XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
May 23, 2017, 06:56:21 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Dec. 31, 2012 : XXHighEnd + Phasure NOS1 DAC receive 6moons Blue Moon Award !
** "Lonely at the very top" **
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
 71 
 on: May 06, 2017, 10:18:52 am 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt
Ha ! there you are. Well, assumed that something comes from this, it will be your fault eh ?

Thank you for signing up !
Peter

 72 
 on: May 05, 2017, 11:11:03 pm 
Started by arvind - Last post by jabbr
Now if optical cables get impedance mismatches we have bigger problems Wink

Hi Jonathan,

Yeah, you say it in a joking fashion, but I know someone in one of the states of your country who makes a living out of reflection testing of fiber cables (I have seen his gear).
I am not sure but I think fiber needs damping too (sunglasses ? haha).

Anyway, it is my kind of promise that only part of it is about the cable itself. The largest part is at the end point(s) where noise is re-generated. For fiber (glass) way more than for copper. And here you have a reason why toslink sounds like sh*t.
Summarized, I have never seen that isolation by glass sounded better. And many of us tried and spent a fortune (well, in the league of $1000). Adnaco stuff and such.

Peter
Well not all fiber is the same, and toslink is at least mostly plastic and the endpoints are nothing like those for Ethernet. Glass is clearly not "way more" than copper in terms of Ethernet noise. This has been extensively measured because, well, a little bit of noise and jitter can wreak havoc with a 10g or 40g or 100g Ethernet line... no problem over kms for singlemode Ethernet with really good lasers and transceivers. Eye pattern measurements show that.

I have no experience with Adnaco fiber USB units so can't say but yes they are expensive ... waaay more than fiber ethernet units that cost a fraction and have much better performance ...

Of course a high quality fiber cable is needed, but frankly let someone try and improve over Corning which is off the shelf.

 73 
 on: May 05, 2017, 01:08:01 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by Babakola
Hiya everyone. Let the testing begin. Am so excited to find a compact windows OS with minimal resource footprint

 74 
 on: May 04, 2017, 07:10:26 pm 
Started by arvind - Last post by PeterSt
Now if optical cables get impedance mismatches we have bigger problems Wink

Hi Jonathan,

Yeah, you say it in a joking fashion, but I know someone in one of the states of your country who makes a living out of reflection testing of fiber cables (I have seen his gear).
I am not sure but I think fiber needs damping too (sunglasses ? haha).

Anyway, it is my kind of promise that only part of it is about the cable itself. The largest part is at the end point(s) where noise is re-generated. For fiber (glass) way more than for copper. And here you have a reason why toslink sounds like sh*t.
Summarized, I have never seen that isolation by glass sounded better. And many of us tried and spent a fortune (well, in the league of $1000). Adnaco stuff and such.

Peter

 75 
 on: May 04, 2017, 05:11:51 pm 
Started by arvind - Last post by jabbr
My approach to cables is that when/if cables make a difference it is a symptom of an underlying problem that should be properly fixed. So fiberoptic Ethernet "fixes" a whole category of possible problems. Now if optical cables get impedance mismatches we have bigger problems Wink

 76 
 on: May 04, 2017, 11:08:39 am 
Started by arvind - Last post by manisandher
Anyway moral : yes Mani. I think we are quite far already with what we achieved with USB. But if you see what can be achieved for enormous difference just by tweaking the USB cable, then who knows what may come of that.

Hey Peter, good luck with this. Over the years, I've spent an inordinate amount of time comparing a whole load of different BNC-spdif cables to each other and XLR-AES cables to each other. They've all sounded different! Changing the length of the cable (i.e. exactly the same cable material) seemed to change the sound. My feeling was that these changes must be due to impedance mismatches at the connections, and that longer lengths can actually be helpful here.

FWIW, I think my longer Clarixa (3.5m) is at least as good, if not better sounding than the shorter Clarixa cables I have. Perhaps down to an impedance mismatch again??? If you've never tried a longer length, perhaps you should?

Mani.

 77 
 on: May 04, 2017, 08:51:54 am 
Started by briefremarks - Last post by PeterSt
Hi Ramesh, it looks amazing. Better than my black one.

Better than my black as well !
haha

Peter

 78 
 on: May 04, 2017, 08:49:09 am 
Started by arvind - Last post by PeterSt
Hey Mani,

Maybe for some it goes unnoticed, but you say/claim maybe more important things than visible at first glance. And again by sheer coincidence I have the proof at hand - just from last night.

I tried another self-made USB cable. Say with different topology and just off-spec. It worked error-free. This latter should mean : digital = digital so what can go wrong.

Well, you'd drop dead if you had heard it.

Already at the first hit of a cymbal it was super clear that there was not only more metal but also more colour in the metal. Usually this doesn't come both at the same time (more metal takes out colour).
There was more bass which usually is an indication that something is not right with USB (100% of people think that more bass will be for the better, except me).
By high exception I listened to it while working, just because I was excited for the outcome of the cable. After 30 minutes I had to shut off the music because something was too much hammering on my mind. Too much energy or something.

In the evening's normal listening session I had to say to myself "no Peter, this time you will let the cable in instead of taking it out within 5 minutes". So I did.
After an hour I head the idea I got used to it and that for some music it worked out for the better. But I really had to be careful with the music selection. For example, Year of the Cat just was ugly, while this album normally carries beauty all over. W8 robots playing came to my mind once again.
In some very strange fashion there was too much energy, up to standing waves in bass as well as higher frequencies (all buzzes - very very similar to using another player with too much ringing).

Meanwhile I thought of the name for the cable and came up with a simple "The Stereo". And *that* was the attracting thing : the stereo image was ridiculous. So this time no ridiculous hall, but "way much stereo". Man, how to bring this across.

After 3 hours or so, dinner almost ready, the person at the bar dropped off the headphones because finished with watching something else (with sound) and right away asked me what the hell I had done. But the question was moot because that same person made the cable and it needed no answer.

Anyway the message thrown was that Bose milk packs most probably would sound better.
That did it.

The one but last thing we did was adding the second Phisolator which did not help a thing and the very last thing was putting back the Clairixa.
Wow. All twinkels and bells readily back and all normal and with ease.

So there you go. I am now able to make a USB cable which is just a little bit off spec (think impedance) and the difference is so crazy that you don't know where to go.
Zero errors.
But also this : one of the characteristics of the topology is that it was not a stranded cable. And you can just hear what this does (with some common sense and experience). Maybe some recall the speaker cables from (non-stranded) coax ? (people started to make them from transformer wire, remember ?) - the sound was similar, as I recall. How something like that can be audible through a digital (USB) connection - it will be coincidence.
But I did this for a reason of course and I am sure it has potential.

Tonight I am going to listen to another cable, which will be build up just a little bit differently ...

Anyway moral : yes Mani. I think we are quite far already with what we achieved with USB. But if you see what can be achieved for enormous difference just by tweaking the USB cable, then who knows what may come of that.

Peter

 79 
 on: May 04, 2017, 08:23:39 am 
Started by arvind - Last post by briefremarks
Quoting something from a reddit forum (FWIW)  from Antipodes on design of their music server:

"In the context of Antipodes music servers, USB is the best connection. With a noisy server (most other servers), using an Ethernet input to the DAC makes sense because it provides the greatest isolation from noise interference with the digital signal. But Ethernet generates high levels of noise within the DAC. This means that Ethernet is a band-aid, not an optimal solution.

SPDIF, i2s and AES/EBU suffer because the system clock is in the server, not in the DAC where it really should be, and this is typically heard as dirty and less coherent sound.

USB is ideal for an Antipodes server because it is architecturally superior to SPDIF, i2s and AES/EBU, and generates much less noise in the DAC than Ethernet. But it needs to be emphasised that USB is the best solution only when the server is very low noise, and when the DAC manufacturer has done a competent job of isolating the USB receiver from the analog power supply and circuitry - fortunately most have. But some DACs may sound better via the SPDIF digital output of an Antipodes music server, for this reason. Using Ethernet will always sound softened with images being less distinct."

 80 
 on: May 04, 2017, 07:56:05 am 
Started by arvind - Last post by manisandher
The endpoint could run...

And this is the issue for me. Whether the endpoint runs Windows (great, we could still use our NOS1s) or Linux (a NOS1 driver would have to be developed), there would still need to be a connection from the endpoint to the DAC. Unless, of course, the endpoint is built into the DAC, which might introduce all sorts of noise issues into the DAC itself.

To me, it's absolutely not clear why ethernet, I2s, spdif, AES/EBU, or any other audio connection would deal with noise inherently better than a USB connection. The galvanic isolation of some of these says nothing about their ability to reject noise, and it's noise getting through to the DAC chips that can be the only mechanism responsible for the changes we hear in sound when we make changes to software/hardware upstream.

My gut feeling is that we (Peter and others!) have taken USB so far now that it might actually out-perform all other audio connections right now. Just a gut feeling.

Mani.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.344 seconds with 15 queries.