Crackling sound via Bel Canto DAC 2.7 on FLAC 24/192

[fmp]

Hello all,

 

I'm hoping someone can advise me on this - I need to make a decision soon whether I need to return the DAC!

I have been using a Linn Magik DS and occassionally a Benchmark DAC1 USB for quite a few years with no problems.

 

Today, I received my new Bel Canto DAC 2.7. It's fantastic with all resolutions up to 24/96, but whenever I play a piece at 24/192, there is a quite loud crackling sound along with the music.

 

I have tried connections from my Moon MiND 180, Linn Majik DS and Samsung NC10 netbook (for USB), running Lubuntu with Minimserver.

 

Different sources generate similar errors as follows, and only the USB from the netbook, and the SPDIF from the Linn Majik are capable of playing 24/192 without problems.

 

Could this be simply impedance matching with some cables or does this sound like a genuine problem with the DAC? None of the SPDIF RCA cables or the AES are proper digital cables, but ironically, an old analogue XLR cable comes closest to working for the AES connection, though there is still some crackling at a much lower level with that one.

 

As I mentioned, everything else up to 24/96 works perfectly, and the Majik DS and Benchmark DAC1 USB never gave me any problem like this.

 

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

As a summary:-

 

CRACKLE WITH 24/192 audio

Moon MiND 180 > AES

Moon MiND 180 > SPDIF

Moon MiND 180 > TOSLINK

 

NO CRACKLE WITH 24/192 audio

Samsung NC10 Netbook > USB

Linn Majik DS > SPDIF

 

LOSS OF SIGNAL

Linn Majik DS > TOSLINK

 

Many of the connections which produce crackle, also generate an 'LOS' message - Loss Of Signal.

 

I'm wondering if the Bel Canto is just especially fussy about cable matching.

 

with thanks, Frank

[ShawnC]

I recently purchased the same DAC. I've have no issues with any of the formats. I've tried upsampling with several different software developers but I prefer the native format, when listening. I've also tried every input including AES with Musical Fidelity's V-link 192. Your still under warranty, ask If you can try anther unit. The only other DAC I considered was Schitt's Yggy, but I'm very happy with this unit. I feel Bel Canto out performs far more expensive DACs.

 

Unfortunately I have no solution for your problem. I use Audioquest's Carbon USB cable.

[fmp]

I recently purchased the same DAC. I've have no issues with any of the formats.

 

Thanks for replying Shawn. I've tried a different (longer) xlr cable of the same type, and it's playing 24/192 perfectly, so it looks like there are maybe tight tolerances for cable matching on this!

 

My Studio Connections digital aes cable should arrive tomorrow or the next day, so I'm hoping a proper 110 ohm cable will sort out all the issues.

 

I agree about the Bel Canto, sounds superb already!

[sandyk]

Thanks for replying Shawn. I've tried a different (longer) xlr cable of the same type, and it's playing 24/192 perfectly, so it looks like there are maybe tight tolerances for cable matching on this!

 

My Studio Connections digital aes cable should arrive tomorrow or the next day, so I'm hoping a proper 110 ohm cable will sort out all the issues.

 

I agree about the Bel Canto, sounds superb already!

 

Why not give their customer support the same well documented information and see what they say ?

[ShawnC]

I have plenty of regular XLR cables from the days of playing and recording music. When I got my DAC two months ago I thought of using those to try out the AES input on the unit. Instead of purchasing an expensive AES cable from a well known audio company, I went to Guitar Center and bought a Mogami Gold series cable (not necessarily cheap). I didn't want to wait and get one form Monoprice or Blue Jean cables.

 

I like the sound, but I'm still experimenting with what I like the best. There's something about less is more in my world. This new DAC essentially contains the same technology as the ulink and REFLink. So I'm not sure If adding the V-link192 is beneficial just to use AES or SPDIF. So for now its just straight USB. A few weeks from now I'll make another tweak.

 

Good Luck, and update your findings

[fmp]

Why not give their customer support the same well documented information and see what they say ?

 

Seems sensible for me to just wait and install a proper "made for digital" cable first since that's what we're supposed to use anyway. I didn't have one, and only have ultra-cheap TOSLINKS, so I'll just wait till the Studio Connections Reference aes arrives.

 

Was just very eager to try out the Bel Canto, so just used what was at hand, since they worked with the Benchmark. The Benchmark and Bel Canto DACs must just operate differently. Is one an upsampling and the other an oversampling DAC? Maybe that explains the different behaviour with the higher resolution data.

[sandyk]

I noticed that Toslink has problems in both cases.

Many Toslink receiver modules don't work very well at more than 24/96.

Perhaps yours is a little below spec. ?

[fmp]

Perhaps yours is a little below spec. ?

 

lol - absolutely!

 

They're ultra cheap, so it's very unlikely they were subject to any real quality control. I'd prefer to spend the money on either an aes or a coax. Having said that though, they sounded mighty fine on 24/96, despite their cheapness.

[fmp]

lol - absolutely!

 

They're ultra cheap, so it's very unlikely they were subject to any real quality control. I'd prefer to spend the money on either an aes or a coax. Having said that though, they sounded mighty fine on 24/96, despite their cheapness.

 

Ignore my comment above - I was referring to my TOSLINK cables, not the receiver module on the DAC!

[fmp]

UPDATE: AES cable arrived - distortion remains! Will do a bit of research to see if there's any way to adjust output /input voltages on one of the boxes.

[plissken]

I noticed that Toslink has problems in both cases.

Many Toslink receiver modules don't work very well at more than 24/96.

Perhaps yours is a little below spec. ?

 

TOSLink maxes out at 24/96. It's the spec for it. There is no official support for 24/192 in TOSLink.

[plissken]

I had both the Bel Canto 2.7 and Emotiva DC-1 in for evaluation. I had no problems feeding the Bel Canto 24/192 over either AES/EBU or USB. I didn't bother with any other inputs.

 

I kept the Emotiva and sent the 2.7 back since there wasn't any appreciable difference in the SQ.

 

I run the Emotiva via USB.

[fmp]

OK, so far the only xlr terminated cable that works flawlessly for 24/192 is a long (20 or 30 feet) MICROPHONE cable! A shorter microphone cable of the same spec doesn't work well. Does that tell us anything about impedance matching on this.

[Melvin]

Ignore my comment above - I was referring to my TOSLINK cables, not the receiver module on the DAC!

 

TOSLink maxes out at 24/96. It's the spec for it. There is no official support for 24/192 in TOSLink.

 

And yet there are plently of DACs that do support 24/192 via Toslink. I have 2 DACs and a USB-SPDIF converter that handle 24/192 flawlessly in fact. Supposedly the OP's DAC does also. My experience leads me to believe glass Toslink works best. I have several cheap toslink cables that max out at 24/96 (Blue Jeans for example).

[plissken]

And yet there are plently of DACs that do support 24/192 via Toslink. I have 2 DACs and a USB-SPDIF converter that handle 24/192 flawlessly in fact. Supposedly the OP's DAC does also. My experience leads me to believe glass Toslink works best. I have several cheap toslink cables that max out at 24/96 (Blue Jeans for example).

 

Good for them. It doesn't mitigate the fact that the spec maxes out at 24/96. If it works great. If it doesn't don't be surprised.

 

It's something for people to be aware of because you could be out there giving incorrect advice.

[sandyk]

Good for them. It doesn't mitigate the fact that the spec maxes out at 24/96. If it works great. If it doesn't don't be surprised.

 

It's something for people to be aware of because you could be out there giving incorrect advice.

 

It's up to the manufacturer to ensure that the Toslink Receivers that he sources, are fully capable of correct operation at this wider bandwidth if he claims that his Toslink Inputs are suitable for 24/192 operation.

They should also be capable of operation at this resolution using standard Fibre Optic cables, not just glass Fibre, unless they clearly state this requirement in their specifications. and Users Manual.

[Melvin]

snip...

 

It's something for people to be aware of because you could be out there giving incorrect advice.

 

Exactly what I thought of your post!

[fmp]

TOSLink maxes out at 24/96. It's the spec for it. There is no official support for 24/192 in TOSLink.

 

Yes, but in my case, it's not just TOSLINK that suffers the problem - it also affects AES and SPDIF!