I2S compatibility issue between W4S dac2 & Singxer SU-1, two beatiful pieces of hi-end products

[Ienag]

[enser]

Yeah, it would be best to keep the questions in the topic I created. I'm just trying to be helpful and answer ones asked here due to the overlap. I don't own a SU-1 and have no affiliations with any of these vendors.

However, as a counterpoint, this is a problem solving thread so I see root cause analysis benefit with triangulation of related products.

 

9 minutes ago, Ienag said:

I'd suggest to remain focused on the original topic please.

 

If you want to speak about alternative equipment you could open a dedicated topic . It is more clear for everyone and also right

 

SU-1 is a very goog equipmemt and I'm quite confident Singxer will deliver a dedicated firmware to match W4S I2S particular configuration.

You should have only patience .

 

[Franatic]

W4S, is there any progress with the i2s issues with the DAC2 & SU-1??

 

[Franatic]

W4S still has not disclosed their i2s DSD pin assignment. I am in contact with Leter and it has not been disclosed to him either. How is W4S working closely with Singxer when they are not communicating this necessary information??

W4S behavior through this i2s troubleshooting process has been very (______).........someone fill in that blank for me. It makes me wonder what is really going on here.

 

So to sum up:

1) There is no easy long term solution to the PCM noise issue solved by the capacitor. Customers are going to need to solder a ridiculously small capacitor to their SU-1 or DAC2, or have it done for them. Since the issue does not occur in any DAC other than the W4S DAC2, it points to them mostly. The problem is intermittent in the W4S DACs, which points to them even more. It could be a layout/noise issue.

2) No DSD pin assignment has been published by W4S. So Leter is going to have to do firmware based upon Lenag's and my feedback of our DSD playback.

I will go back to the W4S statement when they admitted that the i2s protocol for W4S, displayed on their own website, was wrong:

************************************************

Regarding I2S, we were/are very close with PS Audio who was the first company to use this type of signal transmission, and we were one of the first to adopt this technology as our own. We'll get the unfortunate out of the way — admittedly, there is a third-party spreadsheet of pin configurations for ours and other devices that we thought was accurate, but in closer inspection, we realized it was not. We’ve taken this chart down from our website and we apologize for not recognizing the discrepancy and for any inconvenience caused. However, we think it’s important to understand in the context of this discussion and in general— there is no ‘standardized’ implementation of I2S, nor was DSD even on anyone’s radar (not to mention even supported on our DACs) back 10 years ago when we first introduced I2S on our products. Our version has been the same ever since, and open for any company who wishes to implement their I2S device with ours to ensure things function as intended. All of our products that use I2S our compatible with each other, which was our sole intent with this connection path. 

**********************************************

We realize there is no standard, but you still have to accurately map what you do. We are still waiting for W4S to disclose their DSD pin-outs. Or are they now maintaining they do not support DSD over i2s, or support any device other than theirs using i2s. There are so many conflictions here in their statement. Publishing their i2s DSD protocol is necessary for new firmware from Singxer.

I refer to minoriske's post 3 weeks ago, which W4S never commented on:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31500-i2s-compatibility-issue-between-w4s-dac2-singxer-su-1-two-beatiful-pieces-of-hi-end-products/?do=findComment&comment=657972

Jojeong's response just below it validates Minorisuke's statements. Further on in this thread W4S was asked again about DSD with no comment. Why will W4S not comment on DSD pin-assignment at all??

 

It seems the DAC2 DSDse that Leter purchased is behaving somewhat differently than mine. W4S is clearly going to have to work with Singxer with much more openness and cooperation if the issues are going to be resolved.

 

I am sure I can work with Leter and get my i2s DSD problem solved, but I'm hoping for much broader solutions for these issues. Only a combined effort from W4S and Singxer can accomplish this. I can tell you that solving the issues is worth the trouble because this combo sounds fantastic together.

[MINORISUKE]

I happened to communicate with Leter today as well.  He told me he was going to make a special version of firmware and to let the W4S DAC owner(s) test it.  Now I understand that all that Leter can do is just to "guess" the pin assignment of W4S.

FYI, these are four I2S/DSD patterns from Singxer's Taobao site.  It is hard to understand why W4S is reluctant (or unable) to disclose their pin assignment.  The only possible reason would be that such a disclosure might bring some negative impact on W4S.

[enser]

On 5/1/2017 at 9:00 PM, jojeong8338 said:

I have just tested PIN1 and PIN3 as mentioned.

 

Audirvana 3.0.3 --- Singxer SU-1 --- DIY HDMI cable --- W4S DSDv2se

 

I made DIY HDMI cable : crossed PIN1 and PIN3.

 

The test result:

1. DSD64 file : Play OK, Phase OK

2. FLAC(16-44.1k, 24-44.1k, 24-96k, 24-192k) PCM : Play OK, Phase OK

3. FLAC(16-44.1k, 24-44.1k, 24-96k, 24-192k) Upsampling to DSD128 : Play OK, Phase OK.

 

Before interchanging PIN1 and PIN3,

- PCM play OK, and Phase OK

- DSD play OK and Phase NOK

 

W4S and Singxer, thanks for your more investigation and solution in advance,

Juno

 

I live down the street from Blue Jeans Cable. I am going to ask them to make an HDMI cable with this configuration. They have a very nice shop/cable making setup and should be able to make a good, tight tolerance HDMI crossover. Will update when I hear back....

[vortecjr]

I made this database of i2s pin assignments back when we use to make the Signature Series Rendu:

http://www.i2s.sonore.us

[MINORISUKE]

26 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

I made this database of i2s pin assignments back when we use to make the Signature Series Rendu:

http://www.i2s.sonore.us

I wonder how its accuracy was checked.  At least W4S said this was incorrect.

Holo Spring seems to be incorrect, too, compared with Leter's figure.

[vortecjr]

I don't know who Leter is, but he seems to be a third party. It's best for each manufacturer to report any inconsistencies. I can tell you though most manufacturers are not willing to discuss the data.   

[MINORISUKE]

9 hours ago, vortecjr said:

I don't know who Leter is, but he seems to be a third party. It's best for each manufacturer to report any inconsistencies. I can tell you though most manufacturers are not willing to discuss the data.   

May I ask just from my curiosity how you have got W4S pin assignment for your list?  W4S has been referring your data as their "official" pin assignment on their home page, which I have never seen by other manufacturers and W4S has deleted as described in this thread.  Normally, the assignment is disclosed by the manufacturer in its official site and manual, then referred by other persons like you.

If there had been no pin assignment of W4S in your list, the issue currently discussed in this thread could not have occurred, for nobody would have tried to connect SU-1 with W4S DAC with an "unknown" pin assignment.

[Franatic]

4 hours ago, MINORISUKE said:

May I ask just from my curiosity how you have got W4S pin assignment for your list?  W4S has been referring your data as their "official" pin assignment on their home page, which I have never seen by other manufacturers and W4S has deleted as described in this thread.  Normally, the assignment is disclosed by the manufacturer in its official site and manual, then referred by other persons like you.

If there had been no pin assignment of W4S in your list, the issue currently discussed in this thread could not have occurred, for nobody would have tried to connect SU-1 with W4S DAC with an "unknown" pin assignment.

+1 on that! I am curious how this "3rd party" W4S i2s map evolved and why W4S never developed their own.........and apparently accepted this without checking its accuracy.

[vortecjr]

13 hours ago, MINORISUKE said:

May I ask just from my curiosity how you have got W4S pin assignment for your list?  W4S has been referring your data as their "official" pin assignment on their home page, which I have never seen by other manufacturers and W4S has deleted as described in this thread.  Normally, the assignment is disclosed by the manufacturer in its official site and manual, then referred by other persons like you.

If there had been no pin assignment of W4S in your list, the issue currently discussed in this thread could not have occurred, for nobody would have tried to connect SU-1 with W4S DAC with an "unknown" pin assignment.

I don't remember. There is bunch of data on that sheet going back many years. What is normal is relative. Maybe they found it helpful to refer to it.  

 

Come on...if there were no pin assignment on W4S you would still have tried it. The SU-1 is not noted as the PS Audio spec so you might expect some issues.

 

Why is the SU-1 sending 5V via pin 18?      

[vortecjr]

9 hours ago, Franatic said:

+1 on that! I am curious how this "3rd party" W4S i2s map evolved and why W4S never developed their own.........and apparently accepted this without checking its accuracy.

W4S is going to defend the position that their products work well within their eco system. If you connect some other manufacturers product to theirs anything can and will happen. IMO the source manufacturer needs to verify what products their unit works well with. When I use to make the Signature Series Rendu we tested each DAC that we wanted to support and made notes on our product page:

http://www.rendu.sonore.us/signature-series-rendu.html   

[vortecjr]

On 4/16/2017 at 6:24 AM, MINORISUKE said:

There is already a technical solution.

As I posted in the other thtead, Leter of Singxer has already finshed a firmware patch, but will not release it until W4S contacts him and makes it clear that nothing is wrong with SU-1.

As the world's first evaluator of SU-1 prototype, I have been in close touch with him.  He informed me of the W4S issue yesterday, and I advised him to take a proper action to keep the brand value of Singxer.

Please send Leter my email ([email protected]) and ask him to contact me.

[Franatic]

All the issues we are having here with i2s scream out for the only solution that would really work:

An industry standard for i2s.

 

AES has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES3

SPDIF has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF

and USB certainly has an industry standard.

 

But poor i2s has no established standards, at least not for transmission between devices. Companies do all kinds of things with it. Even the type of cable varies: HDMI, RJ45, Cat 5 or 6, and various other DIY types. It is a shame that PS Audio didn't push harder for standardization in the beginning of their i2s development. Now you wonder if it is too late to reel it all in to one format. 

 

Presently i2s is finding a surge in popularity with its ability to handle high frequency audio. I have tried all the formats and believe i2s also has the capability of the best sound quality, when properly implemented.

 

Vortecjr, thank you for contributing here. You have much experience tracking this muddle. Is there any hope of standardization?

[vortecjr]

5 minutes ago, Franatic said:

All the issues we are having here with i2s scream out for the only solution that would really work:

An industry standard for i2s.

 

AES has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES3

SPDIF has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF

and USB certainly has an industry standard.

 

But poor i2s has no established standards, at least not for transmission between devices. Companies do all kinds of things with it. Even the type of cable varies: HDMI, RJ45, Cat 5 or 6, and various other DIY types. It is a shame that PS Audio didn't push harder for standardization in the beginning of their i2s development. Now you wonder if it is too late to reel it all in to one format. 

 

Presently i2s is finding a surge in popularity with its ability to handle high frequency audio. I have tried all the formats and believe i2s also has the capability of the best sound quality, when properly implemented.

 

Vortecjr, thank you for contributing here. You have much experience tracking this muddle. Is there any hope of standardization?

I'm afraid the answer is no. It's a real mess and has only become more so since I started the DB. I don't understand why companies making LVDS i2s cable devices just don't support the PS Audio standard. I can tell the ones that don't almost all came after PS Audio so they did not support it on purpose.  

[Franatic]

Yes, it is a mess......as you can see by what is happening here. 

 

Of course, if you are going to follow the PS Audio Standard, it would be helpful if you actually followed it. 

[MINORISUKE]

On 05/21/2017 at 10:49 PM, vortecjr said:

I don't remember. There is bunch of data on that sheet going back many years. What is normal is relative. Maybe they found it helpful to refer to it.  

 

Come on...if there were no pin assignment on W4S you would still have tried it. The SU-1 is not noted as the PS Audio spec so you might expect some issues.

 

Why is the SU-1 sending 5V via pin 18?      

Thank you for your comment.  My curiosity has been fulfilled.

Now I understand the data management policy of your company and how your I2S list was created.

Ask Leter about 5V.  His address is on Singxer site.  I know the reason but should not tell, as I do not represent Singxer.

[jojeong8338]

Do you know when Leter and Singxer release new FW for testing?

[vortecjr]

On 5/22/2017 at 11:25 PM, MINORISUKE said:

Thank you for your comment.  My curiosity has been fulfilled.

Now I understand the data management policy of your company and how your I2S list was created.

Ask Leter about 5V.  His address is on Singxer site.  I know the reason but should not tell, as I do not represent Singxer.

Well...I would not recommend sending 5V out on pin 18. 

[MINORISUKE]

3 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Well...I would not recommend sending 5V out on pin 18. 

Can you disclose the reason?

How about this "correct" pin assignment given by W4S?

I see 5V on No.18.

[vortecjr]

17 hours ago, MINORISUKE said:

Can you disclose the reason?

How about this "correct" pin assignment given by W4S?

I see 5V on No.18.

That looks okay. However, it's misleading because it doesn't say if it's for the a source or a DAC? This is why it's best not to include the 5V. I added it along with a note on my database.    

[MINORISUKE]

3 hours ago, vortecjr said:

That looks okay. However, it's misleading because it doesn't say if it's for the a source or a DAC? This is why it's best not to include the 5V. I added it along with a note on my database.    

This was issued by W4S as their DAC pin assignment, as you can see in their post here.  Those who are watching this thread are all unsatisfied W4S DAC owners except you, me and W4S.  It is recommended to read all the previous posts here before you write anything to respect other readers.

You had better let W4S instead of Singxer contact you, at least to inform W4S of their misleading information.

[Wyred 4 Sound]

11 hours ago, MINORISUKE said:

You had better let W4S instead of Singxer contact you, at least to inform W4S of their misleading information.

We spoke with JR yesterday and his pin configuration chart should be updated and correct. What "misleading information" are you referring to? We posted the correct pin configuration early on in this thread, it has not changed.

[vortecjr]

12 hours ago, MINORISUKE said:

This was issued by W4S as their DAC pin assignment, as you can see in their post here.  Those who are watching this thread are all unsatisfied W4S DAC owners except you, me and W4S.  It is recommended to read all the previous posts here before you write anything to respect other readers.

You had better let W4S instead of Singxer contact you, at least to inform W4S of their misleading information.

I know, but I was working on something else with him yesterday and we discussed it as a side bar conversation anyway. Those unsatisfied customers need to take a chill pill. W4S is making an i2s source and i2s receiver and it's their prerogative to only worry about their ECO system. What I see here is that they are trying to work with everyone to resolve this. IMO If a third party company (mine or another one) is going to interface with their ECO system then they need to verify things and make the necessary adjustment on their end. My contacting Singxer has nothing to do with this issue.