"Interesting. In your opinion, is jitter management or the lack thereof the stumbling block to true analog reproduction? "
Absolutely, #1 cause. Also digital filtering is a big offender, #2.
Also, what are your thoughts on grounding and jitter production?
Grounding is a multifaceted issue. There is the issue of earth ground and where this is connected to DC common. This is what star-grounding is used for. Many designers don't understand this. Then there is the issue of ground-return paths. It is generally poor ground return paths that add jitter in most designs. Then there is the issue of the power supply currents in the ground planes and how these affect the signal currents in the ground planes. These can also affect jitter. One must understand the physics of how currents flow in digital systems. This is not intuitive. Creative solutions are required to overcome these issues. This is what sets apart really creative designers from well-schooled designers.
This is a lot like talking about power supplies. Power supplies are only the start of a much more complicated system that I refer to as "power distribution" that exists in all components. Its like saying that Hoover dam creates really clean power, but ignoring all of the transmission-lines and transformers and shared loads that are in between your outlet and Hoover dam.
I applaud any actions like the Vertex/Nordost tools for making better audio measurements. The field has historically been lacking of sufficient measurements to characterize these effects. I have myself tried to do exactly what they are doing, with limited success, when I used to design cables from 1996 to 2000. Correlating analog before and after signals in perfect sync is a difficult task for sure. This demonstrates differences in dynamics, which is the foremost problem with most consumer audio gear. Most gear compresses due to deficiencies in the component power distribution system as well as slow reacting DC power supplies. Cables can also be at fault, but to a lesser degree. More difficult to measure cable effects IME.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"If you analyze people's opinions on SQ superiority of WAV versus AIFF or any other format, its a coin toss statistically. What does that tell us?"
Not if you are selective about who does the listening and on what systems. I do these comparisons at virtually every show I exhibit at. The differences are always obvious. Usually the listener that has ripped his entire library in AIFF or FLAC just leaves in disgust because he now knows that he has worked hard to produce something suboptimal.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
The synchro mesh is not bit perfect. why would you add that before a $4,000 dac? shoot me! |
On the contrary, I know quite a few philes who would argue with you after having done both. I have heard computer fronted systems sound like crap even with whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces. There could be many reasons why setups with "whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces" would sound less than desirable, and that'd hardly fall back on it being computer fronted. I bailed on CD-players (and realized the importance of transports) precisely because ripped CD's or downloaded files played back from harddrives bettered any CD-player solution we tried, at almost a fraction of the cost (easily by factor ~10, as per above). With a variety DAC's USB-connected to a laptop what shone through in each instanse was a markedly added sense of resolution, natural warmth, organic flow and clarity. CD-transports may have advanced (though I doubt they have in any significant way), but the optimization of PC-audio has evolved even more so. Spinning a CD leaves you with a single sonic option, 16/44.1, via a physical disc that needs handling for each album; playing back from harddrive/PC/Mac potentially gives you all formats to choose from, and the whole of your music library at your fingertip. In all and in more than one sense that's hardly a "bust," and a whole community of computer audiophiles would likely agree. I'd wager PC-audio can sometimes be a daunting undertaking to set up (though it certainly doesn't have to), but that's relative to ones need for tweaking. |
Because it will sound better with the Synchro-Mesh, that's why.
Bit-perfect is less important than low-jitter, and the resampling in the Synchro-Mesh is the best available now. Minimal impact on SQ.
It's 30-day money-back, less shipping, so the risk is low. If your system is resolving, it will make a big difference.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Steve - what you spew is absolutely REDICULOUS. |
Cerrot, you obviously hold a strong opinion about the evils of bitwise imperfections versus those of jitter in this context... Please explain in detail. G. |
"Please explain in detail. G."
Guido, Cerrot has asked me to ask you to "shut up." He would have asked you himself, but he cannot spell "shut up." |
He's just never heard a Synchro-Mesh with a good power supply, or a recent Off-Ramp for that matter.
These don't continue winning shootouts for no reason.
Yes, I've heard the Bryston with the same PCI Juli@t board that Carrot uses. Its very good, but my USB interface still beats it and so does Synchro-Mesh.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
ah... Kevin... I have not communicated with you at all. Hi Guido, my issues with Steve go back an old conversatoion where he had advised someone here to add this synchr mesh in their system but Steve neglected to advise it was not bit perfect, which I believe he shuld have. When I had pointed it out, Steve than advised bit perfect just didnt matter. I think having manufacturers and engineers here is an increadible asset BUT if you look at how the others behave, they DON'T use these forums to promote their products. Steves threads always have an "you need my..." . The other guys NEVER say that. Steve decided to not make the unit bit perfect in order to keep the price dwn and he says it is not as important as reducing jitter. All I have said is the better unit would be bit perfect and his leaving it out is not because is is a better design. |
Resampling is never bit-perfect. There are good resamplers and poor resamplers. I use a good one. It has gotten lots of glowing reviews. I actually used to sell a non-resampling reclocker, the Pace-Car, but the source had to be synchronized to it. This means that the source had to have a word-clock input or have a master clock driven from the reclocker using mods to the source device. It is a complicated matter to do reclocking of S/PDIF without resampling, not as simple as you allude to. Even though the Synchro-Mesh resamples and is not bit-perfect, it still beats the older Pace-Car, which was bit-perfect.
Reasampling is a lot like EQ. EQ has always been a dirty word for high-end audio, primarily because the graphic equalizers that were first introduced were such low quality. With the advent of Amarra software, EQ is now not only good, it can elevate your system significantly.
Likewise, the Synchro-Mesh uses new technology that makes the non-bit-perfectness a non-issue. Lots of folks are using it with their CD transports and Sonos in particular, but even with their Squeezebox.
I'll bet it would make even your Juli@t sound better.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Thank you Kevinkwann, unfortunately your comment was not constructive. I suggest avoidance of ad hominem.
Hi Cerrot, I can see that potential of both bitwise defects as well as jitter introducing a variety of distortions.... It probably depends on the magnitude and distribution patterns of each. Is there evidence that bitwise imperfections are actually causing audible distortions in current builds of Empirical products? ... As I have not experienced Empirical in my own system, I have not formed n opinion on the subject.
Saluti, Guido |
I have compared my own Off-Ramp 5, which is bit-perfect to the Synchro-Mesh, both being powered from the same high-quality DC supply. The SM is pretty close to the Off-Ramp 5, even though OR5 is slightly better. In many systems, the difference would not be perceivable.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
|
10-27-14: Phusis
"State-of-the-art CD transports vs USB/SPDIF converter shootout:" Yet another BADA advert....:) Needs to blind a bunch of philes at an audio society meeting and do the same test. It would not be as black and white as one reviewer making pronouncements from the mountaintop.... |
Hi Guido, EI do not believe you would not add a "synchro mesh" between a $30,000 CEC transport and a SOTA dac. Again, if you look at other manufacturers (Ralph comes to mind), they are here to teach and educate us. Not to tell us all our issues will be solved if we buy their products. That is solely my issue. |
Ah yes, I was forgetting AtmaRalph's arcana... I much prefer EmpiSteve's limpid discussions of matters digital.
G. |
I have modded some CEC transports to improve clocks and output circuits etc.. I dont mod anymore, but I know what they sound like.
I dont even have any CD player in my reference system, and its one of the best ones on the planet.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
10-27-14: Audioengr
I dont even have any CD player in my reference system, and its one of the best ones on the planet.
You need a formal system page then. Since the room is 80% of the equation, what have you done in that regard. Also, what is the best way to store and then stream files to ones dac? Ethernet? |
I find no worthy points being made on this thread. I see the computer as the wave of the future with data coming from internet downloads. |
Agear - I have an "about AE" page that describes my system and has a photo. It is not up to date though, since I now have custom 805A SE monoblocks. Soon to get Vapor Audio Nimbus speakers too.
The best way to play files is probably wired Ethernet. I am currently designing a network renderer for this purpose. My products, including the Overdrive SE can be upgraded to change out the USB interface for this network renderer, called the "Interchange".
Storing files depends on the playback. Generally the best way is to have them local to the computer, not NAS, and not USB if you are using USB interface. If you use network interface, then USB or firewire access to the drives is fine. IF you use USB, then Firewire to the drives is best IME.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Tag, I am with you. While I follow this thread with amusement, it's value, not so much. I am a lover of all that is vinyl(records). Digital always turned me off. Enter the computer. Voila! Now I am in love with digital as well. Quality of sound. Convents. Ease of usage. You name it. Computer not just the future but the best digital was, is or will be. |
Agear -- Yet another BADA advert....:) That's a matter to be taken up with the OP's author alone - it's certainly not my agenda. And even if it is a "BADA advert" it's of no consequence to what the comparison is trying to tell in general terms (more on that later). Indeed I did (and still do) consider pointing out to the OP (to linked article) that the prevalent, and more or less sole focus on the USB to S/PDIF converter as a "transport" is partially misleading, since the harddrive/server appears to be the more "logical" and relevant mention as such. An equally integral part, at least :) Needs to blind a bunch of philes at an audio society meeting and do the same test. It would not be as black and white as one reviewer making pronouncements from the mountaintop.... Actually this is one area I'd feel no qualms about labeling as black and white. To be perhaps somewhat provocative about it: the prevalence (i.e.: enertia?) to ackowledge a (more or less) visibly spinning object as what's qualitatively desirable bleeds, in this case, into struggling to find the few cases where astronomically priced CD-transports would turn out victorious, yet still end up falling short compared to their computer-based alternatives - with the latter costing significantly less, that is. This, from what I can tell, is not about the frequency of CD-transport devotees tipping the boat, so to speak, and wanting to find the "evidence" for it, but instead bears the scent of a stubborn hunt for the instance where a group of individuals unanimously deems a CD-transport the winner over a computer ditto. No doubt a group, or groups of people have done so already, but... to be provocative about it :) |
I asked this question in another thread and didn't get an answer, so am trying here, since the conversation has touched on cable use.
"... Let me make sure I am tracking with you. You are saying that jitter is important. That jitter can also result from cable induced errors. That re-clocking at the DAC does not necessarily correct for all/any errors related to jitter that could occur during delivery of the raw digital signal through a cable. Does it follow that some digital cables are better at delivering digital signals free of or with less added jitter?
On a related note, in theory or in measurement, can a digital signal be corrupted in a cable, say due to exposure to strong EMF, to the point where 1s and 0s are actually deleted or unreadable at the DAC. I.E. outright data loss?"
Your thoughts appreciated, even if you think this is a non-issue.
kn |
"You are saying that jitter is important. That jitter can also result from cable induced errors. That re-clocking at the DAC does not necessarily correct for all/any errors related to jitter that could occur during delivery of the raw digital signal through a cable."
All correct.
"Does it follow that some digital cables are better at delivering digital signals free of or with less added jitter?"
Absolutely.
"in theory or in measurement, can a digital signal be corrupted in a cable, say due to exposure to strong EMF, to the point where 1s and 0s are actually deleted or unreadable at the DAC. I.E. outright data loss?""
Very unlikely. The EMI would have to be kilowatts of power, like a radar antenna.
Corruption of data on a USB or S/PDIF cable is not usual and quite difficult. The cable must be extremely long and have poor impedance match to have significant error rate.
Signal integrity ala "eye-pattern" however can easily be affected by connectors, cable construction, impedance etc.. Also, ground loop noise can impact both USB and S/PDIF causing jitter and even errors if it is bad enough. These are currents running in the ground of the cable that should not be there. IF high enough, they will appear on the signal(s) and cause problems at the receiver. This is why I developed the "Short-Block" USB cable filter, which reduces common-mode ground-loop noise on the cable.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Steve, what kind of problems are you talking about could happen at the reciever?, does that mean amplifier or pre-amp? |
Thanks, helpful description.
kn |
10-28-14: Tbg
I find no worthy points being made on this thread. I see the computer as the wave of the future with data coming from internet downloads. No need to torture yourself by returning to it then...:) "Computers" are not the future. They are an evolutionary stepping stone until audiophile manufacturers catch up. Steve is ahead of the game due to his background. Many others have a mere rudimentary knowledge like may of us endusers who learn as they go. |
AudioL - what I mean by receiver is the chip that is receiving the digital differential signal on the USB cable. Common mode noise on this cable can exceed the CMR or common mode rejection of this receiver chip, and usually does, causing jitter in the receiver chip.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Thankyou Steve, That was informative, cheers. |
11-08-14: Mcondon
Well, if the sound of the PS Audio Bridge is representative of what Ethernet has to offer, count me out. I thought the Bridge, which streamed audio via an Ethernet connection, sounded awful. The PS Audio Perfect Wave Transport was miles better in sound quality, but is not the last word in high fidelity. When I read claims that Ethernet audio is or will be superior to computer audio, my gut reaction is just to stick with a CD transport until a big, reputable audiophile manufacturer comes out with a "plug and play" server that rips CDs, provides storage for backup, is easy to control with an iPad, and sounds stellar without the need for a high cost USB-SPDIF converter. It cannot cost what Lumin charges, and it cannot be from a "mom and pop" operation with one or two people on board. Maybe I am a Luddite...but I don't work in IT and so the inconvenience of getting a computer or Ethernet source up and running seems worse than the inconvenience of getting up from my chair to put a CD in a transport when I want to listen to music. End of rant. So are ethernet streamers a bust too? |
For me it took getting the synergies correct ... right digital cables, DAC and software to achieve what I thought is actually better sound with some HiRes recording than the CD. Running MacBook Pro with Pure Music 2, AudioQuest Diamond USB going into Bryston BUC-1 feeding a Levinson No360s by way of Shunyata Anaconda digital AES/EBU. I still listen to CD's and in my system that is with a Levinson No37 transport also connected to the DAC by Anaconda AES/EBU. Both work well for me however if I can find the 96/24 download I usually buy it because often I prefer that. I typically prefer the sound of the CD on the No37 to just a straight rip of the CD. |
Gadawg, just like vinyl, the devil is in the details....in some ways even more so. I believe this is part of the motivation for some moving back to plastic spinners. |
10-23-14: Audioengr
"If you analyze people's opinions on SQ superiority of WAV versus AIFF or any other format, its a coin toss statistically. What does that tell us?"
Not if you are selective about who does the listening and on what systems. I do these comparisons at virtually every show I exhibit at. The differences are always obvious. Usually the listener that has ripped his entire library in AIFF or FLAC just leaves in disgust because he now knows that he has worked hard to produce something suboptimal.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio I have to agree 100%. there is a big difference in the Uncompressed formats(.wav) vs even lossless formats. I know first hand. I had purchased and still use JRivermedia. Initially it (JRiver) tried to rip all of my Cds in .ape format,which i changed to .wav I started with Windows XP. I had ripped 40 cds or so when i decided that in order to have media center remote control functionality, i needed Windows 7. I installed Windows 7 and started ripping again. I started listening and everything sounded a little bright and harsh. I did not realize that JRiver defaulted back to ripping in .ape format again.I quickly changed it back to .wav and deleted the files ripped in .ape I COULD hear a difference. The .wav was much smoother. Now you will get people who will tell you that you should not hear a difference, becasue it is bit perfect(.ape vs .wav).Maybe it is in the compression and decompression that causes it . I do not know, but what i do know is that there IS a difference in sound, in my setup. I think if you cannot hear a difference , then your system is not up to snuff. For example,I used to use an Emotiva LPA-1 amp.I had tried several different Coaxial and optical cables from my Fidelity V-Link2 to McCormack DAC-1.I could not hear any differences. I recently bough a McIntosh MC2205. I also tried some different digital cables. NOW, I COULD hear differences. So my equipment was not up to snuff,IMO,proir to the MC2205 |
Hi Grey9hound, congrat's on your McIntosh MC2205, drop by the Tara thread some time, good to see you about. |
This is depressing. I ripped about 60 of my CDs and more importantly have purchased and downloaded 30 odd high res albums all in FLAC format based on advice from HDTracks. I will experiment with my current computer set up between files ripped in FLAC and WAV, but I want to future and upgrade proof my source material to equipment upgrades. Garbage in... Aargh! |
Dont feel bad; I rippedhalf my library in compressed flac before I learned that uncompressed flac sounds better. All moot now with tidal. Computer audio is not a bust with access to all this new music. We have all ventured into PC Audio via different paths. Streaming, PC/MAC servers, music servers... hopefully, all have the proper platform to take advantage of these new music services when they come out and can just listen to them in their native format, rather than reinventing the wheel when something new comes out. I think Tidal just the beginning. |
There is no difference in information content between lossless compressed flac and uncompressed. If it sounds different there is some other reason for that. I moved from uncompressed lossless wav to compressed lossless flac with no problem. |
Mapman, yes the difference is the latency of the computer unwrapping the Flacs. The sound is different than uncompressed Wav files. All of my newer files are stored in DSD and all are replayed in double DSD. I also have some music recorded in double DSD.
My best sounding digital is Essence of Music SACD done into DSD-big but beautiful. |
Tbg,
agree the processing is different and may or may not be done well. Should not be a problem if done properly. Any modern computer with good software should be up to the task but that does not guarantee it is done correctly with best possible sound in mind.
FWIW software processing of uncompressed files can vary and be done well or not also so format alone assures nothing. |
Mapman, so who or what does it right and why? All I know is that alway WAV files sound different and better than FLAC files.
I will soon have a dac with two computers. One will only do music and the other will do everything else. And there will be precision clocks for both and no opamps or switching power supplies. |
The same way you know what other audio components might sound good, by doing homework, auditioning and comparing the options.
I play FLAc files via 2 different Squeezebox touch units that I played .WAV prior. I also play them via PLEX application on Amazon fire box using toslink out to DAC. I am very happy with the results with both. |
|
The only server that delivers the same SQ for wav and FLAC files that I have heard is the Antipodes. Lots of intelligent S/W customization in that server to optimize SQ.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
If I am not mistaken, by default, Squeeze system converts WAV to flac when it goes over the wire. |
Plex has made a lot of progress in the last year. I plan to do a comprehensive review soon. Plex is a no brainer for Audiophiles looking to cautiously get into digital streaming for both audio and AV. Sound quality is top notch, runs on most any common computer phone tablet and other streaming devices, nice GUI, very full featured and one can start for free or next to nothing. I still have my Squeeze devices but Plex is slowly taking over in my house. |
|
Lenovo T62 foobar2000 + 3T SACD *iso
->DSD64 via USB cable to FIIO X3 2nd,
->FIIO X3 Line out + Radioshack 3mm to RCA + Opp95 with SACD *iso and Tidal lossless play
-> McCormack TLC1 Pre-amp
->Kimber PBJ
->McCormack DNA 1 Amp
-> AQ Midnight III Speaker Cable
-> Theil 2 2
The result is super
|
I've started running plex app player on my laptop with usb connection to mhdt dac in my main setup. Results are really impressive and exceeded my expectations for an older usb dac. I've been running squeezebox touch to same dac and system for many years. You really never know for sure with this stuff until you try. |
You can't solve the challenges of computer audio focusing on 1 problem... especially
because you may be focusing on the symptom and not the problem
1. Power supply stability and freedom from electronic noise interference from source through DAC solution is essential... for all the analog people, this is the same criteria as selecting a well isolating turntable to put your tonearm on
2. Ability of the read solution to capture and output digital to the hardware I/O without altering the source data or timing. This is where CD players have a much harder time with the physics than a computer... they read a reflective moving optical disc vs a computer reading the data as magnetic data off HD or direct data access off SSD memory. Try a CD edge treatment and you will realize how finicky an optical disc playback solution is.
3. Hardware output the digital signal to the DAC; this is where most of the pain occurs for computer audio and where an expensive CD player can beat up on computer audio. USB as an audiophile solution sucks... it has no inherent timing capabilities. Asynch USB is like a post manufacturing wire fix on the main board... an admission of defeat by trying to dictate/fix timing at the receiver end vs getting it right at the sender. This is probably the single most important area of a computer solution to focus on in terms of system development and proprietary solutions.
4. The DAC... lets face it, many aren't enjoyable because they don't resolve complex passages (anyone catch the words of that chorus singing sotto voce behind the orchestra...). The technology is finally catching on that its not measured by its ability to reproduce the loudest instrument without error (easy), its the ability to reproduce the many softer backup instruments playing at same time without error (harder).
|
