Jump to content
IGNORED

FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

For Ethernet, sure there are licensable cores for Xilinx and Altera--or as you say, just pick an ARM platform and go from there.  But the whole point of our (currently abandoned) project was to offer a low cost Ethernet solution for DAC designers which leveraged universal (i.e. built into most OSs) support of USB audio--allowing users to use whatever player s/w they want and not requiring any support (of Linux platform in their DAC) from the DAC maker. 

I still think it was a elegant and cost-effective solution (even allowed for multiple pairings and used MAC addresses instead of IP addresses for pairing), but if we restarted, dev time from now would likely have it arriving past the window of opportunity.

 

You can go direct to FPGA which has some advantage in that the SFP module can directly interface to the FPGA via LVDS. The SMGII/Ethernet modules (which for 1Gbe are bundled on Xilinx/Vivado) then implement the logic, saving the need for an external chip... the ARM side typically implements the TCP/IP stack (Linux) and receives the Ethernet data via DMA (and FIFO in case anyone is concerned with how the Ethernet clocked data gets into the ARM/FPGA clock domain). networkaudiod/NAA implements another FIFO before sending the data back out to the USB interface (if needed) or as I2S/DSD/SPI as the case may be.

 

21 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

So many ways to skin the cat...

But most all come back to software.  Right now, only Merging is beginning to offer multi-platform VSC--in support of its just launched Zman Ravenna module (sorry Dante folks, too many limitations in that direction).  Nothing particularly ideal for home audio about Ravenna/AES67, but "player freedom" and low inclusion and support cost may be positive factors.  We'll see.

 

The "Zman" module from Merging is so named for the Xilinx Zynq it contains, so basically without actually knowing how they do it, I have a good idea ;) 

 

My prediction is that whereas the most recent generation of DACs which have employed the Xilinx Spartan-6 FPGA, the next generation will employ the Xilinx Zynq. Its like even just that much more awesome :) 

 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, marce said:

I do think that this could be the only cause, as the previous paragraph shows we are in a bit of a dilemma, what I would look at though is more robust front ends on USB DACs, I do think that many would not pass a conducted immunity test from some of the boards I have seen.

 

There are only a small handful of popular USB interfaces and indeed.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
On 2017/9/19 at 12:52 PM, Superdad said:

P.S.  Surprised nobody mentioned the SDTrans384 microSD player.  That's a really minimalist source that some swear by.  Where is @Bunpei:)

 

Hi, Alex!

 

I appreciated your comment on SDTrans384.

Yes. Our SDTrans384 project has its origin in "Micro SD Card Transport" appeared in diyAudio Forum and it used to be a really "minimalist approach".

(The first and the second pictures.)

 

I am a system engineer who once developed software for an industrial measurement instrument with ADC/DAC devices. My initial idea was a DMA(Direct Memory Access) between a peripheral device and a memory.

Therefore, a DAC chip and a memory card consist minimum components.

 

However, the current status is shown in the third picture. At the end of several escalations, my player system, a combination of SDTrans384 (SD memory card transport) and ES9038PRO Dual Mono DAC board connected with LVDS/HDMI connector & cable, weighs more than 30 kg and located on two storied 60cm x 90cm wood boards. Approximately 95% of the total weight is of power supply circuits. Many selected components, such as NDK DuCULoN OCXO, CDE film capacitors, Evans Hybrid capacitors, Finemet-core transformers, Infineon SiC rectifiers and so on are used.

 

It is quite deviated from the initial "minimalist approach", actually.

I am satisfied with SQ of the system, though. I love a SD memory card player and have no plan to use a USB-based system so far.

70-i2s2.jpg

70-wm8741a.jpg

IMG_0799.JPG

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Bunpei said:

 

Hi, Alex!

 

I appreciated your comment on SDTrans384.

Yes. Our SDTrans384 project has its origin in "Micro SD Card Transport" appeared in diyAudio Forum and it used to be a really "minimalist approach".

(The first and the second pictures.)

 

I am a system engineer who once developed software for an industrial measurement instrument with ADC/DAC devices. My initial idea was a DMA(Direct Memory Access) between a peripheral device and a memory.

Therefore, a DAC chip and a memory card consist minimum components.

 

However, the current status is shown in the third picture. At the end of several escalations, my player system, a combination of SDTrans384 (SD memory card transport) and ES9038PRO Dual Mono DAC board connected with LVDS/HDMI connector & cable, weighs more than 30 kg and located on two storied 60cm x 90cm wood boards. Approximately 95% of the total weight is of power supply circuits. Many selected components, such as NDK DuCULoN OCXO, CDE film capacitors, Evans Hybrid capacitors, Finemet-core transformers, Infineon SiC rectifiers and so on are used.

 

It is quite deviated from the initial "minimalist approach", actually.

I am satisfied with SQ of the system, though. I love a SD memory card player and have no plan to use a USB-based system so far.

70-i2s2.jpg

70-wm8741a.jpg

IMG_0799.JPG

 

Please make the sdcard library so you can control song selection from a web browser and that it can play dsd.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, marce said:

Again, do some research on how quite internal PC sound cards can be.

And again USB DACs should be able to handle the noise, otherwise their design is flawed, the whole point is plugging a USB port in.

 

Agreed...seems DAC engineers are behind the curve...

DACS have been in existence for what, 20+ years, and one of the most well known (Schiit, Mr. Mike Moffat), just recently added circuitry to his line to address usb noise? And others have not yet followed suit?  That is why I call all these expensive cables and noise suppressors "TOYS". 

 

If you can transfer a bit perfect file out the usb port to an external hard drive, a million times, and always get 100% accuracy...why can't a DAC get the same perfect bits and deal with any noise...why do we have to wait until the year 2017 for these issues to be addressed, and why do people pay big $$$ for a usb cable when all they are trying to do is transfer a binary file.

 

 If there are really noise issues that can't be handled properly without buying a $200 cable, then usb should be forgotten as a method of delivery.   I can understand different cables for analog, but for crying out loud to get a binary file of 1's and 0's...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

^^^^  Here's a video comparing two of the best players, and reviewer says hands down the ethernet sounds better for both.  He didn't say "I think" or "marginal" or "possible" improvement, but he said "HANDS DOWN".

 

And that is my experience as well and has been for several years.  I thought maybe i just didn't have good ears, or maybe it was I had a noisy computer, or maybe it was just a poor dac (so i tried over a DOZEN, from $300 to $2000), and i still say DLNA sounds better, even using a cheap used bluray player sounds better than a "galvanically isolated usb dac".  Anyway, for all the nay-sayers, i don't care anymore...i am sticking to ENET moving forward....i have 3 usb dacs for sale cheap.

 

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

If you can transfer a bit perfect file out the usb port to an external hard drive, a million times, and always get 100% accuracy...why can't a DAC get the same perfect bits and deal with any noise...why do we have to wait until the year 2017 for these issues to be addressed, and why do people pay big $$$ for a usb cable when all they are trying to do is transfer a binary file.

 

 If there are really noise issues that can't be handled properly without buying a $200 cable, then usb should be forgotten as a method of delivery.   I can understand different cables for analog, but for crying out loud to get a binary file of 1's and 0's...

 

 

I understand your frustration . There are a number of reasons. First the problem is not well understood and has not been addressed until recently. Second, people want cheap and cheap means that corners are cut. If customers don't absolutely demand USB isolation then, in an effort to get a cheaper product quickly out the door, that's what you get.

 

Probably only a very small percentage of customers are aware of the issue and an even smaller number are willing to pay significantly extra for a DAC that "does it right"', so where are the economics? I am pretty sure that given a substantial budget, a bulletproof isolation interface could be designed. I'm not sure it would be profitable.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

And others have not yet followed suit?

Many other DACs already have similar or better circuitry to what Schiit has.  The Schiit guys like to make up marketing terminology and then pretend they are doing something entirely new and different.  While their marketing approach and price points are a little different, none of their tech really appears to be, except perhaps their use of 20 bit ladder chips for an audio DAC.

Just because someone says their circuitry "eliminates USB noise problems" do not believe them.  Yes, a well done isolated USB input will REDUCE the susceptibility to USB noise, it will not eliminate it, as pointed out by @marce, even with full galvanic isolation noise can still couple through to some degree.

I am aware of no DAC which does not benefit from a better USB source, despite the claims of some manufacturers.  It is a belt and suspenders world out there, and noise issues need to be addressed at every stage of an audio system.  No free lunch as they say! 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mansr said:

The audiophile industry relies on constantly inventing new issues in order to sell remedies for them.

What?  this falls under the: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", please site your examples.  I know of no one in the audio industry who does this.

 

In fact, async USB audio was first developed because engineers suspected it would solve all the issues of SPDIF (recovering the embedded clock without adding tons of jitter).  It was used precisely to get rid of issues, and it actually does get rid of a lot of issues, problem is, it created some new ones to address as well.

As far as I am concerned the so called "problem" of USB is solved:

 

Use a really good low noise USB source, paired with a good USB cable, and a DAC which has a well implemented USB receiver, and you can have the best digital reproduction (as allowed by the level of your DAC) possible.  I have absolutely glorious sound in my system via USB, with no need for a "regen" or strange additional devices, etc.

 

Source matters is nothing new here, it is the assumption that we should just be able to use an off the shelf commercial computer product as the source which is the problem.

 

Anyone here coming to RMAF come visit Sonore, and we will have great sound via USB, without resorting to a bunch of gadgets in our USB feed. 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bunpei said:

 

Hi, Alex!

 

I appreciated your comment on SDTrans384.

Yes. Our SDTrans384 project has its origin in "Micro SD Card Transport" appeared in diyAudio Forum and it used to be a really "minimalist approach".

(The first and the second pictures.)

 

I am a system engineer who once developed software for an industrial measurement instrument with ADC/DAC devices. My initial idea was a DMA(Direct Memory Access) between a peripheral device and a memory.

Therefore, a DAC chip and a memory card consist minimum components.

 

However, the current status is shown in the third picture. At the end of several escalations, my player system, a combination of SDTrans384 (SD memory card transport) and ES9038PRO Dual Mono DAC board connected with LVDS/HDMI connector & cable, weighs more than 30 kg and located on two storied 60cm x 90cm wood boards. Approximately 95% of the total weight is of power supply circuits. Many selected components, such as NDK DuCULoN OCXO, CDE film capacitors, Evans Hybrid capacitors, Finemet-core transformers, Infineon SiC rectifiers and so on are used.

 

It is quite deviated from the initial "minimalist approach", actually.

I am satisfied with SQ of the system, though. I love a SD memory card player and have no plan to use a USB-based system so far.

70-i2s2.jpg

70-wm8741a.jpg

IMG_0799.JPG

 

Very cool. Nice to see some innovation here. We need a bit of fresh thinking and a bit less arguing over old topics.

 


"Don't Believe Everything You Think"

System

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mansr said:

Anything made by Shunyata, Synergistic Research, Nordost, Shun Mook, and many others.

No examples there of anything you said?

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I understand your frustration . There are a number of reasons. First the problem is not well understood and has not been addressed until recently. Second, people want cheap and cheap means that corners are cut. If customers don't absolutely demand USB isolation then, in an effort to get a cheaper product quickly out the door, that's what you get.

 

Probably only a very small percentage of customers are aware of the issue and an even smaller number are willing to pay significantly extra for a DAC that "does it right"', so where are the economics? I am pretty sure that given a substantial budget, a bulletproof isolation interface could be designed. I'm not sure it would be profitable.

 

My main point is that the dac engineers should forget about usb and concentrate on ENET.

Don't have all the issues with noise...sounds so clean.  DLNA sounds superb, but interface kinda sucks so just make a web browser...looks like bryston does it...competition should follow that path....jmo.

 

Anyway, I will quit my griping, finally found something that sounds really good..i just need a nice interface to manage it better.

I won't gripe about USB dacs anymore....now i will just gripe about a good web interface...maybe i can customize jriver or foobar better, but it seems to play using either as a control point, it isn't as fluid as using the regular player.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, barrows said:

 

Use a really good low noise USB source, paired with a good USB cable, and a DAC which has a well implemented USB receiver, and you can have the best digital reproduction (as allowed by the level of your DAC) possible.  I have absolutely glorious sound in my system via USB, with no need for a "regen" or strange additional devices, etc.

 

 

what do you mean by a really good low noise usb source?  If you can't use a commerical pc, why mess with usb at all.

That was the main thing usb had going for it.

if they are going to skip using a pc, just do DLNA...

you get really clean SQ using DLNA for pennies.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

They all make products that serve no real purpose or are insanely priced for what they do.

That was not what you said, and anyway, why would we want to get in a cable debate here...

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if they are going to skip using a pc, just do DLNA...

you get really clean SQ using DLNA for pennies.

Hahahaha!  

 

Beer, before you are so sure you should have a look at what people are doing in this thread to the Ethernet feed to get better sound:

 

 

By no means am I endorsing this approach, I am just using this as an example of the lengths some people will go to in order to improve performance.

 

But, IMO, you cannot get great sound from a direct Ethernet DAC for pennies.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, barrows said:

But, IMO, you cannot get great sound from a direct Ethernet DAC for pennies.

 

This is what I am doing now, and it sounds so much better than any of 13 usb dacs i have tried.

 

Just using the same pc with jriver as both a DLNA server and control point and rendering to a $50 Sony Bluray player....using either the embedded bluray dac or my w4s dac sounds great.

 

I think the fact that the dac is getting a clean binary file without messing with noisy USB that needs usb toys and fancy cables is the trick.

 

or you can get a jriver ID ....you can use it as DLNA server and output dsd out it's usb.

https://jriver.com/Id/

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I think the fact that the dac is getting a clean binary file without messing with noisy USB that needs usb toys and fancy cables is the trick.

What makes you think that Ethernet does not have the same noise as USB?  I use Ethernet all the time and am well aware of its capabilities.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, barrows said:

What makes you think that Ethernet does not have the same noise as USB?  I use Ethernet all the time and am well aware of its capabilities.

I know because the only thing we are feeding the dac is the binary file which is perfect, and noise.

 

If it is immediately apparent that enet sounds SO MUCH BETTER than USB, then the only difference is the noise.

So for "whatever reason" dacs handle enet noise better than usb noise...and without any toys or fancy cables.

 

Are you debating that?  You yourself said that you believe an enet DAC has great potential.  If you try to tell me that ENET has as much noise issues as USB does, then I will lose respect for you.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barrows said:

What makes you think that Ethernet does not have the same noise as USB?  I use Ethernet all the time and am well aware of its capabilities.

 

The simple solution to all Ethernet cable debates is fiber optic :) 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...