Jump to content
IGNORED

DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Miska said:

Most if not all PCM to PCM cases can run on my fanless light cheap laptop that has Pentium Silver N5000 CPU.

 

 And PCM to DSD ? I would expect that the majority of purchasers of your S/W would want it to do PCM to DSD conversions. Besides which , judging by the recent 500 participant survey results, most Audiophiles  are unable to reliably hear the difference between16/44.1 and high res anyway under non sighted conditions.

 As is usually the case , the main limitation appears to be the quality of the original recording.

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 And PCM to DSD ? I would expect that the majority of purchasers of your S/W would want it to do PCM to DSD conversions. Besides which , judging by the recent 500 participant survey results, most Audiophiles  are unable to reliably hear the difference between16/44.1 and high res anyway under non sighted conditions.

 

At lowest to DSD256 on similar quad-core Atom. And then it is already way better than what you find inside DAC chips.

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Besides which , judging by the recent 500 participant survey results, most Audiophiles  are unable to reliably hear the difference between16/44.1 and high res anyway under non sighted conditions.

 

And is the 16/44.1 through a non-oversampling DAC really running at 16-bit resolution at 44.1 kHz conversion rate? No, it is not. So you are talking about something entirely different.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

And is the16/44.1 through a non-oversampling DAC really running at 16-bit resolution at 44.1 kHz conversion rate? No, it is not. So you are talking about something entirely different.

 

 

 No we aren't talking about different things. Most people comparing 16/44.1 with high res would be using DACs that internally upsample.

See also 

   #677

 

P.S. 

 I don't doubt that people like you and I with way above average gear are able to hear these things due to the added effort put into their implementation, however the vast majority of members aren't fanatics like us.

Just like with John Dyson, you are rectifying the shortcomings of typical 16/ 44.1 recordings and their playback.

In fact, John's correction can make many original 16/44.l1 recordings sound like genuine hi res. material that I doubt would benefir further from your approach..

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Re my edited in comment about John Dyson

 This is OFF TOPIC but may be of interest. Note the dips and peaks of the top of the blue area . (Use Magnification) This is from a PS3 rip of Dire Straits-Love Over Gold SACD

John's conversion to 16/44.1 again also sounds virtually identical.

L.O.G. from SACD.jpg

Love Over Gold 6-07-2020 J.D.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

I believe Lampi DAC's don't sample internally (chipless / just filter / 2 discrete circuits for PCM + DSD) although their new platform (engine 53) uses a chip if I recall and may sample internally?  Would be interested to know if anyone can shed light on this?

My rig

 

Link to comment
On 7/6/2020 at 4:57 AM, 4est said:

I do not see what software has to do with USB cables and regeneration hardware. Furthermore, PCM to PCM upsampling does not require a lot of processing power.

FWIW, I so agree....


This is something that is almost to absurd to quantify,  - (but just to make a point), -  software accounts for a small percentage of SQ difference. You have to go waaaay down in level of speakers and amps before a Schiit sounds like a Meitner. DSP whether inside or outside doesn't play into the fact that everything else about a Schiit DAC is not even close to the SQ. I think that we see too many people here losing perspective on lateral moves with $2000 price point gear, - thinking that they've got a giant killer, - instead of racking up those experiences that they need to place gear in it's proper spot.

(This means listening to really SOTA stuff as well as really lo-fi stuff). 

The fact that there were many people who touted the Singxer SU-1 was so much better than the 10  times more expensive Audiophelo USB-to-SPDIF converter was not JUST due to XMOS firmware/software, but due to the Singxer's excellent isolation moat, and excellent clock

 

IMO, - everyone has learned a LOT from the Singxer SU-1, and products like the Intona, - which is NOT a product built by and for high performance audio manufacturers. Refining products like this and improving them makes this such a "fluid" field of study, - that it's almost stupid for a DAC manufacturer to build-in an USB port. 

 

Is there anyone who would spend $20K on a Meitner and plug in a Belden USB cable from a MacMini on their audio rack?

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

What's wrong with Belden USB cable? Not that I have one. But I have Deltaco's USB HiSpeed certified cables. I still haven't seen certified "audiophile" USB cables. Many strange cable implementations outright violate the signal integrity and USB cable specifications, but cost a lot while doing so.

 

I hear ya Jussi. I purchased a “high quality” braided USB cable from Amazon and it’s junk. Works half the time. I long for the days of certified cables everywhere. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I hear ya Jussi. I purchased a “high quality” braided USB cable from Amazon and it’s junk. Works half the time. I long for the days of certified cables everywhere. 

 The certification printed on the jacket with many cables sourced from Asia is nigh on useless. I had a 5M long USB cable that claimed to be certified but had no shielding whatsoever, only 2 internal twisted pairs. That was probably the only way they could reduce it's capacitance enough to work reliably at that length.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The certification printed on the jacket with many cables sourced from Asia is nigh on useless. I had a 5M long USB cable that claimed to be certified but had no shielding whatsoever, only 2 internal twisted pairs. That was probably the only way they could reduce it's capacitance enough to work reliably at that length.

I wish certification was a starting point. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Is there anyone who would spend $20K on a Meitner and plug in a Belden USB cable from a MacMini on their audio rack?

 

12 hours ago, Miska said:

What's wrong with Belden USB cable?

 

Belden USB cable?

 

Or Belkin?

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

 

 

Belden USB cable?

 

Or Belkin?

 


The former.

 

https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/data-cables/indexmob.htm

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Miska said:

Just look for this badge:

spacer.png

Just remember, that this mark is a trademark.  This means that any company displaying this mark is paying for it, and adding that cost to the cable.  And some company which does the "certification" is likely getting a lot of money for it.

I am not suggesting the certification is not "real", and it likely does guarantee that the cable (or at least the sample which they tested) does meet specification.

 

As certification processes like this in the US (I cannot speak for what happens in the EU, I would expect that in the EU the Government is actually involved in certification) are done on a for profit basis by private certification companies, they really rub me the wrong way.  UL, for example, is basically a huge money grab-this very different from say, CE in Europe.

 

Every audiophile should keep at least one, properly verified, USB cable which meets the specifications, around for trouble shooting, and for reference vs. various "audiophile" options one might choose to try.  Certainly there are "audiophile" style USB cables which have proven to be problematic in some situations.  But my experience has also shown that some "audiophile" USB cables do have sound quality advantages (not all though).  I must say I am very skeptical of some of the "Audiophile" USB cables which appear to hand made (I mean the wire itself, not just the terminations): one cannot hand make a high speed data cable and expect it to meet stringent impedance specifications, as being tightly controlled for impedance requires very precise spacing of the conductors and geometry of the wires.  But there are plenty of "Audiophile" USB cables which do meet the impedance and performance specifications: I am also often more interested in "Audiophile" USB cables which actually do not adhere to the USB cable build specs (not the performance specs): as by using a different type of construction, these cables may be able to outperform cables which actually adhere to the build spec.  

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, barrows said:

Just remember, that this mark is a trademark.  This means that any company displaying this mark is paying for it, and adding that cost to the cable.  And some company which does the "certification" is likely getting a lot of money for it.

 

Yes, of USB-IF, it is trademark to avoid people from randomly slamming it on something that has not passed the specified tests. Same goes for many other things like DLNA. Certification processes is not so different from FCC or similar... Or if you want to back yourself in electrical safety for CE marking, something like TÜV or FI approval. Similar approval / certification processes also apply to devices like mobile phones.

 

The certified cables I have cost between 10 and 20 EUR, so I don't hugely mind if part of the cost goes to the certification process. But when the cable has that badge, you know it complies to certain set of specifications.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, of USB-IF, it is trademark to avoid people from randomly slamming it on something that has not passed the specified tests. Same goes for many other things like DLNA. Certification processes is not so different from FCC or similar... Or if you want to back yourself in electrical safety for CE marking, something like TÜV or FI approval. Similar approval / certification processes also apply to devices like mobile phones.

 

The certified cables I have cost between 10 and 20 EUR, so I don't hugely mind if part of the cost goes to the certification process. But when the cable has that badge, you know it complies to certain set of specifications.

 

Jussi, respectfully, I disagree.  I feel there is big difference between a government based certification, such as FCC, CE, vs. a private, for profit company which makes certifications like UL here in the US.  We have a lot of problems in the US when it comes to private for profit companies where profit is the only measure of success.  I consider, UL, for example, mostly a scam, although it is true that something which is "UL Listed" is likely safe to use in one's home, the way they collect fees for their "service" is highly suspect to me-many of their "requirements" appear to be arbitrary as well.  As an example, UL makes more money, the more times than can make a manufacturer "fail" testing before they achieve a passing grade and get "listed".  Of course manufacturers are allowed to self certify for CE, which is an interesting approach, but the EU sets the rules, not a for profit private company.  

 

What makes you sure that a USB cable bearing that badge actually meets the specification?  Are the cables individually tested and certified?  I would think not.  Given that many USB cables, bearing that certification, are manufactured in China, where I have had direct experience of cable manfacturing errors and outright scams (the sample cable for testing meets spec, but the subsequent production run cables do not), I would not be surprised if some cables bearing that  badge did not meet spec.

 

Of course for audio we only require USB 2 specifications be met.  And I am in favor of cables which meet the spec for impedance and bandwidth (the actual performance spec), I think it is possible that some "audiophile" USB cables which meet the performance spec (bandwidth and impedance) but do not comply with the construction spec, may perform even better sonically.

 

Perhaps there are a few made in the US USB cables (certified, High Speed), that are perhaps less suspect than ones which originate in China.  Does Belden actually make a USB bulk cable here, i would trust them.  I saw that Ghent markets a USB cable using Belden wire, but it is not USB cable, and does not meet the USB specification, I am unsure why Ghent chose to make a USB cable using that wire.

 

 

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
1 hour ago, barrows said:

What makes you sure that a USB cable bearing that badge actually meets the specification?  Are the cables individually tested and certified?  I would think not.  Given that many USB cables, bearing that certification, are manufactured in China, where I have had direct experience of cable manfacturing errors and outright scams (the sample cable for testing meets spec, but the subsequent production run cables do not), I would not be surprised if some cables bearing that  badge did not meet spec.

 

It is at least likely because the design has been tested to comply. Having proper QA is another matter.

 

iPhones are also made in China, as well as lot of other stuff.

 

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I think it is possible that some "audiophile" USB cables which meet the performance spec (bandwidth and impedance) but do not comply with the construction spec, may perform even better sonically.

 

I have Supra USB cable, but what I've tested I failed to hear any difference to a certified cable. So it is now in a storage box unused.

 

It is easy to get normal USB cable with ferrite beads, or have correct type of snap-on ferrites added on normal cable. For my Supra it is not possible because the outer dimensions are not standard. Almost all of my audio use USB cables have ferrites, except USB3 cables (Holo Audio and iFi gear, etc).

 

But I try to stick to objective measures. I'd be curious to see technical explanation what aspects and how they make it perform better sonically and/or measurements from the DAC output that show this difference.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yes, me too!  I hear differences in USB cables, and these are distinct enough that once I know the difference, I can pick them out blinded as well, so the differences exist.  It is maddening, but true nonetheless.  I suspect it has mostly to do with how the signal and noise is interacting with the USB receiver.  Only with poorly designed DACs have I ever heard of any analog DAC output measurements which confirmed the differences in cables, but the differences in sonics are still there with well designed DACs (properly isolated USB inputs, etc).

HiFi News tested some audiophile USB cables a couple of times, and found correlation between listening tests and high precision eye pattern testing, I wish someone would do more testing like this.  I would really like to see really high precision spectrum analysis of the ground, power, and data lines, and of the ground plane on the USB receiver board with different cables. Maybe we would something!

 

I'm looking at the DAC output, that's what you are listening. Not eye patterns on data cables, those are only useful for debugging problems.

 

But I'm not into audiophile data cables. My data cables are standard things, USB cables are certified, and ethernet cables are also typical IT gear. I have some 10+ HQPlayer servers and some tens of DACs. Not going spend horribly lot of money playing with data cables on such. I get the objective DAC output performance I want with standard cables with ferrites. When all or most of the cabling is the same throughout all gear, comparing things head-to-head is also easier.

 

My analog cables are Supra, in analog domain cables make more difference. And I agree with Supra design philosophy of minimizing capacitance on interconnect and minimizing inductance on speaker cables. And these are not horribly expensive either, and are made in neighboring Sweden.

 

 

P.S. I think this thread has drifted horribly off topic...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Miska said:

Almost all of my audio use USB cables have ferrites, except USB3 cables (Holo Audio and iFi gear, etc).

 

Is there something about USB3 spec that means ferrites are not required?

 

I’ve struggled to find them but like you, I use many USB2 cables with ferrites built-in 

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...