the clock where it deserves to be -as near as possible to the DAC- jitter becomes a no issue. Remeber: jitter is a transmission issue. Bakwards jitter goes up but that's non harmful because can't corrupt the data, so sound quality is not affected. It's just as simple at that. It don't cost more money, quite the contrary: quality of transport don't matter anymore-as long as there is no loss of data, but even a 30$ CD_Rom mech can do it. You don't need anymore expensive cables: a cheap plastic Toslink would do the trick-no influence on sound quality. Don't believe the marketing hype. Cheers, Betton -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230034 Wrote: You accuse us of not reading the entirety of your posts, which I admit I am guilty. However, did you read my post on the last page? I clearly said that I think there could be differences due to SPDIF vs. AES/EBU. You even responded to me. Are you just playing the victim now? Me? LOL! Are you? Of course I read every word, or else I wouldn't reply. So what about this non-sequitur now: you're referring to my the question remaining unanswered, to whom and why - where, specifically, do you think you answered this? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230060 Wrote: Me? LOL! Are you? Of course I read every word, or else I wouldn't reply. So what about this non-sequitur now: you're referring to my the question remaining unanswered, to whom and why - where, specifically, do you think you answered this? Greetings from Switzerland, David. Well, did you consider that they are targeting the professional market, as well as the consumer? Professional gear is pretty much defined by having these features. Is that clear enough? -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230062 Wrote: Well, did you consider that they are targeting the professional market, as well as the consumer? Professional gear is pretty much defined by having these features. Is that clear enough? Did more than once, most recently in the sentence you last quoted: note no one's gone down the studio application/synchronisation of multiple units path, secretly assuming, like I do, that both Squeezebox and Transporter are pieces of consumer electronics. You realise your claim now looks to be that the Transporter is primarily meant to be used in studio applications? Even if true, that still wouldn't answer what I was interested in knowing: whether the additional appeal it may or may not have to audiophiles who -can/could- use its AES/EBU and WC options is justified. I'm sure you realise by now I wasn't interested in theoretical considerations as to why it may or may not be, but first hand experience. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230046 Wrote: Note it says nearly immune. And in the last paragraph, will be reproduced without the *addition of any measurable jitter artifacts*. That is pretty clever ad writing. It does not say totally immune to jitter or 100% jitter rejection. With the ASRC they are using, that would be impossible. Sure, jitter can be reduced a lot, and while I personally doubt that jitter at these low levels is audible, it is wrong to say there is *no jitter*. I don't really agree. If the jitter induced artifacts can be shown to be below the quantization noise floor - and in the case of the Benchmark they're way below it, at least for 16 bit audio - that's 100% jitter immunity by the only reasonable definition you could take. Otherwise you may as well put a warning sticker on the thing saying it's affected by the tides. They probably say nearly to avoid potential false advertising claims - after all a DC voltage could be thought of as the infinite jitter limit of any digital signal, but the Benchmark won't play music if you feed it DC -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230066 Wrote: You realise your claim now looks to be that the Transporter is primarily meant to be used in studio applications? I don't presume to speak for SD, as I already said I have no connection. However, I think the professional market is quite large, and it would make sense to me to target them with a product as useful as the Squeezebox, but with professional features (eg AES/EBU, wordclock). In fact, it may not even be as much about the sound, but simply that most professional gear already has these connections - and much of it doesn't even have consumer SPDIF (RCA), for example, try finding coaxial SPDIF output on professional souncards. So, if *I* were making a professional version of the Squezebox, of course, I would add AES, word clock, etc. Otherwise, no pro would even think about buying it for *professional* use. Even if true, that still wouldn't answer what I was interested in knowing: whether the additional appeal it may or may not have to audiophiles who -can/could- use its AES/EBU and WC options is justified. I'm sure you realise by now I wasn't interested in theoretical considerations as to why it may or may not be, but first hand experience. I think it would be overkill for most consumer applications. Maybe if you had 10m or more of cable, it would make a difference. And maybe there is a small segment of the audiophile market that is really clamoring for these professional features. Whether it is worth making another SB device for these folks is up to the SD/Logitech marketing guys. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;230026 Wrote: Importantly to this explanation, there is more to the sound of a DAC than jitter. Right - we may not know about all the variables, but agree there may be unknown ones. This is why I like trusting my ears first and think second. darrenyeats;230026 Wrote: There might be plenty of audiophile customers who like the sound of (and have invested a lot of money into) their DAC. And those DACs might not have as good jitter rejection of a generic S/PDIF connection as the DACs I was referring to, yet have excellent jitter performance with WC. Those guys wouldn't buy a Transporter without WC input. I know of no reason why nor have experience that would make me assume the PLL of my DAC should handle different inputs differently. As you could see in my lengthy sonic impressions post, the perceived differences I mentioned were the same regardless of the DACs in question. Which doesn't mean I don't believe what you say may be the case with some DACs. As mentioned before, I've even seen measurement of ones with incorrect impedance, for both AES/EBU and S/PDIF inputs. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230035 Wrote: Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for some other reason. I don't quite understand: is the Benchmark any more modern than the latest versions of dCS Delius and Elgar, Madrigal No. 36, No. 36S and No. 30.6, let alone offers jitter rejection on a higher level? Greetings from Switzerland -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230072 Wrote: I don't really agree. If the jitter induced artifacts can be shown to be below the quantization noise floor - and in the case of the Benchmark they're way below it, at least for 16 bit audio - that's 100% jitter immunity by the only reasonable definition you could take. It isn't just the absolute noise level that determines whether something is audible or not; otherwise you wouldn't be able to make out a conversation in a crowded room - even when it's much quieter than the background noise level. If the Benchmark really was immune to jitter, then you wouldn't be able to hear the effect of different transports (or interconnect methods) with it ... and you can. (And when I say 'you', I obviously don't mean you opaqueice ... although you've probably never tried.) -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Acoustics, you seem to know quite a bit about dCS gear, which by any estimates looks droolworthy. So, let me ask you this. What are the differences between the dCS Professional and Audiophile components? From the website, I gather the Audiophile gear is *more expensive* (counterintuitively to my thinking). Both have balanced inputs/outputs, word clock, etc. Have you ever auditioned/owned these components? Could you hear a difference? -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Patrick Dixon;230089 Wrote: It isn't just the absolute noise level that determines whether something is audible or not; otherwise you wouldn't be able to make out a conversation in a crowded room - even when it's much quieter than the background noise level. If the Benchmark really was immune to jitter, then you wouldn't be able to hear the effect of different transports (or interconnect methods) with it ... and you can. (And when I say 'you', I obviously don't mean you opaqueice ... although you've probably never tried.) As far as I am concerned jitter doesn't manifest itself as noise in the conventional sense of that term, meaning something hiss, humm, burbling, clicks and pops, harshness, glare etc. The noise floor is thus irrelevant. It affects timing and that creates uncertainties (for lack of a better word) in the music. However, since non-intrinsic (ie not on the CD) jitter is treatable using buffering within the DAC and other techniques, the question really should be: Is the effort that a DAC has to go to to ameliorate the effects of jitter the culprit in determining sound quality when using different transports/cables. In other words, with a perfect bitstream and zero-jitter at the input to theDAC would transports really sound different? Personally I don't think they would. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
betto;230047 Wrote: If you put the clock where it deserves to be -as near as possible to the DAC- jitter becomes a no issue. Remeber: jitter is a transmission issue. Backwards jitter goes up but that's non harmful because can't corrupt the data, so sound quality is not affected. It's just as simple as that. It don't cost more money, quite the contrary: quality of transport don't matter anymore-as long as there is no loss of data, but even a 30$ CD_Rom mech can do it. Remember where I started from: why do we audiophiles who want an audio server to replace a CD-Transport, are attracted Slim Devices products because one doesn't need to be a dedicated PC hacker to use them, have to pay 1700 USD more to get a WC input (and, if needed, AES/EBU)? A Squeezebox with WC input would do just fine. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230102 Wrote: In other words, with a perfect bitstream and zero-jitter at the input to theDAC would transports really sound different? Personally I don't think they would. A perfect clock cannot be transmitted, because it is impossible to transmit or receive true square waves pulses. That would require infinitely fast logic gates, which don't exist, and instant transmission across cables without loss (which doesn't exist either). -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230111 Wrote: A perfect clock cannot be transmitted, because it is impossible to transmit or receive true square waves pulses. That would require infinitely fast logic gates, which don't exist, and instant transmission across cables without loss (which doesn't exist either). I didn't mention a perfect clock. The squarewave doesn't need to be perfect - it only needs to be good enough to transmit the change in state accurately (ie at the right time) and reliably. This can be accomplished easily - it's not like we are talking about the sort of ultra-fast clock signals one finds in video or computers...44.1 (or 192 for that matter) is hardly fast... Anyway, the real clock is recovered from the bitstream - that's why we need a buffer and a PLL in the DAC. Any residual jitter that survives beyond that point will potentially compromise the rhythmic integrity of the sound depending on its magnitude. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230102 Wrote: In other words, with a perfect bitstream and zero-jitter at the input to theDAC would transports really sound different? Personally I don't think they would. Fully agreed. Cheers, Betton -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230113 Wrote: Because there aren't enough of you guys? Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter! It was designed to eliminate the need for debate over who was the clock master in a studio environment where every digital device is potentially a having to generate/recover embedded clocks. This allows buffer under/overruns to be avoided and perfect synchronisation at sample level of multiple devices. Anyone who has tried to use a digital mixing desk with digital synths, FX and recorders knows that wordclock is essential - remember that these devices are invariably using a mixture of SPDIF, Toslink, AES, TDIF, ADAT LP etc etc... I agree that having a transport driven by a wordclock master in the DAC is good general practice. However, I don't think that the benefit is lower overall jitter at the DAC. Benchmark, SD (in the TP) et al have proven that WC is NOT essential for that purpose. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230108 Wrote: Remember where I started from: why do we audiophiles who want an audio server to replace a CD-Transport, are attracted Slim Devices products because one doesn't need to be a dedicated PC hacker to use them, have to pay 1700 USD more to get a WC input (and, if needed, AES/EBU)? A Squeezebox with WC input would do just fine. Greetings from Switzerland, David. On this point I'm with you 100%. Come on Slim Devices, do it before someone else do! Cheers, Betto -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230091 Wrote: What are the differences between the dCS Professional and Audiophile components? From the website, I gather the Audiophile gear is *more expensive* (counterintuitively to my thinking). Both have balanced inputs/outputs, word clock, etc. The sonic differences between their pro and audiophile gear are negligible: internally, boards are mostly identical (except that the Elgar offers a more cost- and labour-intensive analogue output stage), so that whatever difference one might perceive is assumed to be due to the more solid chassis/cabinets of the audiophile versions. The devil is in the details: 1) Compatibility. Look at the DSD inputs/outputs, compression formats etc. No DSD playback connecting the consumer transport to the pro DACs, for example (due to Sony's unnerving copyright protection requirements - the pro gear's fully open, but there's no transport there, you'd need to download all your DSD to hard disc and go from there). 2) Handling. The pro gear offers possibilities the average audiophile won't need, thus is less user-friendly. 3) Logically, software isn't identical. Again, the devil is in the details. You could download their manuals and compare them if you're really curious. Actually, the price difference is anything but counterintuitive: more elegant, solid and labour-intensive cabinets, heavy duty remote controls, IEEE 1394 boards to play back and upsample to DSD etc., a less QPR-minded clientele - no wonder the audiophile gear costs more. Remember, it's the studio market that is most competitive as far as QPR and absolute price limits are concerned. Audiophiles seem to figure, if this is (among) the best they can get, then so bit it. Those who suspect they might be paying too much proably aren't thought of as target clientele anyhow. In short, if you're not in the market for their Verdi DSD transport, don't mind pro gear handling, that is, reference to a manual once in a while, and/or have an engineer's mindset anyhow, the pro gear will cost you less, I'd just make sure it's in placed in/on a vibration-free rack. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230122 Wrote: Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter! You're thinking of house sync, not word clock. House sync is so _multiple_ devices (usually video+audio) can share one clock master. Word clock (as in, a point-to-point audio sample clock going from the DAC to the source) has no purpose except to reduce jitter. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230113 Wrote: Because there aren't enough of you guys? As valid an assumption as any, I'm afraid. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
betto;230120 Wrote: Fully agreed. Wouldn't swear on it as (proven) fact, but tend to think so, too. But then, what do I know, right? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
So, I went to the Stereophile archives to look for JA's DAC measurements. I found some very interesting things. First, both the Squeezebox and Transporter perform very well compared to even the best gear, in terms of p-p jitter. The Squeezebox is around 300 ps, while the Transporter is around 200 or so. Interestingly, the dCS Verona Master Clock clocks in with a jitter measurement slightly higher than the Squeezebox. Also, JA found that with the Nagra DAC (supposedly a modern DAC that rejects jitter): Driving the Nagra DAC with S/PDIF data from a PS Audio Lambda CD transport gave a measured jitter level of just 140 picoseconds peak-peak, which is superbly low. with almost all of that jitter data-related (red numeric markers). Changing the data source to my PC playing a WAV file and connected via a TosLink cable increased the jitter level to 333ps, with the increase due to low-frequency sidebands (not shown). While this is still very low in absolute terms, the difference between its electrical and optical performance suggests that the Nagra is not totally immune to data interface issues. Compare that with a claim from the Nagra website (my bold): The DAC features an ATF (Adaptive Time Filtering) module that increases the quality of all signals just before the conversion stage by *eliminating the jitter*. I didn't read whether JA heard any difference between the two interfaces, but it does show that simply the difference b/w two interfaces (well a different transport, too) on even a very high-end DAC can produce very different levels of jitter. It also makes one question the marketing claims. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;230122 Wrote: Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter! It was designed to eliminate the need for debate over who was the clock master in a studio environment where every digital device is potentially a having to generate/recover embedded clocks. This allows buffer under/overruns to be avoided and perfect synchronisation at sample level of multiple devices. Anyone who has tried to use a digital mixing desk with digital synths, FX and recorders knows that wordclock is essential - remember that these devices are invariably using a mixture of SPDIF, Toslink, AES, TDIF, ADAT LP etc etc... I agree that having a transport driven by a wordclock master in the DAC is good general practice. However, I don't think that the benefit is lower overall jitter at the DAC. Benchmark, SD (in the TP) et al have proven that WC is NOT essential for that purpose. I realise ezkcdude is able to defend himself and don't mean to patronize you people, but that's probably not why he said that (Because there aren't enough of you guys?), just that if there were more people like me, that audiophile Squeezebox to replace one's CD-transport (without DAC and output stage, but a WC input and the relevant digital outputs) might already be a reality. Needless to say, this is where I started this thread from: reading through forums here and elsewhere, I got the impression I'm not alone in wanting this. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;230220 Wrote: It also makes one question the marketing claims. Excuse my cynicism, but is anyone buying into those anyway? (And Nagra, in my experience, isn't more prone to making extravagant claims than any other manufacturer.) Greetings from Switzerland, David -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;230229 Wrote: Excuse my cynicism, but is anyone buying into those anyway? Yes, I believe so. Just take a look at some of the threads over at head-fi in the Dedicated Source Components section. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase jitter immunity come up. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Some reading on SPDIF and AES/EBU: http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html TDR pictures of SB3's SPDIF RCA output stock and with the SM inductor removed. +---+ |Filename: sb-03.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3415| +---+ -- CPC CPC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;230242 Wrote: Benchmark has graphs posted on their website plotting THD+N as a function of input jitter. It's basically flat, which confirms a specific version of their claim of jitter immunity. Is their data fabricated? Or are they measuring the wrong thing, as Patrick Dixon was claiming? I don't see how jitter induced by the input could fail to show up in a THD+N measurement, but maybe someone can explain what I'm missing. I don't have time to find those graphs now, but I remember that the measurement was extremely sensitive and the noise floor very low. THD+N is an extremely poor metric of jitter. There is no harmonic component to speak of, and any change in the noise floor is pretty small as a percentage of total N. After the DAC, jitter is most easily observed as sidebands around a high frequency, eg 10KHz stimulus. This is not to say that the Benchmark is not immune to jitter, only that THD+N vs input jitter is a poor metric. In fact the ASRC does make it quite unaffected by input jitter, although personally I prefer to avoid the problem entirely by not using s/pdif to transmit the clock. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
CPC, if you are not art over on the Audiocircle site then you should provide the attribution to him for these pics. He has done a whole lot of work to show some of the folks in the Circle that there sometimes IS a way to measure things that can help. Sean, I've been following the work art has done over there, and when he showed the impedance response on the TDR with the inductor removed, it got me to want to ask you: would not having the inductor in place in any way affect the performance capability of the SB? Worsen the noise susceptibility or something like that? Or is it there primarily for design completeness? -- tonyptony tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3397 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
seanadams;230265 Wrote: THD+N is an extremely poor metric of jitter. There is no harmonic component to speak of, and any change in the noise floor is pretty small as a percentage of total N. After the DAC, jitter is most easily observed as sidebands around a high frequency, eg 10KHz stimulus. This is not to say that the Benchmark is not immune to jitter, only that THD+N vs input jitter is a poor metric. In fact the ASRC does make it quite unaffected by input jitter, although personally I prefer to avoid the problem entirely by not using s/pdif to transmit the clock. I agree avoiding S/PDIF altogether is a better approach. Benchmark also has plots illustrating the lack of any jitter sidebands, for a 10kHz sin wave with 5kHz jitter added. There are many other measurements there as well. There is no sign of any sensitivity to input jitter at all as far as I can see. http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac1/ -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
David, First of all, I'm sorry your first experience of this forum is so gruelling. There are a lot of hard-nosed people on this forum, and a lot of skeptics. I used to be a raving subjectivist, but since some blind-test experiences I have become a firm believer in blind-tests or, rather, the fallibility of sighted listening. IME sighted listening is swayed by mental factors which are not only powerful but push in *directions which might seem to lack any reason*. If you posted onto the hydrogenaudio forum for example, you would be shown the door promptly unless every single assertion or even implication were backup up by level-matched double blind tests. Here we have a wider range of views! But I for one believe strongly that any sighted listening test is basically garbage for the purposes of: 1. Review 2. Any objective description about the sound So sighted listening is fine for deciding if you like something or not, or whether you decide to use this connection or not etc. Because what you do that makes you happy is nobody else's business. acousticsguru;229646 Wrote: but until then, there is no reason not to trust one's ears, much less a listening test panel's. Well, as I've explained there is a proven, very good reason to not trust one's ears when sighted. acousticsguru;229675 Wrote: I'm a grown person and have done listening tests of all kind long enough to be able to smell self deception if someone argues that it must sound better because it costs more, don't worry! You started out by saying you've done some blind testing, but this implies not all your statements are based on blind testing. I would say only the statements based on blind testing are reliable. For example, the fact I've done blind tests doesn't mean my sighted listening is reliable now. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system (old, cheap, loved) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Darren, whist generally agreeing, I think one needs to be careful not to take this argument to extremes. After all, that isn't how the music is actually made...(nobody in the studio is doing DBT every time they change something in the mix! - and try telling any musician that they can't tell reliably the differences between the sounds of instruments). Also I think you one can often hear when something is wrong - for example when there is a fault. However, I do agree that sighted listening conclusions when comparing certain things at the margin of acuity (eg differences in transports) are highly contentious. -- 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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;229705 Wrote: For example, the fact I've done blind tests doesn't mean my sighted listening is reliable from now on. Not at all. But no one I know who's done blind hasn't done sighted ones also - they're formative. Scepticism is fine with me, but let me tell you something: among the people I've met and/or corresponded with in this environment (or shall we call it milieu?) over the years, the two most unnerving categories may be: 1) Electrical engineers (more rarely acousticians or physicists) who stubbornly deny an audible difference something non-measurable and/or (seemingly) unscientic makes to frowned-upon audiophiles, until some years later, papers, tests and diagrams, i.e. scientic proof is being published - and all of a sudden, the same engineers claim they can hear that difference, too (and worse: always could). 2) Audiophiles who insist they hear a sonic improvement because something seems to make sense, or merely because the idea or appearance of it appeals to them, and of course because it cost a lot of effort or money to build or put into practice. Now guess which of the two I find most ridiculous? The former. Why? Because the latter are hobbyists, thus may be excused for being self-delusioned. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Phil Leigh;229793 Wrote: Darren, whist generally agreeing, I think one needs to be careful not to take this argument to extremes. After all, that isn't how the music is actually made...(nobody in the studio is doing DBT every time they change something in the mix! - and try telling any musician that they can't tell reliably the differences between the sounds of instruments). Yep, I agree with you. DBT is useful for testing statements which are contentious or have known technical factors which stack the odds against them. The examples you gave and any number of others don't meet that description. Not to say I don't believe David when he says there are differences...anything is possible. But this is one of those statements which deserves a DBT, IMHO. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system (old, cheap, loved) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229860 Wrote: 1) Electrical engineers (more rarely acousticians or physicists) who stubbornly deny an audible difference something non-measurable and/or (seemingly) unscientic makes to frowned-upon audiophiles, until some years later, papers, tests and diagrams, i.e. scientic proof is being published - and all of a sudden, the same engineers claim they can hear that difference, too (and worse: always could). Well, you have two seemingly contrary statements: a) something non-measurable and b) scientific proof. Assuming the proof comes along with measurements than somewhere along the line those self-same engineers or some other ones figured out how to measure the phenomena that was originally dismissed. This is not unusual in science (I speak from experience on this one). Of course, I presented some evidence above that only very large amounts of jitter were audible to people, and you seemed to dismiss those results. Ok, so maybe the differences *you* hear are not due to jitter, but unless you or those with similar claims present some evidence that your findings are real (eg through DBT), why should we trust *your* ears? Should we just take it on faith? -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;229859 Wrote: Not to say I don't believe David when he says there are differences...anything is possible. But this is one of those statements which deserves a DBT, IMHO. Would like to add something: I feel DBT really makes sense only if the minimum number of variables (preferably one only) is different/being changed. This may sound self-explanatory, but read some audiophile reviews, and you'll find it apparently isn't (to some people). Note that audiophiles aren't as a species more prone to making fools of themselves than engineers: I'd love to get a buck each time I hear a truism such as that costly parts aren't as important as a well-designed layout. Overheard this less than a week ago in a discussion between an engineer and some modder/tweaker, in which the former tried to ridicule the latter for wanting to replace some capacitor with a more expensive one (admittedly a nonsensical choice from a QPR perspective, given the cost of the product to be modded) - definitely wondered if I should let them in on the mysterious secret that the concept of upgrade may be be thought of as exchanging parts of identical value in a given layout ;^) Note that anything is possible is, although far from laughable, all the same a truism. The fact that if something's changed, there is likely to be an audible difference doesn't mean that difference will be in any way relevant, much less a clear improvement or detriment. Again, this may sound self-explanatory, but read some audiophile reviews, and you'll find that audiophiles, even otherwise respectable ones, more often than not seem obsessed with finding change to always have to be for better -or- worse. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
Assuming fixed DAC/analog components,Im only aware of 2 parameters that can affect the sound of a a digital playback system : a) data accuracy b) jitter Since a is not an issue a sanely constructed system, then it must be b: jitter This is where Digital meets the realms of the real world same Bit for Bit accurate Data but very different sound between Transports and even Interlink cables: so what?? Lowest Jitter will not always guarantee best audio performance (It very much depends on what happens down steam at the DAC) its the distribution (signal content) of the Phase Noise that is critical, types of Phase Noise that are always detrimental :- A. Data correlated artifacts. These are signals or spurie within the Phase Noise plots that are directly correlated to the Data processing B. Fixed frequency Non Data correlated discrete artifacts, such as mains hum, non synchronies Front panel displays MCUs etc. Its generally accepted that the SPDIF standard is poorly conceived as the Master Clock is located within the CD transport section or in the PC (where Jitter) is unimportant), where as the DAC which is extremely Jitter sensitive is fed from a Recovered clock which is buried within the SPDIF Data Stream. To make matters worse, no attempt has been made to de-correlate or randomize the SPDIF Data during transmission, so that the clock recovered by SPDIF receiver is guaranteed to be heavily contaminated by Data correlated Phase Noise Jitter of the very worst kind. The evil brother of SPDIF, AES-EBU, is pretty much the same, the only difference being that it is balanced 110ohms. A guaranteed a solution to the deficiencies of SPDIF is to design the DAC as the Master clock device i.e. a low phase noise clock located next the to DAC and send the clock back to the transport via a second connection preferably optical for best isolation. Arcam, Pink Triangle, Wadia, EMMLabs use this method. As mentioned earlier, nor transport neither PC (or squeezebox, for that matter)is sensitive to clock jitter, so no particular care need be taken for this second link. If designed and implemented correctly, this method guarantees that the DAC operates from the lowest Phase Noise clock with no PLLs in the signal path or whatsever. In this scheme of thingsToslink works best as gives galvanic insulation and protects from other forms of jitter (from RF or PS) to reach the DAC. So from an audiophile standpont, a squeezebox with world clock input-and toslink output, would be warmly welcomed, and 24/192 capability would let experiment upsampling algorithms and stay future-proof.i Of course you should have a DAC with the masterclock inside, but in that case you'd be very close to perfection. Cheers, Betto -- betto betto's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13315 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;229865 Wrote: Of course, I presented some evidence above that only very large amounts of jitter were audible to people, and you seemed to dismiss those results. Huh? Did I say that? Wasn't what I said we can't be sure it's the only cause for an audible difference? Also, didn't we agree on that already? ezkcdude;229865 Wrote: Should we just take it on faith? How come you're excluding the possibilty (= that which directly follows from the quote you took from my reply), that you might hear the same difference because it's there? You make this sound as if you're not even taking this into consideration. In other words, if I vote for moderate scepticism and say that in case of doubt, one should perhaps trust one's ears (and satisfy oneself with finding the reason in good time), you're voting for a complete distrust of one's aural faculty? That can't be what you meant to say, right? So, what about taking that possibility into consideration, that you might indeed hear what I (and others) hear? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
betto;229880 Wrote: A guaranteed a solution to the deficiencies of SPDIF is to design the DAC as the #8220;Master#8221; clock device How good of you to go into somewhat more detail, but why would the above apply to S/PDIF only, and not AES/EBU as well (up to that point, you took care to include both or compare)? Just a momentary lapse in your train of thought? betto;229880 Wrote: So from an audiophile standpont, a squeezebox with world clock input-and toslink output, would be warmly welcomed, and 24/192 capability would let experiment upsampling algorithms and stay future-proof.i Of course you should have a DAC with the masterclock inside, but in that case you'd be very close to perfection. Read my initial post at the start of this thread: isn't this what I was asking for? Glad to have found someone who picks this up at last. Greetings from Switzerland, David. P.S. Sorry to say this, but you -are- aware you're not giving a reason for audible differences between S/PDIF and AES/EBU connections (all else being equal, of course), but that it follows from what you're saying that there shouldn't be one? No offense, just trying to make sure I understand you correctly. I seem to have missed any implication that you know of a/the reason. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229890 Wrote: You meant to say sighted as well as blind and double blind, correct? I'll assume you overread that part and are not trying to get smart on me trying to put your words into my mouth, all right? It appears to be getting late again, long day ;^) Greetings from Switzerland, David. David, now we're getting somewhere. I went back and re-read your posts. You said you heard differences when you did blind testing - but not with SB3 or Transporter. Ok, I can believe that. No problem. Difference between SPDIF and AES/EBU? I can think of at least one reason there could theoretically be a difference: noise. AES/EBU should be transformer coupled (either on the output of the transport or input of the DAC). The galvanic isolation could provide a reduction in noise - which could affect things, at least, in theory. These differences could be even greater if the cable length is very long (10 meters, let's say). So, while I don't believe jitter is a major concern with the SB3 or Transporter - I could imagine that noise is a concern that could be audible. BTW, my ezDAC (a DIY DAC I have designed) is transformer-coupled on the input, so you know I'm not just saying this for no reason. One last question - which may help all of us. Do you have any recollections from your testing of what qualities could be detected between these formats/transports? For example, was it as obvious as more/less noise? Or was it more subtle, like stereo imaging/separation/etc? Oh, before I forget - do yourself a favor - and get a Squeezebox today! -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
opaqueice;229907 Wrote: Could you describe the DBT you mentioned earlier in which you heard the difference between S/PDIF and AES/EBU? What was the source, and what was the DAC? How well did you score? Can't possibly enumerate all the systems in which I was shown differences between connections and/or cables in sighted comparisons (note that difference with me does not automatically imply that it's worthwhile, let alone from a quality-price-ratio perspective). But *feel free to have a good laugh* at me trying to remember a handful key moments that either made me reconsider my scepticism/prejudice, ordering them (I hope correctly) historically: 1) Perhaps the first single blind listening forums (basically an open afternoon announced in a flyer) dedicated to digital connection (as they called it back then) I remember attending was thanks to an audio dealer I remember fondly for organising events like it once a month in the early to late nineties, but who at some point turned his attention completely to car audio (doing so much better there financially). A comparison of ATT optical twice (one short, the other run through a huge coil the size of a truck wheel, i.e. several hundred feet worth of optical fibre) versus S/PDIF coaxial twice (three cables, antenna plus two a so-called audiophile ones by a well-known cable maufacturer whose products I never learnt to appreciate) using a Krell MD-10 transport and Krell X-64 something (help, can't recall model) converter. It was revealing insofar as one could tell which was which 100% of the time with different kinds of music, but I remember being perplexed that the point of the whole thing should have been to prove the superiority of the ATT connection - I basically found something not to like with every single option. But indeed, that extra long ATT sounded almost identical if reliably a fraction duller/less dynamic. Apart from the fact that the 75? antenna cable coax, which barely to fit into the heavy duty WBT RCAs of that era, sounded noticeably worse, I couldn't pick a winner (others their favourites), and ended up leaving with mixed feelings after a few hours (I believe I'm patient - some say stubborn). 2) One of the first times I could compare AES/EBU blind was at a forum I attended in the mid-nineties as part of the Swiss HighEnd exhibition, when Micheal Elliott (introducing his Counterpoint DA-10/DA-10 combo) did a double blind comparison plugging in several DAC chip boards (AD 1862, Crystal 4328, BB PCM69AP and the then much talked-about Ultra Analog UA20) and preceeded to confuse everyone adding a comparison of BNC direct versus BNC isolated versus AES/EBU cabling in a second round. We were asked to hand in a score card and discuss our impression before he told us what he'd done (which included well-placed and acted-out red herrings such as plugging the same DAC back in etc.). It was relatively easy to tell apart and re-group what one had heard in the first round, and chaotic once he started jumbling together a few DAC and cabling options (I noticed a number of people gave up filling in their score cards after the first round). The importer had offered some audiophile CD to win, and in my youthfully competitive I tried on, still got all the DAC board pluggings right, but got confused and lost track of cabling switches, the situation making me feel as if I were back in highschool taking an exam). Was really miffed that several guys got 100% right. Did I mention I hate loosing? ;^) I came away thinking I would have preferred a virtual combination of the virtues of his AD and UA boards, and that contrarily to what Elliott tried to prove, the AES/EBU connection sounded more realistic than his preferred isolated BNC (referring back to the consistent results in the first round). In the aftermath discussion, people referred to one of the S/PDIF (the one tagged direct, if I remember correctly) as punchier, more colourful etc. (the other, if memory serves right, isolated BNC was only being referred to in better is the enemy of good type sentences) - it was one of those times that I realised that the average audiophile may not literally want high fidelity. The AES/EBU, albeit in hindsight perhaps not even as well implemented as it could/should have been, simply added less coloration in the midrange. It may have been on that day that I first started wondering if there is a correlation between a wider band energy spread (sound pressure across the spectrum, versus less at the upper and lower end, and quasi-analogue overemphasis in the middle that some like to call warmth) and faster onset and settling. Some referred the S/PDIF's spatial forwardness, and indeed, I also found the spatial presentation of the AES/EBU connection noticeably wider and deeper, of the S/PDIF narrower and more forward (and secretly agreed with one person who remarked that the soundstage seemed to extend behind the speaker with AES/EBU, finding the comparative coplanarity with the
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
ezkcdude;229913 Wrote: The galvanic isolation could provide a reduction in noise - which could affect things, at least, in theory. These differences could be even greater if the cable length is very long (10 meters, let's say). Ironically, the only time I got to compare an otherwise identical terminator-coupled versus non-terminator-coupled BNC termination (see lengthy post above), if my memory serves me at all right (really quite sure though), that result was inverted. Not that this would prove anything. Cable lengths were short, by the way. ezkcdude;229913 Wrote: Do you have any recollections from your testing of what qualities could be detected between these formats/transports? For example, was it as obvious as more/less noise? Or was it more subtle, like stereo imaging/separation/etc? Do you realise that loss of stereo imaging, separation, air whatnot may be due to noise in the first place? ezkcdude;229913 Wrote: Oh, before I forget - do yourself a favor - and get a Squeezebox today! I probably will. Let me ask you this, though: you're with Slim Devices/Logitech in some indirect or direct relation (i.e. a staff member), right? Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
acousticsguru;229955 Wrote: I probably will. Let me ask you this, though: you're with Slim Devices/Logitech in some indirect or direct way (likely a staff member/on their payroll), correct? Why would you assume that? Sorry, but ezkcdude is not a Logitech/Slim Devices employee or representative. Like the vast majority of people around here, he's just passionate about audio and audio gear. -= Jim -- JimC well, she wasn't all of that, but she sure was some of that. -- BKlaas' college buddy JimC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9428 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezbox with Word Clock in, AES/EBU etc.?
darrenyeats;229442 Wrote: So IMO the SB3 is a very good transport already. Good to hear! But then my guess is you would have no use for synchronised symmetrical wiring with your Sony anyhow, correct? That's what bugs me: no other choice than to pay 1700 USD more to get AES/EBU and a word clock input - the audiophile way to go. I should have mentioned the obvious, perhaps, which is that I have ample listening experience with S/PDIF coaxial (even optical) versus AES/EBU (unfortunately little with word clock synchronisation). Every CD-transport I've ever auditioned in my or my friends' systems sounded better tapping its AES/EBU output, sometimes only subtly, usually clearly so. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
