Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Review: CM6631A SPDIF Convertor- Budget Class

96.41.67.245
Posted on December 19, 2013 at 16:57:24
mr.bear
Audiophile

Posts: 4167
Joined: November 13, 2001

The whole name of the thing as it appears in its ads is: "CM6631A Hi-Fi 192KHZ/24bit ASIO USB to Coaxial Optical SPDIF Convertor"

I purchased this little box on eBay with the notion of hearing the DDC conversion process through a current CM chip, based largely on the testing and comments by Archimago on his slightly offbeat website. There are numerous variants of these for sale around the same price level (under $50 shipped), this one looked solid and was from a good seller. The box serves as a USB to S/PDIF converter with both optical and coax outputs. It arrived promptly in good condition from China. From there it was only a few harrowing hours to download, identify and install the drivers from the seller’s website for my music-only PC and it was playing away, powered by USB.

Getting down to some A/B comparisons: a well-loved CD on my Sony DVP-S7700 transport versus files ripped from CD’s (Tests were in an uncontrolled fashion, lying about the living room). Both coax outputs were run to my Proceed AVP-1 for DAC. How the CM6631A digital stream sounds is almost totally transparent- the differences between the disc and the file were evanescent. It’s like one fine, Texas BBQ joint’s sauce versus another’s - slightly different tang but both delicious. To say the CD seemed a little forward and the DAC a little laid back would be misleading; the differences were so small as to be swamped by other, coarser system nonlinearities. It has been performing sweetly in my system now for a couple months and is highly recommended for the audio cheapskate!

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
If you look closely at, posted on December 25, 2013 at 22:39:48
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 what you have bought, used and posted about

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penny-CM6631A-Coaxial-Optical-Convertor/dp/B00A3KBQKK

you are using a CM6631 unit which I also bought and the same unit appears in the Archimago 'measurements' and review.

The chip is actually the CM6631 and bears all the issues that I posted about. Compared to $100+ units, this sounds crap.

By buying such units and saying that it is 'adequate' and 'appropriate', you are helping those who are selling fakes and who are destroying the quality audio industry.

 

Tried to look closely and couldn't, posted on December 26, 2013 at 10:55:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I tried to track down what the difference was between the CM6631 an CM6631A chips. This was pretty frustrating, because I could never get a PDF file for the CM6631A spec sheet. (The mfg. web site required registration which I didn't feel like doing.) From what I gathered (but without a way to verify it) the difference between the two chips concerns support of 88.2 and 176/4 kHz sampling rates, supposedly in the A model only. The PDF for the CM6631 explicitly lists supported sampling rates, but omites 88.2 and 176.4 from the list. (From general guesswork, it would not surprise me if both chips had the same hardware, with the only difference being the firmware on the built in microprocessor, in which case the missing functionality could probably be implemented using an external ROM.)

I find it peculiar that audio web sites selling usb audio products do not seem to include a complete list of supported formats. I also find it curious that blogger audiophiles reviewing products don't enumerate the formats these products support, especially when the product documentation is so insubstantial. I also find it somewhat peculiar that audiophiles purchase products where the product literature doesn't include a list of supported formats. This omission would seem to indicate highly deficient marketing and if a company can't bother to describe the basic functions of their products on their web site, one has to question their competence and/or honesty.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Tried to look closely and couldn't-the whole, posted on December 26, 2013 at 12:08:19
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 thing about 'economical' CM66xx converters may well be a scam. If you study the pictures of the units sold and reviewed here, they all say CM6631 on the chip, and yet the sales literature all claim to have the updated 6631A chip. The difference is in the supported samples rates, and different software and firmware. There are plenty of complaints on the web about units that won't work with the supplied software.

The only current source of software seems to be for the 6631A, even for units containing the 6631 chip. In Hifiduino, there are posts about updating firmware and installing software to obtain functionality as well as correct the sampling frequency intended for the chip.

Frankly, the whole thing is a mess and I wonder why the 'review and measurements' referred to here have not even picked up on the issues.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to spend $50 on units sold on the web without establishing what it is that they are buying.

On the UK Amazon site. the Penny unit as advertised breaches the Trade Description and Sale of Goods Acts.

As for you query about clock rates, the faster the cheap XOs, the worse the waveshapes and downclocking involves even more compromises. Such high clock rates are not needed and are not generally used for up to 192k outputs.

 

RE: Tried to look closely and couldn't-the whole, posted on December 26, 2013 at 14:14:40
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Frankly, the whole thing is a mess and I wonder why the 'review and measurements' referred to here have not even picked up on the issues."

Couldn't agree more. I think some people need more experience reading marketing literature so that they can deduce the things that the authors hope will be mistakenly deduced by cluesless customers without having to actually write claims that are blatantly false. From what you have said, I probably wouldn't buy one of these chips unless I were prepared to reprogram it. I don't think that is terribly hard, and the software tools are available for free. I have the necessary reprogramming hardware (a Raspberry Pi) except for a few jumper wires. However, I'm not inclined to start a project that would take a minimum of a few weeks and probably several months, based on similar projects in years past.


I think the high clock rates make sense in the case where I2S is being clocked by a DAC chip master clock that runs at those rates, such as the SABRE chip. Those high rates aren't necessary for I2S, as the highest needed clock rate would be 64x and not 1024x. I believe there are some high quality crystal oscillators that will run well at these frequencies, but the oscillator component itself probably costs more than the entire $50 converter.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

I can now disclose, posted on December 26, 2013 at 22:07:00
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 that I bought the unit to test out the prasie given in 'web reviews' here.

On XOs, it is quite difficult to buy retail units that have the lowest phase noise. On various Chinese made units, the deficiencies lie in the use of unbranded, mixbranded and obscure TCXOs. Coupling transformers are another area of doubt.

There is a cracking unit called Gustard X10 (full featured dac) which is NOT a cloned W4S inside. It sells for $350 inside China, $500 from Taiwan, and is well designed as well as sounding good. This one claims to switch off the redundant XO when not needed. The software is also simple and complete.

The profit from cross border web sales appear to be very high indeed. This applies also to some UK brands sold rertail on its own soil.

 

Curiosity killed the cat , posted on December 27, 2013 at 06:18:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 but satisfaction brought it back. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

There is only one way, posted on December 30, 2013 at 08:46:08
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 of checking on the validity of posts and that is to assess the piece that has been 'reviewed'.

In this case, there has not been any care taken over the assessment of eve the right product!

 

RE: There is only one way, posted on December 31, 2013 at 18:20:06
richardvreede35
Audiophile

Posts: 6
Location: Nederland
Joined: December 31, 2013
 But at first when he thought that he bought the right unit, the sound was nice in his opnion, so here is a thing where whole the audiophile industry is based on, 50% looks 30%reviews and the meaning of others, 20% technical based. Powercords for 2000euro etc. are such nonsense.
It's like a bugatti ferrrari porsche, often bought by people without real
knowledge and a lot is useless bling. Though it's often very beautiful made.
gr.richard holland
Ask before you buy, the component list....the outside ain't the most important

 

Also at Burson they use the same chip ... , posted on December 26, 2013 at 01:20:20
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
 http://bursonaudio.com/6631USB_PCB.htm

" CM6631A USB Module
By default the Buron Conductor and Conductor SLs feature the Tenor 8802 USB receiver.
The CM6631A USB receiver module is therefore an optional upgrade..."

Nevertheless the fact that little more money buys a much better sounding interface is important
But say that is crap is not that too much ?
After all the Poster has compared it to a well regarded transport in a well resolving system (i assume this not knowing the actual speakers used)
Maybe to call it "crap" is a little unfair
I think
Kind regards,
bg

 

There is a difference between the CM6631 and CM6631A, posted on December 26, 2013 at 05:16:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 To sell a CM6631 as a CM6631A is fraudulent and yes, the unit sounds crap compared to other usb to spdif units costing a little more.

Just to elaborate, the unit under discussion has XOs of 45xxxMHz and 49xxxMHz, presumably stepping down via the CM chip to get the correct playback sampling frequencies. This is not a good thing either.

 

RE: There is a difference between the CM6631 and CM6631A, posted on December 26, 2013 at 11:07:10
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Just to elaborate, the unit under discussion has XOs of 45xxxMHz and 49xxxMHz, presumably stepping down via the CM chip to get the correct playback sampling frequencies. This is not a good thing either."

Presumably the clock speeds would be 1024 x 44100 and 1024 x 48000 Hz. When run with the optional external clock the on-board oscillator and PLL would be bypassed, and there would just be a divider that counted down the I2S and SPDIF bit clock. I'm not sure why you think this mode of operation would be bad. I would think this would be the only way to get low jitter operation out of a USB DAC, namely using an I2S interconnect with the clocked sourced at the DAC itself and isolated from the converter chip.

(Of course, getting the switchover to work properly and disabling the unused clock would probably be a bitch. Perhaps some DIY person has tried this. If I were building a device based on this chip I would budget time to sort out these issues.) At least the price is right, under $10.00 and if used in the right system architecture nothing on the chip should have any effect on sound quality. (Assumes I2S with isolated interface from DAC proper data going to DAC chip and clock going from DAC chip to converter chip.)


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Yup, very good converter..., posted on December 20, 2013 at 15:17:43
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002
 I've had this device for a few months now. Sounds excellent. The asynchronous USB interface measures quite well...

Cheers and Happy Holidays everyone!


-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

Thanks for your help., posted on December 24, 2013 at 13:36:06
mr.bear
Audiophile

Posts: 4167
Joined: November 13, 2001
 Your website is enjoyable-- I take it with the usual chunk-o-salt and try to maintain my sense of humor... unlike some others here.

This little box was a worthwhile find. There may be similar boxes that sound very slightly different but, like I said, you're dealing with changes in sonics that may not demonstrate a clear advantage or actually to have any meaning at all. Seems to me that it becomes a *taste* issue at some point. That's one way of looking at things. Think of it like phono cartridges- the designer has so many variables to juggle that he picks his tradeoffs and the sound that results is the flavor of the soup. I've sometimes felt that when one digital product sounds a little different from another comparable product performing the same function, the differences are swamped by the limitations of the underlying digital recording and the differences in sonics in playback are ephemeral at best, or placebo effect at worst.

The little CM box is appropriate technology for an appropriate price. I don't want to pay for well-crafted analog stages and fine power supply over again. Satisfied with my DAC/preamp, all I needed was USB => S/PDIF. I'm just telling you what I heard. As far as it being cheezy, look inide my laptop- crammed with hot, cheap, dirty electronic components sweating away in a terrible environment- but it manages to sounds pretty good. That's the magic of digital, I reckon.

 

Sense of humor is a wonderful thing - and you certainly have to summon..., posted on December 26, 2013 at 09:43:47
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... all of it, when reading Archimago's blog.

As for the rest...

"differences in sonics in playback are ephemeral at best, or placebo effect at worst" - what do you think is the reason? Why is that, for instance, you and Archimago feel this way - and myself and some others, as evidenced in this thread, do not?

Any ideas?


 

its not complicated, posted on December 27, 2013 at 23:01:48
mr.bear
Audiophile

Posts: 4167
Joined: November 13, 2001
 I am an audio product *consumer* at the end of the day. I read large numbers of conflicting articles that evaluate devices and technologies with wildly variable degrees of technical rigor. Some reviews say everything new sounds glorious and made the system open up and sing like angels. Some blogs etc. strike the pose that computer audio requires expenditures of thousands of dollars or you're hearing total crap. Some reviews feature beautiful multicolor graphs that may mean something-- if I were knowledgeable enough to understand the testing criteria, test equipment and all the million variables set for the testing.

Occasionally its worth it to take a chance and buy a pig-in-a-poke like the Penny brand DDC and risk $50. My means do not allow me to risk $500 or $5000. Honestly I don't give a darn if it is somehow misapplied, inadequately documented technology. My review discussed the sound of files made from CD's compared to Redbook CD playback exclusively; that's all I need it for and it works pretty well. I got LUCKY with only 1 orange (poker) chip on the table! I see clearly now this claim is pure heresy here.

The final musical experience is of course is highly system dependent. The fact that the cheap DDC sounds almost indistinguishable within my system depends on my system's resolving power, including that of my ears. Why I say the differences in sonics were ephemeral is simply that the differences were audible but very slight [at my system's limits of resolution] and I feel that neither was clearly superior [at my system's limits of resolution]. I believe strongly that the differences in recording, mixing and mastering of the original CD's vastly outweigh these small differences in playback quality [at my system's limits of resolution]. Do look up "ephemeral" in the dictionary.

My reference is live music (I play bass and hear a lot of live music!) and my vinyl collection, which in my house is at 3LPs:1CD roughly. My speakers are original Thiel C3s which I love because they are voiced for LPs but they deal decently with everything else.

Sorry to babble such a long answer, but I liked your question. And I will never post any form of review here again.

 

That's what I was hinting at - "depends on my system's resolving power, including that of my ears"., posted on January 2, 2014 at 11:48:07
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Your response is not what I feel needs arguing with - seems like you acknowledge one, and IMO the single most important, of the potential reasons.

If only you could leave out the Do look up "ephemeral" in the dictionary silliness - something that can only be countered with Do look up "significant" in the dictionary.

 

a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, posted on December 26, 2013 at 17:32:49
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 " Why is that, for instance, you and Archimago feel this way - and myself and some others, as evidenced in this thread, do not?"

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, posted on December 26, 2013 at 21:27:49
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

OR...

 

RE: Yup, very good converter..., posted on December 22, 2013 at 21:40:29
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

Fred is correct, the Xmos convertors are much better. Overall seems to be one of the best USB interface chips.

I also measured the 2 interfaces and the XMOS case is bigger so it must be better. I used a inch ruler which is just as valid a test instrument as archamigo's. Maybe I need a blog too!!!

 

The praise from you is pretty much like a red flag, or may be a death sentence... N/T, posted on December 21, 2013 at 09:04:17
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

 

RE: The praise from you is pretty much like a red flag, or may be a death sentence... N/T, posted on December 24, 2013 at 20:03:08
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 40722
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Indeed, the Faerie Queene sorcerer only brings deceitful "magic". :)

 

Archimago = Pseudo scienceN/T, posted on December 21, 2013 at 19:49:45
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 .

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

snot just shot out of my nose! [nt], posted on December 21, 2013 at 12:52:27
Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001
 .

 

Save it for Blue Circle. They'll thank you for it - nt, posted on December 21, 2013 at 18:11:07
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 48962
Location: Maidenhead Grid Square DM79
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 .

 

Think we may have discovered a new way to make money reviewing high-end audio..., posted on December 21, 2013 at 13:06:50
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
Contributor
  Since: September 3, 2024
 or not reviewing it.

If manufacturers pay me, I won't say good things about their gear. ;-)


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

:-) nt, posted on December 21, 2013 at 09:37:50
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
Contributor
  Since: September 3, 2024
 n


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Why do you measure at 16 bits?, posted on December 21, 2013 at 06:28:18
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Why do you measure at 16 bits?

The dither and quantization noise at 16 bits will mask jitter artifacts. No matter how good your downstream converter and measurement set up is you will not see low level jitter artifacts. You might as well compare components when your system is powered down.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Why do you measure at 16 bits?, posted on December 23, 2013 at 02:27:48
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 His main problem is that his digital domain measurements are plain nonsense. I told him that over at Squeezebox forums some time ago.

He is trying to measure a digital signal with a soundcard, which tries hard to improve everything that comes in on the input, thus change
the incoming jittery and noisy digital signal.

He doesn't see any changes??

Well done EMU 0404!!

 

RE: Why do you measure at 16 bits?, posted on December 23, 2013 at 06:45:04
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 It's a basic problem with experimental methodology. Before doing any measurements one must first qualify that suitability and accuracy of one's instruments. Then in doing any calculations or deductions based on those measurements one must use this information appropriately.

The general rule of thumb has always been that the instruments need to be roughly ten times better than the device being measured. His experimental set up is adequate for measuring adapters used for telephone quality audio, not CD quality, let alone hi-res. (It is possible to deviate from this rule of thumb if one knows what one is doing, e.g. if one is an experimental physicist, but then one had better be very careful otherwise one will find oneself in hot water like the people at CERN who were trying to measure the speed of light.)

This mess is not excusable, as it concerns hard science and mathematics. It hasn't touched on the difficult part of Audio, namely the psychoacoustic and perceptual aspects which are not well understood.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Why do you measure at 16 bits?'cause, posted on December 22, 2013 at 04:49:52
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 he wants the components to measure the 'same' so that there is no 'difference in sound'.

 

RE: Yup, very good converter..., posted on December 21, 2013 at 03:14:09
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
 Hello !
and congratulations for the site. Very interesting indeed
I tend to believe to graphs quite a lot.
Especially lately that everything seems to sound just fine to me.
I have tried:
- Squeezebox touch - very good indeed
- another usb to spdif converter (Gustard u10 + power supply. Thank you very much Mr. Fmak !) - very good indeed
- a audio player from Shanling M3.1 - very good indeed
- even a chinese Android media player connected via coax spdif to a external dac - not bad at all (!!!!????) Actually this has been the biggest surprise.

To end i have the feeling that late digital is quite good in any case
Maybe my ears/system are the problem. Not resolving enough.

By the way I see a power input and a switch on the unit
Does this mean that with an additional power supply it can be isolated by the usb power ?
i would give a try to this option in case
Thanks a lot indeed



Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Yup, very good converter...No No, posted on December 20, 2013 at 22:17:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 This a a cheaply made (expensive looking box though) unit with poor and incomplete software and firmware, and perform poorly compared to other converters.

For the price, it is ok but I am astonished that inmates who should know better hold it in such high regard in comparison with well engineered and complete units such as the Chinese Gustard U10 at only $150.

The Breeze box sounds distinctly inferior in comparison with other boxes or cards.

 

RE: Yup, very good converter...No No, posted on December 21, 2013 at 06:12:43
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Your comments would be more valuable if you provided some indication of how / why alternative units perform better. Also, you might explain what you mean by "cheaply made", poor and incomplete software and firmware, etc...


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Yup, very good converter...No No, posted on December 21, 2013 at 07:11:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Cheaply made means means exactly this, by looking at the circuit topography, power supply arrangement, parts and the way they were soldered together.

Poor performance means that it doesn't sound any good against my other processors, some of which are high end.

I don't post to justify in detail comments on a sub $100 piece of gear.

You are welcome to discount and disregard what I said. I only post to put into perspective the high praises made here.

The chip maker does not post specific and reliable drivers; instead you can download from a variety of sources and some drivers don't work well. If you are prepared to spend hours fiddling with drivers and firmware combinations, then by all means buy it. There is no way of telling which set has been designed for your box, othet than thru the link supplied by the Breeze vendor. This driver does not work at 176k.

 

RE: Review: CM6631A SPDIF Convertor- Budget Class, posted on December 20, 2013 at 07:43:08
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
 Thanks a lot for the hint !
I hope i will be able to install the drivers.
I see that you use a laptop with XP
Any particular reason ?
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Review: CM6631A SPDIF Convertor- Budget Class, posted on December 20, 2013 at 06:56:33
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
Interesting.

Add a Raspberry PI + RaspiFy to it and you'll have a pretty decent transport at 100$.
I might give it a try. The CM6631A also seems to work with newest Linux kernels.


Though HifiMeDIy sells a Full digital Amp with asynch USB interface at
80$. Add the RPI to that one and you'll have a complete system at 150$.
I guess I'll check that out first. ;)

 

RE: Review: CM6631A SPDIF Convertor- Budget Class, posted on December 20, 2013 at 09:34:01
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Add a Raspberry PI + RaspiFy to it and you'll have a pretty decent transport at 100$. I might give it a try. The CM6631A also seems to work with newest Linux kernels."

I you try this, please let us know how things turn out. I've heard disparaging comments about the I/O bandwidth on the Pi, namely that the Ethernet port and USB share bandwidth. (Also power supply issues, but this is primarily with the older A model.) It will definitely be low power, suitable for battery operation.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Review: CM6631A SPDIF Convertor- Budget Class, posted on December 20, 2013 at 10:51:09
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Hi Tony.

Here I wrote about my experiences with the RPi.

And I can confirm your statements to a large extent. The RPi works. But
you always feel to run the device on the edge.
It's still an entry solution. With a bit of tweaking it's rather OK.

Instead of RPi, you might consider to step up to Wandboard or Cubox-I.
That'll cost you 30-50$ extra.


Cheers

 

Page processed in 0.047 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]