|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: RE: DAC jitter rejection posted by soundchekk on April 6, 2012 at 01:57:57:
"If you still integrate prebuild stuff like hiface ( wavelength, centrance stuff wouldn't be any different in this regard) or whatever interface
you'll have difficulties to get around the limitations, which come with those designs. The same is valid for SPDIF interface chips."
I only used the M2Tech OEM interface board for a short time, to get to market quickly. It fed my Pace-Car reclocker, so the jitter from the module was not important. I probably sold only 3-4 of these. Now I have second generation of my own async module designs.
"Some weeks ago we had pretty much the same discussion. And it was you mentioning something like "source related distortions are all about common mode noise. And you got it finally under control now?"
This is only using USB interface, and yes I have a solution that I am productizing.
"If running asynchronous transfers it doesn't mean that you get 100%
rid of source related digital jitter."
I dont believe that. My experience is that it does eliminate any source jitter. There are other effects, such as RFI and CM noise that can still get through however. When one reclocks multiple times and uses a fixed clock on a separate power supply, there is no other conclusion. There is no other explanation.
"Asynchronous USB transfer modes obviously improved over simplistic PCM2707 isynchronous implementations. However. There is still plenty of impact of source related distortions left. I've been running an isynchronous device with a reclocker behind it recently.
I can tell you, you wouldn't hear a difference to pure asynchronous ( even bulk transfer ) designs."
Yes I would, because I have. My older Off-Ramp 3 generation used Adaptive mode and I could feed it into my Pace-Car reclocker. Async USB interface is still a LOT better IME. However, If I went back and redesigned the Pace-car, which I dont sell anymore, and put the latest in regulator and clock technology in it, then I probably would not hear any difference in the two. The price difference is huge however, probably 2X.
"I find it funny to see that you as an engineer asks the masses ( simple consumers) to fix your more than challenging issues ( it's not only you - your competition gives similar advise ) by tweaking their sources."
This is like saying the vendor for Autocad is responsible for bugs in the Windows OS. I dont think so. I rely on lots of computer solutions to provide source playback streams for my products. Some are better than others, just like Mac OS can be more stable than Windows XP for Autocad. Pure Music is more stable than Amarra, but does not sound as good IMO. What I can do is provide the best guidance for my customers to avoid problems and achieve the best SQ. My customers rarely complain of these computer difficulties, because they generally dont have them.
"You IMO ask a lot of money for your products compared to the competition.
I'd therefore expect a sophisticated solution."
I'll email a link to you with internal photos so you can decide. We feel we are unique in this business. We are not anything like the competition.
Steve N.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: DAC jitter rejection - audioengr 10:49:44 04/06/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
