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

[Bunpei]

14 hours ago, gstew said:

 Note that I do use 1 CDE polypropylene cap on the SDTrans... it along with a small paralleled supercap make a significant improvement in the unit's sonics.

 

Hi, Greg!

 

I appreciated your recent posts in the tread of SDTrans in diyAudio Forum.

I will reply to your PM soon after this posting.

 

By the way, every DIY audiophile might know, "Everything matters"  in audio devices

as shown in Greg's post quoted above.

 

For me, too many components that matter SQ significantly are brought into my system when I use a PC in real time audio plays.

Therefore, I avoid using a PC and stick to using a humble and tiny SD memory card player in my activities for pursuing a better SQ.

Even in such a simplified and confined situation, I realized that a resultant SQ heavily depended on a type and a brand of  SD memory card!

Moreover, one additional decoupling cap or one electromagnetic shielding metal foil wrapping of SD memory card can improve SQ of my system dramatically. That's why I could not shift my interests to down stream at all.

 

Bunpei

[tapatrick]

On 9/19/2017 at 3:24 AM, beerandmusic said:

Thoughts?

 

A little out of my range, but it may be something for me to shoot for?

 

http://www.psaudio.com/products/directstream-junior/

 

 

Bought one a few months ago. It is a stunning piece of gear, so I highly recommended as there are so many ways to use it - I use mine as a preamp and I am still experimenting to find the best input. PS audio say that quality of input doesn't matter, I've found that it matters less than other gear but when its top quality the Junior excels even more.

Suggest you keep an eye out for a used or even a new one as they turn up at almost 1/2 of the full retail price due to the nature of their pricing. That's how I got mine almost 1/2 price and new.. even with the $ to £ conversion.

[MarkS]

On 9/18/2017 at 10:35 PM, barrows said:

I love the DS DAC, I have had a couple of them come through my hands and have listened to them quite a bit.  I would recommend them without the built in ethernet input and using a separate Ethernet renderer for all of the reasons previously stated.  But if you have the opportunity you should try it at home either way to decide for yourself.

 

Why do you think Ethernet through a renderer sounds better than Ethernet into the dac. I’m not challenging your assertion in any way, you know a lot more than me, I’m really asking to understand if there is a technical explanation. 

 

As an aside, in my own listening, I felt Ethernet direct sounded better then Ethernet to microrendu to dac.  

[barrows]

6 hours ago, MarkS said:

Why do you think Ethernet through a renderer sounds better than Ethernet into the dac. I’m not challenging your assertion in any way, you know a lot more than me, I’m really asking to understand if there is a technical explanation. 

Hi Mark,

 

Here are some things to ponder:

 

1.  The quality and implementation of the Ethernet Renderer has a huge impact on sound quality.  How and why this is is beyond the scope of forum posts, but very many details of the design and implementation of an Ethernet Renderer have implications for ultimate sound quality.  Most DAC manufacturers who add an onboard Renderer are looking for a very cost effective solution, but a cost effective solution is not the one which will sound best.  

 

2.  An Ethernet Renderer is essentially a small computer, with all the noise implications which that has, a high speed, fairly powerful processor, etc.  Putting this is in the same chassis with sensitive clock circuits, and analog electronics is a very challenging thing to do.  The noise from the Ethernet Renderer can easily couple into parts of the circuit where it should not be.  Many of the advances in current DAC design has to do with reducing processor noise in proximity to the DAC, clock, and analog circuitry: putting an Ethernet Renderer inside a DAC chassis is in direct opposition in trying to reduce noise inside the DAC.

 

I have heard only one DAC with built in Ethernet which really sounds great: the top level Linn Klimax DS, these go for over $20K or so.  If you look at the pictures of the internal construction of these you can see the lengths to which Linn goes to isolate (both physically and electrically) the Ethernet Renderer portion from the DAC and analog section of this component:  The entire chassis is milled from block aluminum, and thick walls shield the DAC/analog section from the input and power supply section.  On the Linn, Ethernet is the only input, so they can concentrate all of their engineering and budget on getting this right, and still the DAC is still quite expensive.

 

BTW folks: if anyone wants to compare the PS Audio DirectStream DAC via the onboard Ethernet "Bridge" versus using an external Ethernet Renderer and USB, be sure to remove the "Bridge" when trying the external Renderers as this will remove it as a noise source.  If the Bridge is still in the DAC it will be powered up and still adding its own noise to the internals of the DAC.

 

A lot of built in Ethernet renderers have sample rate restrictions as well, most I have heard of will still only do up to 24/192 and DSD 128, there are good external Renderers available that have no such limitations and can do PCM up to 32/768 and DSD 512.  This is very important for those who may be interested in oversampling in software. 

 

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, MarkS said:

 

Why do you think Ethernet through a renderer sounds better than Ethernet into the dac. I’m not challenging your assertion in any way, you know a lot more than me, I’m really asking to understand if there is a technical explanation. 

 

As an aside, in my own listening, I felt Ethernet direct sounded better then Ethernet to microrendu to dac.  

 

I asked barrows the same question about 6 months ago or so and never got a response...I asked what advantage would an enet to usb device have advantage over the NT503 as native dsd over enet on the nt503 sounded pretty darn good to me....I don't know if he has ever tried one yet or not, or if he is familiar with the circuitry in the nt503 as compared to the rendu? 

 

The NT505 will be coming out soon, and know they are using newer chipset, but not sure if they feel an upgrade is needed inre the enet circutry or not.

[tapatrick]

On 9/20/2017 at 5:37 PM, 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.

Awesome.

"...deviated from the initial "minimalist approach" "

Would love to hear that 'maximalist' beast

[MarkS]

21 hours ago, barrows said:

Hi Mark,

 

Here are some things to ponder:

 

1.  The quality and implementation of the Ethernet Renderer has a huge impact on sound quality.  How and why this is is beyond the scope of forum posts, but very many details of the design and implementation of an Ethernet Renderer have implications for ultimate sound quality.  Most DAC manufacturers who add an onboard Renderer are looking for a very cost effective solution, but a cost effective solution is not the one which will sound best.  

 

2.  An Ethernet Renderer is essentially a small computer, with all the noise implications which that has, a high speed, fairly powerful processor, etc.  Putting this is in the same chassis with sensitive clock circuits, and analog electronics is a very challenging thing to do.  The noise from the Ethernet Renderer can easily couple into parts of the circuit where it should not be.  Many of the advances in current DAC design has to do with reducing processor noise in proximity to the DAC, clock, and analog circuitry: putting an Ethernet Renderer inside a DAC chassis is in direct opposition in trying to reduce noise inside the DAC.

 

I have heard only one DAC with built in Ethernet which really sounds great: the top level Linn Klimax DS, these go for over $20K or so.  If you look at the pictures of the internal construction of these you can see the lengths to which Linn goes to isolate (both physically and electrically) the Ethernet Renderer portion from the DAC and analog section of this component:  The entire chassis is milled from block aluminum, and thick walls shield the DAC/analog section from the input and power supply section.  On the Linn, Ethernet is the only input, so they can concentrate all of their engineering and budget on getting this right, and still the DAC is still quite expensive.

 

BTW folks: if anyone wants to compare the PS Audio DirectStream DAC via the onboard Ethernet "Bridge" versus using an external Ethernet Renderer and USB, be sure to remove the "Bridge" when trying the external Renderers as this will remove it as a noise source.  If the Bridge is still in the DAC it will be powered up and still adding its own noise to the internals of the DAC.

 

A lot of built in Ethernet renderers have sample rate restrictions as well, most I have heard of will still only do up to 24/192 and DSD 128, there are good external Renderers available that have no such limitations and can do PCM up to 32/768 and DSD 512.  This is very important for those who may be interested in oversampling in software. 

 

 

Very interesting and informative.  I do, however, think ethernet sounds better in my setup to my ear, but, in thinking it over, I am actually taking in ethernet then sending dual aeu out to my dac, so perhaps I am actually agreeing with you.  I never fully thought that through until your post.  But ethernet initially versus usb initially (then aeu dual out to the dac in each case) sounds better to me and sounds better than usb right into the dac.  Who knows why  

[barrows]

@MarkS,  I see you have dCS, nice...  dCS mentions mentions the same reasons for why they have their separate chassis Ethernet Renderer.

As for SPDIF (AES is just balanced SPDIF) vs USB: which is better on a given dAC will depend entirely on which interface is better engineered int hat DAC.  Either one can be excellent and does not have inherent weaknesses when properly engineered, although getting SPDIF to be very low jitter is a more difficult engineering challenge than USB.

[asdf1000]

21 hours ago, barrows said:

Hi Mark,

 

Here are some things to ponder:

 

1.  The quality and implementation of the Ethernet Renderer has a huge impact on sound quality.  How and why this is is beyond the scope of forum posts, but very many details of the design and implementation of an Ethernet Renderer have implications for ultimate sound quality.  Most DAC manufacturers who add an onboard Renderer are looking for a very cost effective solution, but a cost effective solution is not the one which will sound best.  

 

2.  An Ethernet Renderer is essentially a small computer, with all the noise implications which that has, a high speed, fairly powerful processor, etc.  Putting this is in the same chassis with sensitive clock circuits, and analog electronics is a very challenging thing to do.  The noise from the Ethernet Renderer can easily couple into parts of the circuit where it should not be.  Many of the advances in current DAC design has to do with reducing processor noise in proximity to the DAC, clock, and analog circuitry: putting an Ethernet Renderer inside a DAC chassis is in direct opposition in trying to reduce noise inside the DAC.

 

I have heard only one DAC with built in Ethernet which really sounds great: the top level Linn Klimax DS, these go for over $20K or so.  If you look at the pictures of the internal construction of these you can see the lengths to which Linn goes to isolate (both physically and electrically) the Ethernet Renderer portion from the DAC and analog section of this component:  The entire chassis is milled from block aluminum, and thick walls shield the DAC/analog section from the input and power supply section.  On the Linn, Ethernet is the only input, so they can concentrate all of their engineering and budget on getting this right, and still the DAC is still quite expensive.

 

BTW folks: if anyone wants to compare the PS Audio DirectStream DAC via the onboard Ethernet "Bridge" versus using an external Ethernet Renderer and USB, be sure to remove the "Bridge" when trying the external Renderers as this will remove it as a noise source.  If the Bridge is still in the DAC it will be powered up and still adding its own noise to the internals of the DAC.

 

A lot of built in Ethernet renderers have sample rate restrictions as well, most I have heard of will still only do up to 24/192 and DSD 128, there are good external Renderers available that have no such limitations and can do PCM up to 32/768 and DSD 512.  This is very important for those who may be interested in oversampling in software. 

 

 

A really great post. 

 

I've observed the exact same things. I don't think we are (yet) at the point where seeing an ethernet input on a DAC automatically means that is the best sounding input. It may but it may not. You still need to listen.

 

The DirectStream DAC is a great example I found. Of course many others say the Bridge II sounds best and they are not wrong. There's no wrong answer.

 

Obviously this is just talking about SQ (for all the reasons discussed by barrows) and putting aside the huge convenience an ethernet input DAC brings in terms of the spaghetti solution.

 

But this is changing as mentioned above - more attention is being paid to the ethernet physical interface. The next year and two will be interesting to see developments with ethernet interfaces.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

I've observed the exact same things. I don't think we are (yet) at the point where seeing an ethernet input on a DAC automatically means that is the best sounding input. It may but it may not. You still need to listen.

 

 

You never will know which will sound better...it will always be subjective and unproven.  I would lean to trusting a company that has the eningeering resources to do both (dac and enet circuitry)...i don't believe sonore will ever be able to compete in the dac marketplace, and I am sure they will suggest they don't want to.. 

 

Esoteric and Linn both said that it does make sense to put the dac and the enet port in same box...that it would be optimal...there is another higher end company that stated so on this site as well, but the name slips my mind.....either way, i would trust a company that makes dacs and network players more than a company that makes just a bridge....jmo

 

 

[barrows]

15 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

You never will know which will sound better...it will always be subjective and unproven.  I would lean to trusting a company that has the eningeering resources to do both (dac and enet circuitry)...i don't believe sonore will ever be able to compete in the dac marketplace, and I am sure they will suggest they don't want to.. 

 

Esoteric and Linn both said that it does make sense to put the dac and the enet port in same box...that it would be optimal...there is another higher end company that stated so on this site as well, but the name slips my mind.....either way, i would trust a company that makes dacs and network players more than a company that makes just a bridge....jmo

 

 

Beer, respectfully, the problem with many DACs which have an Ethernet input is that many of those companies do not have the engineering resources to do their own Ethernet input.  Many of the DACs which have built in Ethernet actually buy a (very cheap, not very high performance) Ethernet module from a third party company.  Answer this question: how many of those DACs with built in Ethernet can do PCM 768 and DSD 512, for example?

 

BTW, Sonore actually has offered a DAC in the past.  But we felt the market for DACs was saturated, and it made more sense for Sonore to concentrate on building the best Ethernet interfaces.

BTW, we have plenty of resources to do a DAC, and perhaps we will again sometime in the future, but only if we can offer something unique in terms of performance, as there are already a ton of DACs on the market.

[R1200CL]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

Ethernet module from a third party company.

 

...as well as the USB to SPDIF conversion.

 

Looking forward to the newly announced upgrade from your company.

[beerandmusic]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

 but only if we can offer something unique in terms of performance, as there are already a ton of DACs on the market.

 

how about a dac with an enet port...not a ton of them on the market that meets my criteriea...and i don't need pcm 768 or pcm  anything...dsd would be all i want or need. 

 

* similar features as LKS dac (mono mono es9038) but with enet port, and galvanic isolation, good clocks, external lps for under $2k and made in usa.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

Beer, respectfully, the problem with many DACs which have an Ethernet input is that many of those companies do not have the engineering resources to do their own Ethernet input.

Teac has plenty of resources, and you still never answered my question about if your circuitry or marketing offers anything the NT503/505 does not?  (besides pcm768)...

[wklie]

On 1/3/2018 at 12:41 PM, barrows said:

The entire chassis is milled from block aluminum, and thick walls shield the DAC/analog section from the input and power supply section.  On the Linn, Ethernet is the only input

 

This description applies to Lumin S1 and A1 as well.  In addition, Lumin also puts the linear power supply in a separate unit.

[tapatrick]

On 24/09/2017 at 11:33 PM, gstew said:

Listening to my SDTrans384 -> Soekris DAM 1021 setup right now. It is my reference setup among the various I play with and not by a small amount. It has a lot going for it:

 

- VERY low noise source due to the very limited processing and both good and rational (though now a little dated) power supply networks.

 

- Plays up to 384 PCM & 256 DSD.

 

- I2S, S/PDIF, & PS Audio-compliant I2S over HDMI outputs. I2S is best (but requires a very close DAC chip, <3" best), the S/PDIF implementation is good, but definitely not today's SOTA, and the I2S over HDMI is limited by the PS Audio standard in that the player is the master, where the "correct" way to do it is to have the clocks at the DAC and they be the master.

 

- Very tweakable from a power perspective.

 

- Good (not great according to current standards) NDK clocks with the ability to take external clocks of appropriate frequencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUT to make it a low-noise setup, it uses a fairly low-power (electrically & in capability) FPGA as the main processor.

 

- It only knows about the SD card inserted, nothing about any others in your library. AND it has no connectivity beyond power in and I2S-S/PDIF-HDMI out and a few power and clock inputs. So no browsing in Foobar. BTW, it does not work with all SD cards... that has been pretty hit or miss for me.

 

- Max SD card size is 32Gb and it only recognizes WAV, RIFF, and DFF files. So not a large portion of a library on a single card AND as Barrows so aptly noted, you have to figure out how to manage having your library split across a bunch of cards... I expect my entire library to take between 35-50 cards. I am still dealing with how to best manage my library in that format. AND making it capable of handling larger cards means more processing capability, which will be hard to do without compromising its inherent low noise and SQ.

 

- No FLAC, MP3, or any compression is supported, which of course is in line with minimal processing, BUT that means you have your files at native size, meaning fewer on an SD card and more cards.

 

- With limited processing capability, functionality is also VERY limited. 4 buttons...

     #1 Mode: Skip folders on the current card, set repeat mode (none, all, folder, one)

     #2 Skip to next file or folder (if folder skip mode selected)

     #3 Skip to previous file or folder (if folder skip mode selected)

     #4 Start (at the beginning of ALWAYS) or Stop playing current file

 

One can add a remote capability to these functions (and I have), but that is of limited utility as you have no way to see what's on the small screen remotely.

 

I would LOVE to have 2 functions added:

 

    1 - Phase reversal... could be another function on the Mode button

    2 - Fast forward/reverse. Not sure the architecture of the unit could handle this, but it would be nice, most of my music is ripped into single files per CD, so I have no way to navigate in a file, just start it at the beginning, stop it, start it at the beginning again.

 

 

 

An SDTrans384 is by definition a VERY tweaky setup. While it will work as both a S/PDIF and I2S over HDMI source, it is best used as a dedicated source for a dedicated DAC with an I2S connections. NOT many companies are going to do that and almost ALL other implementations compromise the SQ available. The OTHER non-compromised setup uses a companion DAC designed and built by Chaiki (the guy who along with Bunpei developed the SDTrans384) that uses a non-standard I2S over HDMI with the clocks at the DAC as the master, transmitting the clock signals back to the SDTrans. That is the setup Bunpei showed a few posts back. 

 

How would it compare against the Mirus DAC SD Card player? Hard to tell without modifying one to feed either their SD Card Player or the SDTrans384. I doubt we'll ever see that comparison! I suspect well, but we'll likely never know.

 

In summary, I love mine. It is VERY GOOD. AND everything I've done with Ethernet-connected players have been definite 2nd places... though I'm still trying to elevate my sources to its level. 

 

BUT it has VERY serious limitations that few are going to put up with. I do so partly because I am a seriously tweaky audiophile AND because of just how good it sounds compared to everything else I have here. 

 

I won't be parting with mine anytime soon. BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT these will take the world by storm!

 

Greg in Mississippi

 

P.S. There are some DIY SD Card players available on EBay, mostly from China. I've looked at some of them, a couple of the super-tweaks (even more than me!) at TirNaHiFi have played with them, I have some to try and modify to see if I can at least match the SQ I get from the SDTrans384... and I don't have high hopes, they all have more powerful processors (more noise), poorer power supply networks, and compromised clocking schemes. Still I got 3 of these to play with for less than 1/3 the cost of my SDTrans384, so it's worth the effort.

 

 

Great, that’s the info I was looking for, thanks Greg. Its a tweaky thing but willing to try it out.  I contacted Jack at Tachyon ([email protected])  and they put me on a list. When they have 10 they will build a new batch. 

 

Anyone else interested? Use chrome browser to translate site from Japanese. 

http://www.tachyon.co.jp/~sichoya/SDTrans/SDTrans6.html

 

[barrows]

On 1/5/2018 at 1:54 AM, beerandmusic said:

Teac has plenty of resources, and you still never answered my question about if your circuitry or marketing offers anything the NT503/505 does not?  (besides pcm768)...

I have answered this question for you at least 3 times on this and other threads.  It appears that you will not be satisfied with my answer until it agrees with your already held beliefs, so this is the last response I will make on this topic, as I have no intention of changing the facts to suit your beliefs.

I have no idea internally of the circuitry of the TEAC device, why would I?  Do you think that manufacturers go around buying up all the products on the market and studying their circuitry?  That would be an incredible waste of time.  Only the Chinese do this, because most Chinese manufacturers just reverse engineer their products by copying what someone else does.

At Sonore we make innovative cutting edge products and others copy us (unfortunately).  The fact that our products are capable of delivering PCM 768 and DSD 512 is proof that we are more advanced than most, but I also note that this does not guarantee that we offer better performance at lower rates, for that the customer has to listen themselves.  On our Ethernet Renderers we go to extreme lengths in the design to produce the best possible performance at each price point (microRendu, ultraRendu, and Signature Rendu SE), while I, for reasons which should be clear to you, will not discuss exact details of circuit design, I am confident in saying that we pay very special attention to even minute details to get the best possible performance including the use of (much more expensive) ultra low noise linear regulators and ultra low phase noise "femto" clocks.

BTW, the ultraRendu was awarded second place (ROON playback software was first) in the Computer Audiophile Reader's Choice Awards for 2017, voted on by the actual users.

[barrows]

On 1/5/2018 at 1:51 AM, beerandmusic said:

* similar features as LKS dac (mono mono es9038) but with enet port, and galvanic isolation, good clocks, external lps for under $2k and made in usa.

Dream on!  I am aware of the costs of producing such a product and it will never happen at that price.

 

Additionally, I am well acquainted enough with the ESS 9038 (building a DAC with it now for personal use) to know that there is no real advantage to using two of them in a stereo DAC as there is no analog circuitry capable of reproducing that level of resolution.  Better to spend that part of the BOM on improving power supplies...

[seeteeyou]

10 hours ago, tapatrick said:

Great, that’s the info I was looking for, thanks Greg. Its a tweaky thing but willing to try it out.  I contacted Jack at Tachyon ([email protected])  and they put me on a list. When they have 10 they will build a new batch. 

 

Anyone else interested? Use chrome browser to translate site from Japanese. 

http://www.tachyon.co.jp/~sichoya/SDTrans/SDTrans6.html

 

I'm also a fan of SDTrans384, it's so interesting to see someone else in Japan who actually went all out to build this PSU to bypass the regulators

 

http://s.webry.info/sp/noblyn.at.webry.info/201405/article_2.html

 

Bunpei-san was investing quite a bit on external clocks, this particular one from NDK should be one of the best out there but it's taking 3 months NDK to deliver them after an order was placed

 

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2015/06/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2015/12/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/01/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_28.html

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/314998-ndk-duculon-diy.html

 

Another "secret" sauce would be FINEMET core transformers

 

https://samizuacoustics.com/about/

http://www.ebay.com/sch/fulken/m.html

http://noguchi-trans.co.jp/digitalcatalog/main/fs801.pdf

 

BTW, there's another similar player from Japan that's available on Amazon 

 

https://zx900a.blogspot.com

https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kinsmen0411/15147583.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_14.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/ak4497dac.html

https://www.amazon.co.jp/NMI-フルエンシー８XオーバーサンプリングWAV-FLACプレーヤー/dp/B074PPDGK6

 

[bobfa]

There are so many places for signals to go wrong.  Here is an interesting reference to watch:

 

 

 

[tapatrick]

13 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

 

I'm also a fan of SDTrans384, it's so interesting to see someone else in Japan who actually went all out to build this PSU to bypass the regulators

 

http://s.webry.info/sp/noblyn.at.webry.info/201405/article_2.html

 

Bunpei-san was investing quite a bit on external clocks, this particular one from NDK should be one of the best out there but it's taking 3 months NDK to deliver them after an order was placed

 

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2015/06/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2015/12/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/01/duculon.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_28.html

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/314998-ndk-duculon-diy.html

 

Another "secret" sauce would be FINEMET core transformers

 

https://samizuacoustics.com/about/

http://www.ebay.com/sch/fulken/m.html

http://noguchi-trans.co.jp/digitalcatalog/main/fs801.pdf

 

BTW, there's another similar player from Japan that's available on Amazon 

 

https://zx900a.blogspot.com

https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kinsmen0411/15147583.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_14.html

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/09/ak4497dac.html

https://www.amazon.co.jp/NMI-フルエンシー８XオーバーサンプリングWAV-FLACプレーヤー/dp/B074PPDGK6

 

Thanks @seeteeyou anyone have any experience with these other players. Do they compare to the quality of the SD trans?

[Miska]

On 1/5/2018 at 10:54 AM, beerandmusic said:

Teac has plenty of resources, and you still never answered my question about if your circuitry or marketing offers anything the NT503/505 does not?  (besides pcm768)...

 

TEAC does only up to 192 kHz PCM and DSD128 over network...

[marce]

11 hours ago, bobfa said:

There are so many places for signals to go wrong.  Here is an interesting reference to watch:

 

 

 

Do a search for "signal integrity" "Eric Bogatin" "Dr Howard Johnson" "henry Ott" "Ralf Morrison" and you will find there is so much experience and information about getting the signals right, just watching that video on different continents shows how far we have got with digital signal transmission.

[marce]

18 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

 

http://asoyaji.blogspot.com/2017/01/duculon.html

 

 

Not to be picky but there is no use using a super duper 40+MHz crystal, then putting in a huge impedance mismatch with the connectors used to pass the clock signal to the target board, at the very least SMA connectors or similar should be used as Sotm do. The way that is wired up negates any benefit of the clock. The return  (shield) of the co-ax has been split of and made into a tail to fit in the connector... Attention to detail is critical with clock signals, not just a fancy crystal, the whole signal path is critical and the shorter the better (ie the crystal next to the device it is clocking).

[barrows]

@marce, I am in the process of putting together a new (DIY) DAC.  There is separate re-clock/isolation board for the USB interface, which can provide masterclock to both the USB interface and the DAC (chip, on a separate PCB).  The masterclock signal is distributed to the DAC board via a short u.fl coax cable, with proper micro BNC jacks on the boards.  Considering a cable length of <10 cm (and assuming good PCB design and trace routing) is u.fl appropriate for masterclock distribution to the DAC?

I understand that having the XO and final re-clock (POTATO FFs) on the DAC PCB and sending it back to the USB interface would be best, but I do not have that option.

And, BTW, always appreciate you being "picky"!