Cleaning up USB signal for DAC

[bogi]

You find out where I'm making that argument in this thread and you are a daisy if you do. Your bias is clouding your reading comprehension

Your bias is related to overestimating blind tests and underestimating ability of people to find sonic differences.

 

I will not further participate on this type of discussion with you.

[plissken]

Your bias is related to overestimating blind tests and underestimating ability of people to find sonic differences.

 

I will not further participate on this type of discussion with you.

 

That you don't get the irony, while you think you been having a discussion with me, is that you really haven't.

 

I have no issue people finding sonic differences. The don't even need to know what component is or isn't in the chain. I think everyone that reports a sound difference indeed 100% hears one and that's why I surprised that every time you want to control the sighted bias their is a quick backing off.

 

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, I tell you.

[plissken]

Not convincing. When you find ANY manufacturer that will tell you their USB input "needs help", let us know. Basically, they will pretty much all tell you they've done a good job with the USB input. Even if they have no particular understanding of it or put any special thought into it.

Exactly the reason why these USB devices exist and help in many cases.

 

You do realize that you just made a declaration that all USB based DAC's are:

 

1. Compromised DAC's

 

2. Designed by incompetents

 

When you find a DAC that these 'regen' designers say "doesn't need help", let us know.

 

Keep chasing your circular logic. You'll eventually figure out that you keep seeing the same forest but no trees after a while.

 

Glad I have AES/EBU so I can go feed a Berkley and leave USB all together behind.

[Jud]

Using the same logic, you can't trust the claims of the USB filtering manufacturers either.

 

So don't. Really, I'm absolutely sincere about that. Don't buy any equipment unless you can confirm to your satisfaction it really performs as you wish.

 

I don't own any hardware or software unless I am convinced, through such evaluation as I'm able to perform, that it aids in providing an accurate representation of the recording. Since I don't own an electronics lab and don't have a way of conveniently setting up blinded listening tests that would satisfy my criteria for effective testing, I freely admit much or all of this evaluation is fallible. On the other hand, I spend money on cars and homes based in part on fallible subjective criteria also, so this isn't terribly different than the way I make decisions in other areas.

 

 

If you like to make decisions in a different way, by all means do so. I hope no one here is in the business of trying to persuade anyone to buy anything he or she doesn't really want.

[Jud]

You do realize that you just made a declaration that all USB based DAC's are:

 

1. Compromised DAC's

 

2. Designed by incompetents

 

When you find a DAC that these 'regen' designers say "doesn't need help", let us know.

 

Keep chasing your circular logic. You'll eventually figure out that you keep seeing the same forest but no trees after a while.

 

Glad I have AES/EBU so I can go feed a Berkley and leave USB all together behind.

 

And Ethernet/wireless, don't forget them!

 

You know of course firedog didn't say what you said he did. My understanding of what he meant is that you shouldn't simply trust the manufacturer. I think that's good advice for all audio equipment, all audio software, and anything anywhere made by another person (with the possible exception of something your kids or wife did).

[plissken]

And Ethernet/wireless, don't forget them!

 

You know of course firedog didn't say what you said he did. My understanding of what he meant is that you shouldn't simply trust the manufacturer. I think that's good advice for all audio equipment, all audio software, and anything anywhere made by another person (with the possible exception of something your kids or wife did).

 

I understood what he said.

 

1. I can't trust the DAC designer

 

2. I can trust the regen designers

 

3. I can trust sighted evaluations

 

4. I can't trust, on ones that have been benched, by EE's with direct experience in the field where results were either null or even detrimental. And on the detrimental it was figured out WHY.

 

5. I can't trust Benchmark showing a DAC with a horrendous 100' cable extracting 100% of the data with fidelity

 

6. I can't trust Schiit

 

7. I can't trust Emotiva

 

8. I can't trust Chord

 

If FD meant to say what you understand you think he meant to say. Then he would have most likely said it.

[plissken]

Using the same logic, you can't trust the claims of the USB filtering manufacturers either.

 

You and I are using "Alternative Logics" :-)

[Speed Racer]

plissken, please stop ruining this thread.

[bogi]

plissken, please stop ruining this thread.

 

 

+1

 

plissken is the only person on my ignore list.

[plissken]

plissken, please stop ruining this thread.

 

We are talking about cleaning up the USB signal. I'm commenting on DAC's that already do this directly integrated into the DAC.

 

This provides a list for people to consider if they want to purchase a poorly designed DAC that needs 3rd party enhancements or if they want to purchase a DAC that is properly designed from the get go.

 

I'm on point with my posts. Why would I stop participating in this thread other than my POV doesn't stick it's nose up the butt of your POV?

 

It's funny a thing: I don't feel threatened by other view points. If they have merit they'll stand, if my points don't have merit, they will fall.

[Speed Racer]

We are talking about cleaning up the USB signal. I'm commenting on DAC's that already do this directly integrated into the DAC.

 

This provides a list for people to consider if they want to purchase a poorly designed DAC that needs 3rd party enhancements or if they want to purchase a DAC that is properly designed from the get go.

 

I'm on point with my posts. Why would I stop participating in this thread other than my POV doesn't stick it's nose up the butt of your POV?

 

It's funny a thing: I don't feel threatened by other view points. If they have merit they'll stand, if my points don't have merit, they will fall.

 

You ruining this thread has nothing to do with the point of views you are expressing. It has everything to do with how you are presenting your point of views. The fact that you can't see that is a major part of the problem.

[plissken]

You ruining this thread has nothing to do with the point of views you are expressing. It has everything to do with how you are presenting your point of views. The fact that you can't see that is a major part of the problem.

 

I think you may have the cart before the horse. I and another answered the logical fallacy presented that:

 

You can't trust DAC manufacturers because they all tell you their USB sections are properly implemented. Ergo you can trust the USB hub manufacturers.

 

Benchmark, Chord, Emotiva, Schiit are all DAC's I would recommend looking at since their designers will tell you that they have USB sections that are up to the task without need for additional addons. Yes Schiit does have their Wyrd and if you read their marketing speak they attest to exactly what it's intended to do.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Speed Racer]

You missed my point, again......

[plissken]

You missed my point, again......

 

Rewrite a portion of one of my posts as to the way I should be attempting a point to be made.

[Speed Racer]

You need figure that out. I am done with you on this topic.

[plissken]

You need figure that out. I am done with you on this topic.

 

Bottom line is a totally absurd claim was made. That you can't figure it out doesn't mean I need to figure it out. Let's just put each other on ignore.

[Speed Racer]

My Yggdrasil has just passed the 100 hour mark on its burn in. The Singxer F-1 and the SPDIF coax cable are about an hour behind. I am going to give the Yggdrasil 300 hours before I start doing any critical listening or testing.

 

My plan is to test both the USB and SPDIF coax ports to see what sound differences, if any, I perceive. Mike Moffatt, the DAC's designer, has said the SPDIF input is better than the USB input and that the AES/EBU input is the best choice. I don't have a way to test the AES/EBU input.

 

I will test the USB input using a single USB cable from my MacBook Pro to the DAC and compare that to using that same USB cable connecting the MAcBook Pro to the Singxer F-1 connected to the DAC via a 1.5 meter SPDIF coax cable. I will also test this setup using the new ISO Regen when it becomes available.

 

It should be interesting.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Benchmark, Chord, Emotiva, Schiit are all DAC's I would recommend looking at since their designers will tell you that they have USB sections that are up to the task without need for additional addons.

I can't think of a single DAC manufacturer who says anything different. Thus, I'm not sure what it actually says.

[ElviaCaprice]

Thanks! Also got confirmation that cleaning USB power for Hugo2 won't have impact on SQ so based on these all is left is galvanic isolation, which Intona should perform well.

 

Mike, Chord said the same thing about Hugo 1, the 5Vbus flashing, no impact. Sorry, but there is an impact from my own testing. Rob said the same thing about power supply for 2Qute, no impact from there original switching power supply, meanwhile most users found an impact, including Ted here on the forum.

What I am saying is that what the manufacturer says I take with a grain of salt. Actual user experience, most important your own, are far better measures.

Overall, I think the Hugo 2 will be a great DAC but here are my complaints on it's design.

1. The need for 5Vbus on the USB input for flashing is more than likely a source of SQ degradation. Why even have it if not needed for galvanic isolation? For saving on battery life? Not for desktop of course.

2. The implementation of LIPO batteries as the power supply and inability to bypass has it's downfalls. I find it to be second fiddle to a great PSU for SQ. Replacement of those batteries once they fail, around 3 years or less of continuous use, will be an expensive fix if Chord requires you to do so by them the manufacturer.

3. Why overpay for features you don't need? You want a desktop DAC that inputs via USB. Do you need to be paying for other digital inputs? Do you need battery power?

 

4. Why pay for a DAC that tries to do everything but only falls short in PSU implementation, USB implementation. Better to find a DAC that doesn't try to make the DAC user impenetrable, but instead user friendly to outside design implementation.

 

After buying an Ifi Nano DSD LE dac for backup. It's simplicity of design and ability to provide great sound has opened up my eyes on DAC's. It may not have the exact detail or stage size of a Hugo, but at 1/20th the cost it rivals in musicality the Chord Hugo. Has me on pause of purchasing a new Chord DAC of their current line up. I would love to get another Chord DAC but I want it on my terms of features and thus pricing. Doesn't exist yet. 2Qute is probably the closest.

[plissken]

I can't think of a single DAC manufacturer who says anything different. Thus, I'm not sure what it actually says.

 

Have you found a USB reclocker manufacture that points to a DAC that can't be improved upon? Thus, I'm not sure what it actually says.

 

I wonder if we apply one to Berkeley's USB<>AES/EBU bridge if their DAC will improve.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Have you found a USB reclocker manufacture that points to a DAC that can't be improved upon? Thus, I'm not sure what it actually says.

 

Never. I take it all with a healthy grain of salt. Trying a device in one's system is the only way to know if it makes a difference good / bad.

[plissken]

Never. I take it all with a healthy grain of salt. Trying a device in one's system is the only way to know if it makes a difference good / bad.

 

What is a definitive combination of source, DAC, reclocker that is just hands down going to show a difference on a resolving system?

[ElviaCaprice]

What is a definitive combination of source, DAC, reclocker that is just hands down going to show a difference on a resolving system?

 

Why of course my system design/implementation. Don't you know by now, everyone on this forum has the definitive combination.

[JoeWhip]

My Yggdrasil has just passed the 100 hour mark on its burn in. The Singxer F-1 and the SPDIF coax cable are about an hour behind. I am going to give the Yggdrasil 300 hours before I start doing any critical listening or testing.

 

My plan is to test both the USB and SPDIF coax ports to see what sound differences, if any, I perceive. Mike Moffatt, the DAC's designer, has said the SPDIF input is better than the USB input and that the AES/EBU input is the best choice. I don't have a way to test the AES/EBU input.

 

I will test the USB input using a single USB cable from my MacBook Pro to the DAC and compare that to using that same USB cable connecting the MAcBook Pro to the Singxer F-1 connected to the DAC via a 1.5 meter SPDIF coax cable. I will also test this setup using the new ISO Regen when it becomes available.

 

It should be interesting.

I replaced my Gumby with the Yggy last week. I use USB only and the USB card in the Yggy gives superb performance without the need to clean up the USB. Much better than with the Gumby. The sound of my room with the Yggy is superb. Detail galore and not even a hint of hardness. No dropouts either. If the spdif or aes sounds better than this all I can say is wow. I have used the coax input using a CD player transport and find the same cd ripped onto my hard drive sounds better. Using a Mac book air with Audirvana.the hard drive is connected via thunderbolt.

[plissken]

Why of course my system design/implementation. Don't you know by now, everyone on this forum has the definitive combination.

 

So you have the Intona and the Regen both inline?