ISO REGEN Listening Impressions (kicked off with some measurements)

[DSK6]

I've skimmed most of the pages in this thread and can see that a few people have inserted the ISO/LPS-1.2 between PC or streamer and the SU1, then run I2S to their DAC.

 

Has anyone compared this to removing the SU1 from the path and running the ISO directly into the DAC via USB?

 

I'm running Aries femto (SBooster LPS) > Curious USB > Intona Industrial > Curious USB > Matrix SPDIF 2 (LPS-1) > I2S > Holo Spring 2 DAC > Kinki EX-M1 amp > Silverline Sonata III speakers & Rythmik sub. 

 

I could order the ISO without the LPS-1.2 and use the LPS-1 from my Matrix SPDIF 2 if I drop the Matrix and I2S cable from the path and use the ISO and USBPCB directly into the DAC. 

 

Is the benefit of the ISO/USBPCB direct into the DAC likely to be greater than any loss from not using I2S?

 

[DSK6]

5 hours ago, jcn3 said:

 

in your chain, the iso is really more like the intona than the matrix.  have you run the same experiment with your intona?

Thanks jcn3. I figured that but was concerned that I could lose some of the "ISO greatness" by having it connected to the Matrix DDC instead of the Spring DAC.

 

So I wondered whether anyone has compared their ISO with and without their SU1 DDC? If there is little or no sonic difference it would save me having to buy another LPS-1.2 and eliminate one box from the chain.

 

You raise a good point … I haven't re-tested the Intona since changing from separates to the integrated Kinki amp recently (it only has about 30 hours on it so far). 

[DSK6]

16 hours ago, jcn3 said:

 

btw -- do you have the level 2 spring dac (original version) or the new 2nd version of the spring dac?  if you have the new version, supposedly the usb input is much, much better than the previous version. (i haven't heard either)

 

It's the L2 original version.

   

On one of the audio forums a couple of techs in the audio industry checked out the USB input design on the original Spring and felt it was quite decent and comparable with other high end streamers. Although I’ve seen a lot of references to the Spring’s USB input being “poor”, hardly any provide first hand evidence of the writer having done A/B testing themselves. I think many of these people have simply repeated what they read on an audio forum somewhere until it became an accepted fact.

   

I must admit that I didn't do exhaustive A/B comparisons myself, mostly because I am "forced" by the CFO to use a regular cabinet to house my components (not a hifi friendly cabinet) and it has a fixed back and sides that makes swapping equipment and reconnecting cables a real pain. Maybe a streamer with I2S output using an I2S cable directly to I2S input of Spring is better than the USB setup or even the USB/I2S hybrid setup and people inferred from this that the USB input on the Spring is no good.

   

Several people have said that the AES/EBU from Aries to Spring DAC is better than using the USB with Intona. I’ve been listening with a decent AES/EBU cable for the last few weeks and I need to swap back to confirm for sure (especially as the new amp is still burning in) but so far I’m not convinced AES is better. Although the bass seems a little fuller (again it could be the amp burning in) there’s also a slight but annoying emphasis in the upper mids that I didn’t hear with the USB/I2S hybrid setup.

    

Apparently the version 2 Spring uses the new XU216 USB whereas the original Spring uses the XU208. I haven’t searched exhaustively but have yet to find any carefully controlled comparisons that show the XU216 to sound consistently better than the XU208. If the new Spring does sound better, how much better is it and what other changes are there in the version 2 Spring that may actually be the cause of the difference?

   

Based purely on what I’ve read in this thread, it seems a safe bet that replacing the Intona with the ISO/LPS-1 would provide a fuller, more natural presentation with slightly fuller bass. But to test this I would need to buy another LPS-1.2, or borrow the one currently powering the Matrix DDC. This in turn would mean dropping the Matrix out of the chain altogether or allowing it to draw power from its 5v USB input (which it does when no external LPS is connected). Either way, it is no longer a purely A/B comparison.

   

I think I’ll order the ISO without the LPS-1.2 initially and see what impact it has when powered by the SMPS and replacing the Intona. If performance is the same or better with the ISO/smps then I’ll move my LPS-1 from the Matrix to the ISO and re-test. If performance is the same or better then I’ll try removing the Matrix as well and re-test. If performance is the same or better then I’ll leave the system like that (i.e. no Intona, no Matrix, no I2S cable, one less Curious USB cable).

   

If I ever got the chance to borrow another LPS-1 I could try re-inserting the Matrix with an LPS-1 to see whether it enhances performance further or not. Hearing is knowing for sure but I would anticipate that the more complex path of Aries > Curious USB > ISO/LPS-1 > USPCB > Matrix/LPS-1 > I2S > DAC is unlikely to sound better than the simpler path of Aries > Curious USB > ISO/LPS-1 > USPCB > DAC … and I do like the idea of less cables and boxes and having the ISO/LPS-1 plugged directly into the DAC via the USPCB, rather than having a DDC and I2S cable between them to possibly undo some of the benefit of the ISO.

   

Sorry for the longer than intended response. 🙂