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

[Superdad]

8 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.)...

 

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.

 

 

Holy cow!  Aside from the larger transformers around the top, are you also using a bunch of small custom C-core trans?  I'm guessing you have close to $4,000 just in power supply parts alone there.  That's a pretty serious "transport."  Indeed you have strayed from the minimalism of the SDTrans384 project!    Respect...

[barrows]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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

Many other things could cause problems.  I have an ethernet DAC here, the exact same DAC sounds better with a USB input instead.  But if you are happy that is all that matters.

With your Ethernet interface what sample rates and DSD rates can you play?

[barrows]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Perhaps the fact that Ethernet is transformer coupled, which, although not perfect, certainly blocks a lot more noise than USB.

Do you know which is better (I do not).  The tiny transformers in Ethernet jacks, SiO2 chips for USB isolation, Opto isolators for USB, or GMR (basically transformers on a chip) for USB.  Plenty of USB DACs have full galvanic isolation.  None of these things, IME, do enough to make noise a non-issue.

 

My DAC uses GMRs, but it still sounds better when one gives it the lowest noise, best Is USB signal possible.

 

I suspect Beer may actually have some settings in his computer which are compromising his USB performance, this happens pretty easily, especially on Windows.  These will not happen with Ethernet (at least not with DLNA) because the computer is just sending the file and not engaging the onboard sound engine.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, opus101 said:

Here is one example - https://www.thememoryplayer.net/defractionalized-memory

OK, you totally got me there, WOW!  That really looks like total BS to me even with just a cursory look.

But we must admit this appears to be a pretty fringe device even by high end audio standards.  You are not going to see something like this from the likes of ordinary high end brands like Audio Research, PS Audio, Ayre, etc.  Or Sonore!

Time for a tasty beer, just set up the amps for RMAF and they are warming up on some music here...

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

But we must admit this appears to be a pretty fringe device even by high end audio standards.  You are not going to see something like this from the likes of ordinary high end brands like Audio Research, PS Audio, Ayre, etc.  Or Sonore!

 

Its pretty fringe, but there is a thread on WBF - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?23915-Laufer-Teknik-Memory-Player-64

 

BS in audio isn't all-or-nothing, different companies have differing degrees of it. Seeing as you mention Ayre - just one example - Charles said of his DAC chip choice recently 'proprietary current sources' are what's used in the output. Based on my understanding of ESS (gotten from reading Russ White, an experienced ESS DAC designer) its just resistors.

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, barrows said:

Many other things could cause problems.  I have an ethernet DAC here, the exact same DAC sounds better with a USB input instead.  But if you are happy that is all that matters.

With your Ethernet interface what sample rates and DSD rates can you play?

just 192k pcm out the coax of the bluray which sounds superior to dsd out usb in my setup...but that is why i mentioned the JRIVER ID for about $250, which will do enet in and dsd out the usb port.

 

I am not sure which route i am going now, but i did look at the sonore se (i think thats what you mentioned), and it was way over my price range...i saw you had a micro rendu also, and when i checked into that i saw a reputable reviewer state the sotm with same ps will sound better for less....

 

Not sure which direction i am going but it will be ethernet for sure....but i can take my time, the 192K out the coax from the sony bluray dlna renderer sounds fine for now.

[barrows]

39 minutes ago, opus101 said:

Charles said of his DAC chip choice recently 'proprietary current sources' are what's used in the output. Based on my understanding of ESS (gotten from reading Russ White, an experienced ESS DAC designer) its just resistors.

I can guarantee you that Charlie does not BS.  I have met him, and I know something about the Ayre circuits and designs as well.  They produce some of the most well engineered gear in all of audio.  When he is talking about those current sources he is referring to the analog output stage of the DAC, where Ayre works quite a bit of their analog circuit magic.  They do some very good. very good line level circuit applications.  You may have mis-understood here.  There is a lot of "marketing speak" from some audio companies, but Ayre plays it about as straight as you can, they do their own thing are are proud of it, and the deserve to be.

As a builder of multiple Buffalo DACS (5 s far) with all kinds of output stages, I love Russ' work, but am quite confident in saying Russ could learn something from studying Charlie's line level circuits, many of which owe a lot to the work of the legendary John Curl.  Of course Charlie also relies quite a bit on unobtanium JFETS, of which he has a pretty large supply, I believe (discontinued Toshiba parts).

[opus101]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

I can guarantee you that Charlie does not BS.  I have met him, and I know something about the Ayre circuits and designs as well.  They produce some of the most well engineered gear in all of audio.  When he is talking about those current sources he is referring to the analog output stage of the DAC, where Ayre works quite a bit of their analog circuit magic.  They do some very good. very good line level circuit applications.  You may have mis-understood here.  There is a lot of "marketing speak" from some audio companies, but Ayre plays it about as straight as you can, they do their own thing are are proud of it, and the deserve to be.

 

 

Ayre plays it straighter than most I'll readily agree, but its certainly possible to play it straighter.

[barrows]

8 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Ayre plays it straighter than most I'll readily agree, but its certainly possible to play it straighter.

Perhaps, if one wants to give away all their hard work.  I have no problem with folks protecting their IP, even if it takes a little obfuscation.  Patents do not work for high end audio companies.

[opus101]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

Perhaps, if one wants to give away all their hard work.  I have no problem with folks protecting their IP, even if it takes a little obfuscation.  Patents do not work for high end audio companies.

 

I don't have a problem with folks protecting their IP either. But the topic was about BS not what I have personal difficulty accepting. Obfuscation is BS in my world. Rather OT though are we not?

[barrows]

In audio there is a need to describe something to customers who may not be well versed enough in the engineering to understand.  This often leads to "marketing speak".  It can be a tough line to traverse, one often cannot divulge exactly what they are doing for fear of their IP being copied, on the other hand the consumer will likely not understand the exact details anyway.  Sometimes a little obfuscation results, even the intentions are good, this is why I am willing to forgive a certain amount.  Oversimplification often is required as well, as the customer does not understand the details.  and the other side of the coin is hard also; the manufacturer cannot often get away with just saying "its awesome because I say so"!

Now when the memory player guys start talking about unscrambling the bits, I mean, really?  What the hell are they talking about.  It just seems to be entirely fabricated.

[opus101]

One of the 'hats' I wear is a teacher's so I'm with you on the difficulty of 'dumbing down' stuff without introducing misleading elements. Its a real toughie - to simplify without then later having to say 'what you learned before was wrong'.

Many manufacturers do indeed get away with telling why something is awesome rather than explaining it, its the nature of business that customers aren't always insatiably curious.

[marce]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

Do you know which is better (I do not).  The tiny transformers in Ethernet jacks, SiO2 chips for USB isolation, Opto isolators for USB, or GMR (basically transformers on a chip) for USB.  Plenty of USB DACs have full galvanic isolation.  None of these things, IME, do enough to make noise a non-issue.

 

My DAC uses GMRs, but it still sounds better when one gives it the lowest noise, best Is USB signal possible.

 

I suspect Beer may actually have some settings in his computer which are compromising his USB performance, this happens pretty easily, especially on Windows.  These will not happen with Ethernet (at least not with DLNA) because the computer is just sending the file and not engaging the onboard sound engine.

Opto isolation would be best.....

[mansr]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

Now when the memory player guys start talking about unscrambling the bits, I mean, really?  What the hell are they talking about.  It just seems to be entirely fabricated.

It makes no sense whatsoever. FWIW, the photo shows an off the shelf OCZ (now Toshiba) SSD.

[jabbr]

34 minutes ago, marce said:

Opto isolation would be best.....

Aside from an SFP(+) module, is there a specific high speed option-isolator you like? ... the ones I've come across have too low bit rate.

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

Perhaps, if one wants to give away all their hard work.  I have no problem with folks protecting their IP, even if it takes a little obfuscation.  Patents do not work for high end audio companies.

 

And IP/patent attorneys are expensive!

[barrows]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Opto isolation would be best.....

You mean just the chips, right?  I have heard differing opinions from different engineers on this.  Some seem to prefer using GMRs, some SiO2 chips.  It seems there is little consensus.  But I note Ayre appears to prefer opto, and I tend to resect their engineering decisions, and your opinion as well.

[barrows]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

And IP/patent attorneys are expensive!

Yes, the problem for most high end audio companies is that they can usually afford to get a really innovative idea patented, but why could never afford to actually defend a patent if they had to (got to court, etc)  So most companies try to protect their ideas other ways, sometimes hiding things by potting, sometimes little glued on "shields" which are really just attempts at thwarting reverse engineering, and sometimes though somewhat obtuse explanations of what they are doing.  Having a patent alone is certainly no guarantee that the Chinese will not violate it.

[NOMBEDES]

CD is the best digital source.  Avoids all the problems (listed above) with computers and connections.  If you want to pay subscription fees, I would say a streaming service would be the way to go.

[barrows]

51 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

CD is the best digital source.  Avoids all the problems (listed above) with computers and connections.  If you want to pay subscription fees, I would say a streaming service would be the way to go.

Hmm.  When I switched to computer based audio, I kept my excellent $6K bel canto at hand to use as a reference until computer based audio playback exceeded what the bel canto could deliver, this did take a little while, but that was years ago, and my playback system has made many strides beyond what virtually any disc spinner is capable of since then.  In addition to that I now own many, many high resolution files which are better than their CD counterparts (I have both in many cases).  While there are now some very, very expensive transports which can equal some computer based playback systems, the notion that there is some drop off in sound quality with computer based audio vs a traditional disc spinner is false.  If you have this experience, you have some serious errors in your computer based system.

[NOMBEDES]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

Hmm.  When I switched to computer based audio, I kept my excellent $6K bel canto at hand to use as a reference until computer based audio playback exceeded what the bel canto could deliver, this did take a little while, but that was years ago, and my playback system has made many strides beyond what virtually any disc spinner is capable of since then.  In addition to that I now own many, many high resolution files which are better than their CD counterparts (I have both in many cases).  While there are now some very, very expensive transports which can equal some computer based playback systems, the notion that there is some drop off in sound quality with computer based audio vs a traditional disc spinner is false.  If you have this experience, you have some serious errors in your computer based system.

 

@barrows  I see that you are a computer expert:   "Design/Build Consultant with Simple Design /Sonore".  Good on you!

 

What about the rest of us that do not have your education, work experience and skill?  What about the rest of us that had to sell off a W4S DAC 1 because it would quit working with each so called "upgrade" from Cupertino?  My opinion only; "computer audio" is for experts such as yourself, or the serious hobbyist who likes to experiment with all manner of DACs, USB Cables, external clocks, and god knows what else.   I like to kick back play a CD or an LP and enjoy the music.  I am also unconvinced that high resolution files sound much different than redbook.  If a recording is well done, it should sound good on the common CD player and on a high resolution platform.  A poor recording will sound even worse on a high resolution file and given the state of the recording art industry today, you have a rather good chance of getting some horrid recordings.

 

I do have a modest computer audio system which does work, most of the time!

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

@NOMBEDES,

 

You do not have to be an expert.  I certainly was not when I ended up selling my (excellent) CDP.  Now things are even easier.  Just because there are some on this site extolling the virtues of ever more complex systems, and trying to eek out that last extra bit of performance this is not necessary to get better sound than most any disc spinner is capable of.  Even I do not bother with a whole lot of tweaky stuff (OK I did make a nice power supply for my router, but it is not necessary), no high end Ethernet cables, or USB add-ons or anything, and I get superb sound.  As with anything in audio, careful component selection is in order though.

 

A good USB DAC and a microRendu on the network with a WireWorld Starlight USB cable, with the system running free streaming software (minimserver) will get one better performance than almost any single box CD player, and enable one to enjoy many different formats.  I am a fan of getting ordinary consumer computer gear well away from the audio system, but this need not be highly complex.

 

Heck, I have seen some folks getting great soundest of KEF wireless LS-50 speakers, those things are amazing for what they are.

 

[mbain]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

@barrows  I see that you are a computer expert:   "Design/Build Consultant with Simple Design /Sonore".  Good on you!

 

What about the rest of us that do not have your education, work experience and skill?  What about the rest of us that had to sell off a W4S DAC 1 because it would quit working with each so called "upgrade" from Cupertino?  My opinion only; "computer audio" is for experts such as yourself, or the serious hobbyist who likes to experiment with all manner of DACs, USB Cables, external clocks, and god knows what else.   I like to kick back play a CD or an LP and enjoy the music.  I am also unconvinced that high resolution files sound much different than redbook.  If a recording is well done, it should sound good on the common CD player and on a high resolution platform.  A poor recording will sound even worse on a high resolution file and given the state of the recording art industry today, you have a rather good chance of getting some horrid recordings.

 

I do have a modest computer audio system which does work, most of the time!

 

A strong second!

 

 

 

 

[mbain]

Sorry...double post.

[jabbr]

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

Even I do not bother with a whole lot of tweaky stuff (OK I did make a nice power supply for my router, but it is not necessary), no high end Ethernet cables, or USB add-ons or anything, and I get superb sound.

 

 

Yeah I tried reclocking a switch but can't say it makes a difference. If anything a good switch in between a noisy PC is better. There are cheap LPS which are easy to use.