ECdesigns

[bodiebill]

1 minute ago, hopkins said:

If the same file played in two configurations gives consistently different results in a blind test then I would have to agree :)

 

Perhaps we can set up such a test. Maybe even at one time with you in the room?

:-)

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Just now, bodiebill said:

 

Perhaps we can set up such a test. Maybe even at one time with you in the room?

:-)

 

Yes, it would be fun, and I am sure people are curious to know the results. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Just one small thing: one has to make sure when comparing that we there are no "side effects" of the different configurations (electrical, RF,...) that could effect somehow the sound quality "indirectly". That's why a battery operated local file player (tablet, laptop with a reasonably long Toslink cable) is interesting to test as well. 

[bodiebill]

27 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Just one small thing: one has to make sure when comparing that we there are no "side effects" of the different configurations (electrical, RF,...) that could effect somehow the sound quality "indirectly". That's why a battery operated local file player (tablet, laptop with a reasonably long Toslink cable) is interesting to test as well. 

 

That can be arranged. Inspired by your own results I now have my source incl. reclocker well removed from the audio altar using a 15m toslink cable with very good results. Although I suspect these results are mainly due to the omission of the network and less from distancing.

[bodiebill]

41 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Yes, it would be fun, and I am sure people are curious to know the results. 

 

But will they believe us? 😇

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

7 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

 

But will they believe us? 😇

 

 

Yes, there is probably never going to be a definitive demonstration. One could always argue that:

- the system used is not revealing enough, the best sources were not used, etc.. 

- the listeners are not sensitive to differences (lack of experience). 

- blind tests are stressful and diminish our perception of differences, or the opposite that the we make an extra effort to hear differences that would otherwise go unnoticed. 

At least if the participants can learn something from it then it is useful. There will always be people challenging the results. 

[hykbooks]

16 hours ago, Jacob said:

Please dont address me here - i had enough of it over the phone and in person with you.

enjoy

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

6 hours ago, bodiebill said:

I now have my source incl. reclocker well removed from the audio altar using a 15m toslink

 

Is that a typo and did you mean 5 meters? 

Otherwise you are probably setting a world record ☺️

 

[hykbooks]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:44 AM, Gavin1977 said:

I would definitely be up for this, lots of positives on the Fractal DAC for me, but as I wrote up in my system is seemed rolled off in the bass and very neutral / top end focused - so wasn't quite there.  I have had a number of very high end DACs in for comparison recently.

In my system I found the DA96 to be a bit rolled off in bass as well, compared to my ifi pro idsd, the ifi pro idsd digs deeper into the bass. But again it has a nice tonality, for the price the DA96 is a good dac 

 

My home system is:  harbeth slh 5- 40th anniversary-- Avid Hifi-- Integra amp

 

When I put my ifi pro idsd as a dac, the bass gets more body and is more present, also the sound becomes more dynamic with bigger sound stage using the ifi pro idsd. I like both dacs with a preference for the ifi idsd pro but for the price the DA96 is a great dac

[seeteeyou]

Gold TosLink SPDIF Digital Optical Cable, 50m

https://www.lindy-international.com/Gold-TosLink-SPDIF-Digital-Optical-Cable-50m.htm?websale8=ld0101.ld020102&pi=37891

Quote

Available in lengths from 0.5m to 50m

 

Amazon

 

https://www.amazon.fr/Lindy-Cble-GOLD-TosLink-SPDIF/dp/B00KPXL9SO

https://www.amazon.es/Lindy-37891-TOSLINK-cable-audio/dp/B00KPXL9SO

https://www.amazon.it/Lindy-37891-TosLink-SPDIF-Premium/dp/B00KPXL9SO

https://www.amazon.se/LINDY-37891-GOLD-kontaktkabel-50/dp/B00KPXL9SO

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LINDY-TosLink-SPDIF-Digital-Optical-Gold/dp/B00KPXL9SO

https://www.amazon.de/LINDY-Toslinkkabel-TOSLINK-SPDIF-Metallstecker/dp/B00KPXL9SO

 

£55.06(Inc. VAT)

 

https://tinkerer.co.uk/lindy-37891-audio-cable-50-m-toslink-grey-37891.html

https://rapteq.com/pc-components/cables/more-cables/audio-cables/lindy-37891-audio-cable-50-m-toslink-grey-37891

 

---

 

https://www.lifatec.de/en/products.php

Quote

We produce fibers with a diameter from 25 µm to 200 µm. We supply the fibers in bundles of 10 m to 1500 m on spools. Additionally, special dimensions (fiber diameters and bundle sizes) can be supplied according to customer specific requirements and wishes.

 

Plastic Optical Fibers (POF) TC-1000 By-The-Meter

http://www.lifatec.com/toslink2.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20111219073328/http://www.lifatec.com/toslink4.html

Quote

We manufacture our cables with the industry's best APF (all plastic fiber) optical data fiber, *APF (980/1000) TC-1000.pdf. The attenuation (optical loss) is less than 0.15dB/m (this allows our cables to perform at much longer lengths than the competition). We also apply a 1µm optical finish on each end of our fiber which insures maximum performance. The end connector on our cables is a precision machined metal sleeve that perfectly aligns and supports the plastic optical fiber. The bandwidth at 50 meters is = 40MHz!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bodiebill]

17 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Is that a typo and did you mean 5 meters? 

Otherwise you are probably setting a world record ☺️

 

 

15m really!

The connection is good.

The only problem is that the toslink connector is not firmly secured in the PD. The cable connector seems to be the culprit as other toslink connectors firmly snap in.

Maybe I shuld get one of these Lindy cables. Thanks @seeteeyou!

[Norton]

9 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Maybe I shuld get one of these Lindy cables

I’d seek the Browns’ advice before buying optical cables.

 

Back in the “prehistoric” days of the MOS16, I upgraded to an expensive  glass cable only to introduce all too audible jitter, ruining the ECD sound .  I asked ECD about this and was told their own test results confirmed what I was hearing, best to stick with plastic cables, something to do with the likelihood, in a cut and terminated cable, of all glass  filaments still being identical in length.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

A lot of progress has been made since the introduction of Toslink some decades ago. Perhaps the "accepted" limitation of 10 meters was valid early on, or too many people take that Wikipedia page for granted? 

 

If you look for opinions on Toslink cable quality, you'll find a lot of recommendations, but keep in mind that the powerDAC handles Toslink differently than other DACs. This is the reason why ECD switched from their ElectroTos connection back to the standard Toslink.

 

On paper, the ElectroTos connection, which is basically an electrical signal being carried over a coaxial cable to a LED at the tip, has advantages over Toslink, which John Brown described, a year and a half ago on DIYAudio as the absence of "optical reflections": https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/79452-building-ultimate-nos-dac-using-tda1541a-post6031506.html

 

What are "optical reflections"? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_reflection?wprov=sfla1

 

ECD explains since that the DAPI has a proprietary algorithm that limits noise induced by these optical reflections. I don't know how this works, and would probably not understand even if I were told. 

 

So where does that leave us? If you trust what ECD explains, then don't worry about the cable.

 

Otherwise you can read opinions explaining that the impact of optical reflections can be reduced by using cables with a length equal to a multiple if 1.5 meters. You can also read about the superiority of some Toslink cables over others. Or you can continue using the U192 and its ElectroTos connection.

 

If all this stresses you, chances are you'll start hearing differences which you did not before. Maybe it's better to just relax about all this and enjoy the powerDAC following ECD's basic recommendations and use common sense in organizing your system. 😁

[murphythecat87]

16 hours ago, Norton said:

I’d seek the Browns’ advice before buying optical cables.

 

Back in the “prehistoric” days of the MOS16, I upgraded to an expensive  glass cable only to introduce all too audible jitter, ruining the ECD sound .  I asked ECD about this and was told their own test results confirmed what I was hearing, best to stick with plastic cables, something to do with the likelihood, in a cut and terminated cable, of all glass  filaments still being identical in length.

really?

tbh, I have the glass spdif cable with the MOS16 and the Mosaic T. I compared it to many regular spdif cables... I find it extremely hard to hear any differences in sq.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I tested digital cables of various lengths:

- short Toslink cable versus 2 meter Toslink using the UT96

- U192 connected to the powerDAC using the short ElectroTos cable supplied by ECD, then adding a 10 meter coax extension 

 

https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B00SWYTZLG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_i_dl_D37ZX8PZN1RJDGYMTV5F?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

 

Could not hear any differences. 

As we know longer cables add jitter, I conclude from this that ECD's solution does handle jitter well. I would have to run the same tests with another DAC, which will be for some other day. 

[Huubster]

Thanks for your report Stephane. 

 

After 2 weeks of holidays i'm back and I did some testing too. Not with the U192 or the UT96 though. I played with my new Mutec MC3+ re-clocker and with USB and Toslink cables. Also some sanity check camparisons between the BluesoundNode 2i vs the Innuos.

 

I can now use and compare both the USB and Toslink output of my Innuos streamer, using the Mutec as switch. The Mutec is connected to the PD with Toslink.

 

To start with, Mutec vs no Mutec. The Mutec in itself is a really nice add-on. Though it's an extra component in the chain, it does improve things quite a bit. I hear especially more deapth and breathing space around voices and instruments, a really nice touch. This is for both Innuos and Node 2i the case.

 

Now the cables. I don't have any expensive toslink cables, but I do have 3 different ones, from long (2,5m) and very cheap to short and a bit 'better' constructed. With using Toslink I don't hear any difference at all between cables. Whereever I use them, I cannot hear a change in sound signature. EDIT: I did hear quite obvious differences between these cables before, so I think that might be attributed to the PD.

 

Using USB input to Mutec is a whole other story though. The USB cable from Innuos to Mutec does make a huge difference. Using a cheap USB sounds less then using the Toslink connection, it sucks all the energy out of the music. But using my fancy Y-split USB cable is surpassing Toslink. It's my preferred solution now. My fancy USB to the Mutec MC3+ and then with whatever Toslink to the PD is the best combination so far. 

 

And finally, Innuos vs Node 2i. The Node 2i is a really nice piece of equipment, but simply does not sound as good as the Innuos. 

 

Luckily Innuos just started rolling out their new UI, finally! Version 2.0 with their own in house created app, very Roon-like apparently, first experiences seem to be very good. Can't wait to 28th of July, then it's supposed to be rolled out for my specific model.

[Michael L]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

I tested digital cables of various lengths:

- short Toslink cable versus 2 meter Toslink using the UT96

- U192 connected to the powerDAC using the short ElectroTos cable supplied by ECD, then adding a 10 meter coax extension 

 

https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B00SWYTZLG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_i_dl_D37ZX8PZN1RJDGYMTV5F?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

 

Could not hear any differences. 

As we know longer cables add jitter, I conclude from this that ECD's solution does handle jitter well. I would have to run the same tests with another DAC, which will be for some other day. 

I cannot understand how a cable can add jitter. I know it means pulses will be more rounded off due to multipath propogation but I don't see how pulse timing can jump about.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

11 minutes ago, Michael L said:

I cannot understand how a cable can add jitter. I know it means pulses will be more rounded off due to multipath propogation but I don't see how pulse timing can jump about.

 

I'll ask ECD for explanations. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Here are John Brown's explanations. 

 

 

"S/PDIF (Toslink) works with so called biphase mark coding:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF

 

Logic "1" and "0" are basically represented by two different frequencies (one vs two transients in a given time period).

 

if such 2 tone (frequency) signal is sent over an interlink with limited bandwidth, the logic "1" will experience different phase shift compared to a logic "0".

 

This translates to data related phase modulation or jitter (inter-symbol jitter).  In other words, the signal is phase modulated (jitter is introduced) depending on the "1" / "0" patterns.

 

The lower the interlink bandwidth, the larger the data related phase shifts and jitter. This explains the Toslink jitter issue as Toslink has limited bandwidth (6 or 12Mhz) compared to coax for example that offers much higher bandwidth (up to a GHz).

 

So why not simply use coax instead?

 

- Large bandwidth noise injection into the DAC (large data bandwidth now becomes a disadvantage).

- No optimal galvanic insulation (Toslink offers superb galvanic insulation because of the long fibre interlink that does not conduct electricity and thus introduces a massive barrier equal to the length of the optical interlink).

 

When sending one constant frequency across the same (optical) interlink there will be no data related jitter, so the jitter on the output signal now appears to be much lower.

 

In an optical interlink we also get optical reflections, so depending on interlink length and other properties we get more or less unwanted reflections that in turn translate to ghost images on the received signal. 

In other words, the S/PDIF receiver now receives not only the direct optical signal but also time delayed (reflections) copies of it. This can be compared with ghost images we used to have on analogue TV when the antenna received both, a direct and slightly delayed reflected signal.

 

The S/PDIF timing information is located in unique synchronisation codes or preambles. These codes are used to recover the missing bit and system clocks that are needed for biphase mark decoding, generating I2S timing signals and separating and identifying frames.

 

So (data related) jitter, noise or ghost images on the received signal will translate to higher or lower residual jitter on the recovered clock.

 

This means that all conventional S/PDIF receivers will be source dependent as the recovered clock will always contain traces of source noise, source jitter, interlink data related jitter and ghost images.

Re-clocking S/PDIF is extremely difficult if the source cannot be slaved. So in most applications there is little other option than using a clean source, minimise interlink jitter and optimise the S/PDIF receiver circuit.

This approach that's quite common, is used in the U192ETL, UPL96ETL and DA96ETF. By minimising incoming jitter, the S/PDIF receiver recovers cleaner timing signals and the connected D/A converter performs better.

 

The S/PDIF DAPI receiver used in the PowerDAC is a software based receiver. 

 

Software routines are used to extract only the data from the incoming S/PDIF stream and store it in a large RAM buffer. The data no longer contains any source or interlink jitter or noise as it is now just stored data (information).

So Toslink is simply used to transport -data- from box 1 to box 2.

 

The incoming sample rate is measured with a software-based frequency meter so we know the incoming sample rate, this is required for biphase mark decoding and is of course required to determine the correct playback sample rate.

 

Next, the stored data is clocked into the Power D/A converter through the DAPI interface. Because the sample rate was measured we can select the correct playback frequency.

 

DAPI greatly reduces data bandwidth, this way, any (source) noise that seeps through will be greatly limited as everything above approx. 12MHz is blocked. So we fixed both causes for source dependency:

 

- Jitter

- Noise

 

Why is high frequency noise a problem? because the higher the frequency, the easier it cross talks to other circuits (parasitics) or spreads wirelessly. So by reducing maximum frequency we can minimise this unwanted cross talk in the DAC circuits.

 

As a result of this receiving method we achieved a very high degree of source independency.

 

Because we still need 192 KHz data / clock bandwidth (DAPI), very small amount of the already band limited (12MHz, Toslink) source noise seeps through, but this is not sufficient (too low bandwidth, low energy) to cause audible differences in a double blind test.

 

This all works fine as long as the data is the -same- (bit-perfect playback) when comparing sources, re-clockers and similar circuits.

 

IF one source or circuit sticks out as a sore thumb (for better or for worse) in a double blind test, the only plausible explanation is that the data has been tampered with and is no longer the same  (playback is -not- bit-perfect).

 

Double blind testing is essential to get objective results."

[opus101]

11 hours ago, Michael L said:

I cannot understand how a cable can add jitter. I know it means pulses will be more rounded off due to multipath propogation but I don't see how pulse timing can jump about.

 

Have a look at this document, it explains how bandwidth limitation leads to jitter.

 

http://audioworkshop.org/downloads/AES_EBU_SPDIF_DIGITAL_INTERFACEaes93.pdf

[seeteeyou]

Interesting option for converting I²S output of SDTrans384 into Toslink output, and it does accept its own 5V power via DC input

 

https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=640646525427

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002353336202.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002588138998.html

 

 

---

 

FYI - the same seller also made something similar that's meant to work without Raspberry Pi

 

https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=641540954521

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002401424831.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002505456417.html

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Is the SDTrans384 still relevant? 

[bodiebill]

it was still the unbeaten benchmark until it died on me a week ago 😑

[seeteeyou]

Well, maybe check this out and see how it goes

 

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/swap-meet/323418-sdtrans384.html

Quote

Selling my SDTrans. This board was not modified and was only used via mechanical terminations for power and signal. The highest expression of digital I've heard.

 

https://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87744#p87744

Quote

I could not help myself. Bought the player/dac linked above and look forward to comparing it to my SDTrans/Soekris setup and doing some mods. Has anybody here other than Rick gone the SDTrans route? My impressions are similar to what he wrote earlier on this thread. I prefer my vinyl setup. Have not yet heard synchronous clocking on the SDTrans/dac with nice clocks which sounds to me like the Holy Grail from what Jonathan Carr says over on diyAudio. (#356 MicroSD Memory Card Transport Project).

 

And the price is right

 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32828566238.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32899305295.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33018741190.html

 

Also found the pin configurations of I²S output here

 

https://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87049#p87049

DSD
DATA
BLCK
LRCK
MCLK
GND

[BOBO]

any place where you can buy a fully assembled  build of SDTrans384, just plug and play ?