USB audio cracked... finally!

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, matthias said:

The original Lush is unshielded?

 

Hi Matt,

 

Haha, of course the original Lush is shielded and it connects it through from connector housing to connector housing (which would be the official thing). So it is a bit of the other way around; the Lush^2 (although bearing 3 screens) allows for the shields to not be connected through to the connector houding. One side or both sides. And the cable just keeps on working error free in all circumstances that I know of (I mean, error free as in measured). Or heard of from others, for that matter.

 

Regards,

Peter

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Was important point for my curiosity since JSSS-360 not connect shields at endpoints

 

Assumed you refer to the Lush JSSG tweaks ... the inner shield (the original one) connects to the connectors. Always. This thus contrary to the Lush^2 where it can be omitted.

I don't recall that I officially registered a config without shields connected (either side). But I am sure I tried (or maybe I just tried whether it worked error-free ? - I forgot). Anyway, I did not register one, so it wasn't any (real) good (but still, that already would give countless possibilities / permutations).

 

 

[PeterSt]

Try assembly (Assembler). 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Ah, Ok, so "^" mean "power of". Not get that before. Maybe not agree

 

Of course not. Because the power of 1 = 1.

Anyway, it was meant to come across as "squared" (but as in: ultimately more than Lush^1).

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

When Peter indicated that the two software settings being compared have an effect on buffering of samples (i.e., timing)

 

Huh ?

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

possible timing errors.

 

HUH ?

[PeterSt]

Paul, I know what the software does. But it has zero to do with your idea of the buffering (that's a bunch of other settings). This is only related to system activity. Count the settings related to that on 3 pair of hands or so. The SFS is just one of them.

 

So it is about the spiky current draw (well all buffers in the end are, but this is a heavy user because disk and/or network is involved).

 

Btw, I was HUH-ing Mani a little for fun with a serious under tone. Please continue (with your software ).

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

P.S.

 Is there any way to get rid of an additional and unwanted Quote section ?

 

Ctrl-z is the only thing I am aware of.

But it doesn't work on Frank's quotes, and yours for that matter. 

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

Is there any way to get rid of an additional and unwanted Quote section ?

 

The more difficult solution (but some times unavoidable because Ctrl-z only backs out last in first out:

 

Take care that at least 3 empty lines are under the quote (insert 3 lines if necessary);

Drag the quote by means of that "+" thing *one* line downwards;

Select with your mouse from the line under the quote u/i to the line above the quote;

Press delete (or backspace).

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, marce said:

If I was doing a digital interface

 

And if I was doing a digital interface I'd be doing the same, or, did what I did at first with our DAC (PCIe based).

Small problem: no PC or Laptop would understand inherently. And we have to bear in mind the out of the box usefulness. But some time soon ...

[PeterSt]

PS: I only now realize that this responds to the Schiit thing. But similar response although more emphasized from an other angle: 

 

That would be a crazy thing to do (what they propose) because it would not be compatible with anything. HENCE -no-Sch*t- Marce's better proposal.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Superdad said:

And then there are the drivers.

 

I have the (Windows) drivers over here. You don't want to go there ...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

what are you trying to say?

 

I am not 4est, but we could start with you not understanding what SandyK provokes. And that is quite basic ...

 

i2s, good idea, but ...

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

but I do not see you adding any of that as value here

 

Yea, now what. But you can't force the man.

 

OK, it is old years day. What happened to the mood of some people ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

i2s, good idea, but ...

 

7 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

For £30 odd you get a full computer complete with peripherals, memory, HDMI, ethernet etc and I2S so that kinda proves that it's not a difficult task to support I2S.

 

At what speed was that, you say ?

[PeterSt]

@pkane2001, it could be an idea to install XXHighEnd on some random Windows PC you have hanging around. It would allow you to compare on my guidance. I don't think this is about (the proof of) listening tests any more. How to capture (record) yourself the differences is a subject on its own, and probably fairly undoable (that was my premise to the red/blue pill experience and that didn't change). So key sub-project here is to rule out the recording anomalies. Right ? This requires easy change of settings of which I unconditionally know that they will make a difference to the output. With this practice under control (that leading to the better versions of DeltaWave), we will be up to the real task.

 

I will start thinking of what you just came up with, already knowing that all we perceive for differences will be about phase ("changes").

 

Having said this, might you have two PC's, one with a later Windows 10 and an other with Windows 8, you might be able to squeeze out differences even more easily, but now with the same XXHighEnd settings on both instances. N.b.: Windows 8.1 might be more logical to have, but is not suitable (has never been supported because too bad IME for audio). Windows 7 SP1 (not RTM) would also be a best contender (next to W10).

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

I do have a Windows 10 PC I use with my audio system, so can use that for testing.

 

Paul, please stick to that then. Anyway, I came to the idea because of my own "Phase" remark and the small year it took to get Windows 8 right on that once, where everybody (of the XXHighEnd community) had the same Phase problems with it (so me too). This was relative to its predecessor W7 and with W10 the general problem disappeared (or could not be noticed any more because of how XXHighEnd was set up by that time).

 

XXHighEnd within itself will do just the same, but might look less trustworthy because of (for you unknown) changed settings. A difference between two OSes with the same settings, could be more "speaking". But may also not be really worth while. All takes time as well.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

was better sounding than: I2S over LAN, USB, S/PDIF and AES/EBU.

 

... which all does not exist. 

[PeterSt]

Yup, it still does not exist.

Btw, it still does not exist.

[PeterSt]

 

1 minute ago, Summit said:

What doesn’t exist?

 

 

16 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I2S over LAN, USB, S/PDIF and AES/EBU.

 

That.

 

LAN = Local Area Network. In the end this is a protocol. No i2s goes over that.

USB is a protocol. No i2s goes over that.

S/PDIF is a protocol. No i2s goes over that.

AES/EBU is differential S/PDIF. No i2s goes over that.

 

Now, that wasn't hard, was it ? 

 

I can imagine that you confuse with an Ethernet cable (used for LAN connections) because such a cable can be used to transport i2s data.

 

I can imagine that you are again confused by HDMI cables which are also used to transport i2s data (you did not mention HDMI but showed a picture of it, I think).

 

I can not imagine how you confuse USB with this all, but you really would not be the first to ask for an i2s input to the DAC because people have a nice USB to I2S converter. Well, those people are confused for life. Haha.

 

And I can most certainly not imagine how you see i2s travel over S/PDIF.

 

All where i2s matters is where it is directly output like with the Pi boards or with hacked soundcards. Or with the Pink Faun card, for that matter. But all of those are for the worse, for one way or the other. Well, that is so until the contrary is somehow proven by listening. And I tell you right away: there will be no single way to compare e.g. USB vs direct i2s by measurement.

But small prediction: Marce will tell you he can. Just look at the eye diagram in the i2s data or look with some inexistent device at the output and observe jitter. But at second thought he won't do that because it is him who tells you that "outward" i2s will be too long for the application you have in mind.

So I better predict nothing for real.

 

[PeterSt]

23 hours ago, Summit said:

I have some experience with I2S, both as an I2S signal and as I2S over LVDS. With my former DAC the I2S over LVDS was better sounding than: I2S over LAN, USB, S/PDIF and AES/EBU. The point I like to make is that no matter which digital protocol you/we chose

 

Yes. And it makes no sense.

 

3 hours ago, Summit said:

It is not a HDMI protocol

 

HDMI protocol ?

 

All right. We are ready to learn from you how you see "i2s over USB". Here's a hint of what's possible:

i2s over UTP/STP/etc.;

i2s over LVDS;

i2s over HDMI;

i2s over flat band cable;

i2s over door bell wires;

i2s over PCB traces.

 

Btw, it is all not important. But I tripped over your "I2S over LVDS was better sounding than:" because what's behind the "than" would make no sound at all. In the end it is quite important to understand a bit how these things work, because, for example, i2s over LVDS should not only sound better because of better quality in general, but it mainly is about the longer distance LVDS allows for this inherently weak signal (which normally is highly subject to jitter because it is right in that domain of being receptive for that). And this compared to HDMI, which in itself is better again than e.g. STP which is better than UTP which clearly is better than door bell wire.

A protocol (like USB) is not related to this anywhere.