Hi-
I've done just that. I didn't have a lot of experience with the Touch
before the mods, but IMO slaving it to the Pace Car definitely improved
the sound. Soundstage is improved, and a generally less harsh, more
musical sound is produced.
I don't know what model Pace Car you have, but you migh
I have been using the Pacecar with SB3 for about 2 years now, and am
sending the Pacecar in for some upgrades. While waiting for the unit
to be updated, I switched back to a Bolder modified SB3. The
differences in sound are not small. The Bolder unit seems to be
somewhat harsh and the soundstag
Anne;424836 Wrote:
> I havent really read about the Pace Car, but all the talk of I2S makes
> me think of the Audio Alchemy products from the 1980´s.
Ah yes... the Dac-In-A-Box, the only product I've ever owned that
destroyed its psu if you unplugged it too slowly and shorted the rails
to ear
I havent really read about the Pace Car, but all the talk of I2S makes
me think of the Audio Alchemy products from the 1980´s.
--
Anne
Squeezebox 3 > Stereovox XV2 > Bryston B100-DA SST > Martin Logan Aeon I
Anne's Pr
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I just received a Pace Car 2 and
Bitmeister SPDIF cable today from Steve @ Empirical. For the skeptics
in this thread, I will say unequivocally, hands down, this device has
added tremendously to my system in very, very noticeable ways. I'm
sitting here writ
Hi-
I find it interesting that some posters on this thread insist on
calling the Pace Car a rip off, though they don't understand what it
does and haven't heard one.
I recently added one to my Duet system. I find the sonic improvement
significant. Note that I listen to wave files or flac, not mp
Hi-
Implemented a pace car with my Duet about 2 months ago. In spite of
what several of you think, there is a noticeable improvement in the
sound from my system.
The Pace Car uses a high quality clock together with a mod to the Duet.
The Duet clock then becomes a slave clock to the Pace Car, whi
Phil et. al,
Steve/Empirical audio does recommend the use of DACs with I2S input.
They have one DAC and can modify DACs I think. The Pace Car can be used
without any modification to the source component also. In that case, the
clock that is moving bits out of the FIFO buffer gets adjusted
periodic
SNZ;376338 Wrote:
> I agree. But again, (if I understand properly) since there's a clock
> injection, thus a modification of the SB3, what is this FIFO buffer all
> about ? I mean, they could as well place the clock inside an SB3 and a
> I2S output instead. No ?
>
> As I understand from reading
I agree. But again, (if I understand properly) since there's a clock
injection, thus a modification of the SB3, what is this FIFO buffer all
about ? I mean, they could as well place the clock inside an SB3 and a
I2S output instead. No ?
As I understand from reading commentary on this forum and ot
Themis;376327 Wrote:
> I agree. But again, (if I understand properly) since there's a clock
> injection, thus a modification of the SB3, what is this FIFO buffer all
> about ? I mean, they could as well place the clock inside an SB3 and a
> I2S output instead. No ?
>
> (perhaps my poor head has
opaqueice;376322 Wrote:
> Jitter is the mismatch between the DAC clock and the source clock. If
> you perfectly slave the source clock to the DAC clock, you eliminate
> it.
I agree. But again, (if I understand properly) since there's a clock
injection, thus a modification of the SB3, what is th
Themis;375981 Wrote:
> I read the technical details and there's something I just don't get:
>
> If the Pace Car uses a FIFO I/O buffer, then why does it need to
> "slave"(replace?) the input SB3 clock ? The I/O buffer is not enough,
> thus ? I don't get it.
Jitter is the mismatch between the DA
SoftwireEngineer;376255 Wrote:
> Well..it looks like you are not patient enough to read through the whole
> thing.
Oh, but I did, don't worry.
The device claims to eliminate jitter AFTER the SPDIF. But in fact, it
replaces the SB3 clock with another one.
So, based on what, how can anyone claim
Themis;375981 Wrote:
> I read the technical details and there's something I just don't get:
>
> If the Pace Car uses a FIFO I/O buffer, then why does it need to
> "slave"(replace?) the input SB3 clock ? The I/O buffer is not enough,
> thus ? I don't get it.
Well..it looks like you are not patie
Themis,
I would agree with you that there are many products that seem designaed
to liberate money from wallets. In my experience with the two Empirical
Audio products I mention, that is not my impression. In my system, I
like the NOS dac chips such as TDA1541A and TDA1543 and do not like to
use
tomjtx;376191 Wrote:
> The pace car acts as a transport mechanism.
> It is highly effective in transporting money from your wallet to
> Empirical Audio :-)
lol ! :D
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
---
Themis;375981 Wrote:
> I read the technical details and there's something I just don't get:
>
> If the Pace Car uses a FIFO I/O buffer, then why does it need to
> "slave"(replace?) the input SB3 clock ? The I/O buffer is not enough,
> thus ? I don't get it.
The pace car acts as a transport mech
I read the technical details and there's something I just don't get:
If the Pace Car uses a FIFO I/O buffer, then why does it need to
"slave"(replace?) the input SB3 clock ? The I/O buffer is not enough,
thus ? I don't get it.
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Gran
Nope. Christmas is not even recognized as a legal holiday in Vietnam,
so no triple salary, just regular pay. Seriously though, I have been
really happy with these products. Perhaps I am a little overly
enthusiastic. Skepticism is healthy.
--
SNZ
-
Are you being paid extra to shill on Christmas ? :-)
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57107
___
I do not generally post to any forums, but prefer to lurk and gather as
much information as possible from experts that share valuable knowledge
and experience. The quality of the information on forums such as these
vastly exceeds the commercial audio reviewers, whse opinions appear to
me to be le
opaqueice;224882 Wrote:
> eiret, jitter is determined by the characteristics of the digital source
> and of the connection between the source and receiver. Its effect on
> the sound (assuming the receiver is a DAC) is a function of the jitter
> spectrum and the jitter rejection of the DAC.
>
eiret;223781 Wrote:
> Interesting test/article.
> Steven Nugent goes for uppsampling on the computer and Benchmark
> engineers goes for uppsampling natively in their dac`s.
Actually, I still prefer upsampling to 24/96 using Foobar 0.8.3 and
SRC, but with the Pace-Car even 16/44.1 is spectacular
Phil Leigh;223457 Wrote:
> I must be stupid today because the Empirical site as quoted by Veggen
> says
>
> The Squeezebox3 application currently supports only 16-bit/44.1kHz
> sample-rate,
> because this is a limitation of the Squeezebox3
>
> Twaddle - the SB3 supports 48/24...so the Empiric
Chinanico;221097 Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my first post here, so I wouldn't like to appear arrogant or
> so, please don't misunderstand my remark.
>
> I have been browsing here for some time, I got my SB3 about 2 months
> ago and I am some kind of "crazy" audiophile, I put a lot of money in
> t
DCtoDaylight;221030 Wrote:
> Hi Jaco,
> by it's nature, the SB3 is already a FIFO type system. As such to
> improve it's clocking ability, you need only improve it's internal
> clock. No need for an external FIFO buffer.
This is true, however there is insufficient space and power supply
resour
opaqueice, thank you for an good explanation of the pehnomen.
Then, the dac must have quality AJC`s anti jitter circuits. There has
been a pritty big industry in measurment, preventing jitter.
Just being on the wikipedia site.
--
eiret
-
eiret;224221 Wrote:
>
> What is this meaning of this sentence: "In fact, no jitter-induced
> artifacts can be detected using an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade
> test set"
eiret, jitter is determined by the characteristics of the digital
source and of the connection between the source and rece
Just curious.
I hope you are happy with the pace - car.
--
eiret
eiret's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11521
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37557
__
eiret wrote:
> Just for the curiousity.
> Are you a part of the pace - car engineer team, or just a end user ?
End-user, although I haven't heard of the "Empirical Audio Pace-Car
Reclocker" before this thread.
Why?
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audi
Just for the curiousity.
Are you a part of the pace - car engineer team, or just a end user ?
--
eiret
eiret's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11521
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/
eiret wrote:
> Robin Bowes wrote:
>> "100% jitter immune" is not the same as "100% jitter free".
>>
> Ok, thats right.
>
> What is this meaning of this sentence: "In fact, no jitter-induced
> artifacts can be detected using an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade
> test set"
What part of that don't yo
It is an great respect for Empirical Audio AND for Benchmark Audio
products. I am just an amateur reading reviews and forums and deciding
what is the best setup for me $$. And posting some thoughts and
questions. Both Benchmark Audio and Empirical Audio are good products,
no dought.
I have 2 comp
"100% jitter immune" is not the same as "100% jitter free".
R.[/QUOTE Wrote:
>
>
> Ok, thats right.
>
> What is this meaning of this sentence: "In fact, no jitter-induced
> artifacts can be detected using an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade
> test set"
--
eiret
eiret wrote:
> DCtoDaylight;224074 Wrote:
>> I was refering to:
>>
>> which we both seem to agree is impossible. I didn't check if the
>> Benchmark web site actually states this, or if this is a misquote, but
>> my point still stands, ALL dac's have jitter of differing degrees.
>>
>> Cheers, Dave
One man posted in a tread in another forum. He worked in a studio. Dont
remember where or when. His statement of claim was that jitter dos not
exsist. It is something the pro audio hardware industry has invented to
earn more money on hardware sales.
Jitter doesn't exist?
So, I CAN have that t
DCtoDaylight;224074 Wrote:
> I was refering to:
>
> which we both seem to agree is impossible. I didn't check if the
> Benchmark web site actually states this, or if this is a misquote, but
> my point still stands, ALL dac's have jitter of differing degrees.
>
> Cheers, Dave
Sorry it is a MIS
I was refering to:
eiret;223781 Wrote:
> They clame that the Benchmark DAC1 USB dont have any jitter at all
which we both seem to agree is impossible. I didn't check if the
Benchmark web site actually states this, or if this is a misquote, but
my point still stands, ALL dac's have jitter of dif
DCtoDaylight;223799 Wrote:
>
> No oscillator is perfect, every one ever built has some level of phase
> noise (aka jitter). Therefore anybody who claims their product has no
> jitter is lying.
>
No one claims that - it wouldn't mean anything. What does mean
something is to claim your DAC is
At the risk of nit-picking
No oscillator is perfect, every one ever built has some level of phase
noise (aka jitter). Therefore anybody who claims their product has no
jitter is lying.
That's the whole point in determining how much jitter is audible. So
you know how good to make your clock
Interesting test/article.
This Steven Nudget(Emperica Audio) coming from Intel and silicon valley
has knowledge about dac`s, circuits, opamps. No doubt.
Same with the engineers at BenchmarkMedia.
They are on an collision course, maybe. They both want to engineer good
dac`s, but Steven Nudget goe
Jaco;223443 Wrote:
> Please do your homework people! The current PaceCar reclocker can be
> configured to support the following frequencies:
>
> 16-bit/44.1 kHz
> 24-bit/96 kHz
> 24-bit/192 kHz
>
> Note that 24-bit/48 kHz is not included in this list. Hence the
> statement about the 16-bit/4
Veggen;223180 Wrote:
> Exactly, but the Pace-Car does not.
> Empirical audio clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the SB
> which does not give me much confidence in their product.
Please do your homework people! The current PaceCar reclocker can be
configured to support the following fre
325xi;221783 Wrote:
> I remember another research discussed here where the numbers were about
> 0.5ns, and still, everything was done using artificial signal which
> doesn't resemble music
Using artificial, or static signals isn't unusual in this type of test,
and is probably preferred. It's oft
Veggen;223180 Wrote:
> Exactly, but the Pace-Car does not.
> Empirical audio clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the SB
> which does not give me much confidence in their product.
Oh yeah, I missed the last part of your post. :-)
Yes, it sounds like they're just trying to run down a po
Nonsense. The SB3 supports 24/48 just fine.
--
Mark Lanctot
'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=200910&postcount=2)
Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forum
Mark Lanctot;223176 Wrote:
> Nonsense. The SB3 supports 24/48 just fine.
Exactly, but the Pace-Car does not.
Empirical audio clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the SB
which does not give me much confidence in their product.
--
Veggen
>From Empirical Audio website:
> The Squeezebox3 application currently supports only 16-bit/44.1kHz
> sample-rate,
> because this is a limitation of the Squeezebox3.
That pretty much makes this thing useless IMO.
A growing proportion of my music library is now 48kHz and 24 bits.
--
Veggen
---
325xi;221783 Wrote:
> This is taken pretty much out of context, isn't it?
Not as far as I am aware.
325xi;221783 Wrote:
> I remember another research discussed here where the numbers were about
> 0.5ns, and still, everything was done using artificial signal which
> doesn't resemble music
Benjam
cliveb;221132 Wrote:
> Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, "Theoretical and Audible Effects of
> Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", Pre-print 4826 of the 105th AES
> Convention, San Francisco, September 1998. This paper concluded that
> the threshold of audibility of jitter on normal music signals
cliveb;221132 Wrote:
>
>
> The point of this reclocker is the same as everything else sold by
> Empirical Audio: to part credulous audiophiles from their money (in
> large chunks preferably).
Yes, just like SD got people to pay $1700. more for a SB3 with a few
upgrades in a fancy box called th
Chinanico;221097 Wrote:
> look at the price of this reclocker, plus the SB3, you almost get a
> Transporter with already better jitter figure, and if I am not wrong a
> world clock input... what's the point of this reclocker?
Yoikes! I had read through what the reclocker did, but didn't notice
t
DCtoDaylight;220634 Wrote:
> Now this is a -good- question! Sorry but I have no good answer... Are
> there any published studies out there we can use for reference?
Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, "Theoretical and Audible Effects of
Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", Pre-print 4826 of the 10
Hi,
This is my first post here, so I wouldn't like to appear arrogant or
so, please don't misunderstand my remark.
I have been browsing here for some time, I got my SB3 about 2 months
ago and I am some kind of "crazy" audiophile, I put a lot of money in
this, have several kind of esoteric access
Hi Jaco,
There are FIFO type solutions which don't rely on a master clock type
system, and these were what I was refering to. You're right though,
this is the first I've seen that add's an external clock input to the
SB3, which would allow a much smaller (and cheaper) FIFO buffer.
The counter po
Hi DC,
I didn't claim that FIFO's and master clocks were something new -
they've been used in the pro audio world for a long time. However, this
is the first solution (at least what I'm aware of) that employ these
techniques for the SB3.
DC, your description of the how the FIFO buffers work are
milesr3;220586 Wrote:
> What are 'inaudible levels' of jitter?
>
> Is 71pS RMS audible?
Now this is a -good- question! Sorry but I have no good answer...
Are there any published studies out there we can use for reference?
milesr3;220586 Wrote:
> Don't good quality DACs have buffers in them
What are 'inaudible levels' of jitter?
Is 71pS RMS audible?
Don't good quality DACs have buffers in them already? What about
oversampling? Doesn't this reduce bit error rate?
--
milesr3
milesr3's Profile: http://forums.s
While this looks like an interesting product, it's not really a new way
of minimizing jitter FIFO buffer solutions have been around for a
long time, at least 10 years by now as have master clock systems.
DC
--
DCtoDaylight
--
Recently I discovered a new product for the SB3 which addresses the
minimization of jitter in a new way. Have a look at the Empirical Audio
Pace-Car Reclocker at their website: http://www.empiricalaudio.com/
I believe this is the way to go with any DAC. The DAC should be the
clock master and not
61 matches
Mail list logo
