Would forum members chip in $$ for a USB analyzer

[plissken]

Instead of guessing the S.I. (signal integrity) of your computer is buggered, would people here want to chip in on a USB analyzer to see if their USB output is even compromised?

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What would be a good one to get?

 

Teledyne-LeCroy and they make a few models.

[plissken]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I guess it depends on what you are looking to test. What general test equipment do you have?

 

 

Since Alex posited via the images he posted, and so many here are backing him, ergo it stands to reason that we would be concerned with Eye Pattern tests.

[plissken]

24 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Heck, let's just grant that the eye pattern test is "improved". So what? How does that actually, measurably, help the DAC?

 

I don't care because, as the title of the thread suggests, we are testing the native eye pattern of someones computer. If it's clean like in the Tekronix image I posted then there is no need for a regen type device in the confines of S.I. of the Eye Pattern.

[plissken]

10 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 You bought the wrong product? Why not spend the money wisely on something else?

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

1: Thanks

2: Enjoy arguing with a sub group here about 'wrong product' and 'wisely on something else?' (I.E. correctly designed product)

 

Because when you call a manufacturer like I did with Chord, and they state they don't need a regeneration device, all I hear here is: WTF does Chord know about USB. They make DACs.

[plissken]

To do S.I. Eye measurements we are talking about ~$800 for a scope, probes, and break out board. *never mind :)*

 

EEVBlog #340

 

 

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

That doesn't sound right. Such products cost in excess of $10k. What device are you looking at?

 

You're correct. Just looking for a way to just get clear data.

 

I'm assuming that a protocol analyzer isn't going to do anything for anyone.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Ethernet using what protocol? Unless you're using a dedicated link, you need to deal with address assignment, device discovery, etc before you can even think about sending audio data. But you obviously know all that.

Vendors can solve that by just not being typical developers in that regard:

 

1. Statically assign a default IP Address. Sonic Wall and others do this with their firewalls. Use something like 172.16.100.254/24

 

2. Have a simple web server for management of the IP stack built in. If you can get this in a $100 Printer/Copier/Fax you can get this in a $500/$1000/$5000 DAC.

 

Post a 5 minute video on how to configure your computer.

 

I have to take Auralic to task for a hands down stupid implementation.

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Well, it is pretty much just PCIexpress on a cable. Companies like RME, Lynx and many others have been making sound cards that perform better than many audiophile DACs and sit inside the computer connecting to the PCIe...

 

Focusrite, Universal Audio and many others already have Thunderbolt interfaces for studios. It allows low latency and huge number of channels at the same time.

 

Of course audiophiles can keep worrying about the noise and all that, while not knowing that the music they've been listening to has been recorded using Thunderbolt connected ADC...

 

 

And no magical regen boondongles.