Which Front End?

[mpmct]

Sorry Chris my comment was too harsh. My bad.

 

The Stereophile article you linked to coincidentally

illustrates my frustration though, with so much of the commentary

in the audiophile business. I don't find any proof

anywhere, that toslink jitter has been proven to be audible,

in that article specifically, or anywhere else -- not that I've

been able to find. If that's the case, and there are no studies

that prove otherwise, seems to me that it would be fairer, and

more accurate to say then: Toslink interface has the worst jitter,

*but no one has proven that that amount of jitter is audible*.

It measures on charts, but those charts might be as useful to your ears

as the maximum top speed on your BMW is to your driving.

 

Seems to me that the Stereophile article is full of assumptions, and at best

confusing conclusions, if not downright contradictions.

 

What are we to make of this? ...

 

"Critical listeners agree that the Toslink sounds substantially

inferior to coaxial—an assertion that brings scorn from the "bits is bits" mentality."

 

Who qualifies as a 'critical listener', who were those critical listeners,

how many, and when did this group arrive at concensus?

And by what means was concensus reached?

 

..............

 

"Moreover, there seems to be a broad correlation between a digital

processor's measured jitter performance and certain aspects of its

musical presentation."

 

"Seems to be"?

Which 'certain aspects of musical presentation'?

 

..............

 

If the sound is different, then signals are different—we just need

to know what signals to measure. The LIMD is a powerful ally in the

quest to measure the differences we hear; witness the difference in

measured jitter between coaxial and Toslink interfaces, for example."

 

Fine.

 

But who heard the differences the graphs illustrate?

 

Not the reviewers evidently ...

 

..............

 

"How much jitter is audible? In theory, a 16-bit converter must have

less than 100 picoseconds (ps) of clock jitter if the signal/noise

ratio isn't to be compromised."

 

..............

 

"Although the Mark Levinson No.30 (reviewed in February '92) had low

jitter (218-384ps), these figures were higher than expected

considering the No.30's custom input receiver and superb sound quality."

 

Jitter two to three times the theoretical 100ps upper limit

in which 'compromise to signal/noise ratio occurs', and the unit

produces 'superb sound quality'?

~$16,000 new.

 

..............

 

"Despite my negative feelings about its sound quality, the Vimak

DS-2000 (reviewed last month) had astonishingly low levels of

jitter: just 34.8ps compared with their specified 50ps."

 

'Astonishingly low jitter' but 'negative feelings about sound quality'?

~$5,900 new.

 

..............

 

The PS Audio UltraLink (reviewed in June 1992) had very low jitter

of 139-177ps, this surprising in light of the fact that it uses the

most jitter-prone receiver chip, the Yamaha YM3623B.

... its jitter performance was excellent and among the best measured."

 

Surprisingly low jitter from a jitter-prone chip? No explanation.

~$2,300 new.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[audioengr]

"Jitter two to three times the theoretical 100ps upper limit

in which 'compromise to signal/noise ratio occurs', and the unit

produces 'superb sound quality'?"

 

The thing you must understand is that average/RMS or maximum amplitude jitter measurements are only one part of jitter characterization. This does not characterize jitter by any means. There is also spectra and modulation and modulation spectra as well. These things at low amplitude can more easily be heard in some cases than just large jitter amplitude.

 

This is why some devices with relatively high jitter amplitude sound better than others with lower jitter amplitude.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi mpmct - Thanks for the detailed and professional response. I think many people who partake in our wonderful hobby are on your side of the fence about jitter measurements and audibility. Whatever side of the fence people are on we still share the love of music and fine reproductions of that music.

 

Have a great new year's eve!

 

[cfmsp]

 

mpmct says:

 

"I don't find any proof anywhere, that toslink jitter has been proven to be audible, in that article specifically, or anywhere else -- not that I've been able to find. If that's the case, and there are no studies that prove otherwise, seems to me that it would be fairer, and more accurate to say then: Toslink interface has the worst jitter, *but no one has proven that that amount of jitter is audible*."

 

 

A good source for gaining insight into the audibility of jitter is Bob Katz, either his excellent book - Mastering Audio, or his website, www.digido.com.

 

here's one article I found interesting - http://www.digido.com/faq/10-J/67.html - altho there are several others.

 

I couldn't find the specific article, but I know he discusses the various 'spectra' of jitter and how that increases audibility as well. Note: this is consistent with what Steve Nugent mentions earlier in the thread.

 

enjoy,

clay

 

FWIW, for those interested, the pointer to this info was posted very recently here on Computer Audiophile. I couldn't find the specific post, but I believe it was posted by Dan Weiss, perhaps in the 'is 192kHz pointless' thread.

 

Kudos to Chris for attracting knowledgeable people here to discuss/point to information much more relevant than Stereophile articles.

 

 

 

 

 

[Suteetat]

Hi, I just discovered this site a couple of days ago. I also have the Esoteric DA-05 and am thinking of adding PC/Lynx as a music server to my stereo system. One thing that I am still not clear is whether DA-05 can accept 176/24 file through single AES/EBU (XLR) connection or not. I know that you definitely need dual AES/EBU cables or i.link (IEEE) cable for DSD playback when used with Esoteric transport. Coaxial and single AES/EBU definitely can accept 96/24 signal as I have the Cullen modified Sonos ZP-80 that i use currently for my music server that upsample 44/16 to 96/24 (Unforunately Sonos does not support native 96/24 file). The manual is not very clear on this but for some reasons, I kept thinkng that DA-05 only accept 176/24 file via dual AES/EBU connection or i.link. Hopefully that is not the case but if it is, I wonder if this Vesta firewire interface might solve that problem http://www.weiss-highend.ch/vesta/index.html

since I can convert output from AES/EBU from Lynx soundcard to firewire (IEEE) with the Vesta. This is of course assume that i.link on Esoteric which accepts IEEE 1394 cable (S400 compatible whatever that is) would work with Firewire 800 that Vesta output and is not some kind of proprietary stuff.

This whole dual AES/EBU is a bit annoying but if I am not mistaken, dCS and Chord DA converter also only accept 176/24 file from upsampled 44.1/16 via external upsampler (dCS) or its transport unit (Chord) through dual AES/EBU only as well.

I emailed Esoteric regarding this but have not heard anything back yet.

 

 

[danish]

It seems that the Weiss AFI1 interface supports dual wire: http://www.designwsound.com/dwsblog/?p=35, either with a software update for older units or dip switches on the back on new units.

 

You could maybe consider to output dual AES/EBU from a Lynx AES16e directly to the D-05.

 

I'm not sure about the firewire. The P-05/D0-5 review at 6moons clearly states that the D-05 cannot be connected to a computer with firewire. Maybe its different if the signal is passed through some kind of audio interface...?

 

Looking forward to hear what Esoteric has to say in response to your question.

 

 

 

[Mike in MD]

I am also interested in hearing what Esoteric has to say.

 

And Berkeley Audio still has not responded to my email asking about an external clock input for the Alpha DAC. I will send them an email "reminder" this weekend. But maybe if other people from this forum wrote to Esoteric and Berkeley asking for these responses, we would get their attention.

 

Mike

 

PS: Taking my suggestion to heart, I just wrote to Esoteric at [email protected] asking them to respond to the email question described above. BTW, the Berkeley email address is [email protected]

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi suteetat - Dual wire is not a problem with the Lynx card. If the Esoteric only supports 176.4 via dual wire it's really a non-issue if you have a Lynx.

 

 

 

 

[Suteetat]

Thanks for all the comment. So far no word from Esoteric yet but since it is right around holiday time, I expect it may be awhile before I hear back from them.

 

I understand that Lynx breakout cable has lots of XLR connection and if I am reading this correctly, i can set "wide wire" mode in lynx mixer adapter page for dual XLR connection, is this correct?

 

I hope Esoteric dual XLR connection is simply 2 channels stereo digital signal and not some sort of weird proprietary protocol thing.

 

I plan to use Lynx AES16 with my old PC that is laying around (WinXP, 3Ghz single core AMD CPU) running mediamonkey. I suppose that for dedicated music server, there is not much need for better spec computer, is that correct? All of my music is currently resided n a RAID-1 NAS.

 

Which AES16 card do I need, the AES16-XLR or AES16-SRC?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike in MD]

Hi,

The Lynx website says:

 

AES16 - AES16 PCI Card - no cables

AES16-XLR - AES16 plus two CBL-AES1604 (dsub to XLR) six-foot cables

AES16-SRC - AES16 with eight channels of sample rate conversion plus two CBL-AES1604 cables

 

www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=13

 

So, if you are doing 2 channels, you would get the XLR version.

 

Hope this helps.

Mike

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - One correction. You'll only need the AES16 version and you'll need to order one breakout cable. The XLR version of the AES16 comes with two breakout cables which would give you 16 channels (8 each).

 

I've used dual wire with the AES16 and breakout cable.

 

Your existing computer will work great for this setup as a music server.

 

[danish]

I may wait for the release of Amarra and run the music server on a macbook pro with firewire and a Sonic Studio 303 or 304. Hopefully dual wire is possible on the Sonic Studio models.

 

Would love to read a review of the Amarra very soon, Chris.. :-)

 

[Suteetat]

This is the reply I got back from Esoteric.

 

Dear Suteetat,

 

The D-05 can accept either a single of dual AES/EBU input. It can also accept a digital S/PDIF input via either a coaxial digital connection (RCA connector) or the Tos-Link optical connection. The preferred manner would be Dual AES/EBU because of the upsampling capabilities. The next best is Single AES/EBU.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

ESOTERIC Support

 

>

 

He did not specifically say 176/24 but oh well.... hopefully he meant it.

I will have to get Lynx AES16 from abroad as they don't seem to have any dealer over here that I can find.

 

[danish]

Thanks for the update, Suteetat! He pretty much mentioned all the possible connections on the D-05 but I doubt all of them do 24/176. I should be receiving my D-05 later this week. I have just ordered a Lynx AES16 card in the US (Ebay). The cheapest online offer I have found in Europe was at http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/ at £ 626. Depending on customs and tax rates at you place it might be cheaper to buy it in the US.

 

[catastrofe]

Just an update here. . .

 

I got my Mac Mini set up over the holiday, and ripped my entire collection (~500 CDs) to AIFF on my Drobo/Droboshare. I'm feeding via Gigabit Ethernet to the Mini, then to my D-05 via optical glass Toslink using the Audioquest mini-Toslink to Toslink adapter. I also have a pre-made cable from Lifatec with a mini-Toslink on one end and a standard Toslink on the other but I haven't compared the 2 cables.

 

I went with a Mac Mini for now as the selection of Hi Rez music is still realtively small. I'll probably upgrade to a Mac Pro/Lynx combination later this year. For now, my music has never sounded better. I really like upsampling RBCD content to DSD. . .everything sounds so "right". The little 24/96 content I do have sounds absolutely fantastic without upsampling.

 

I'm using the D-05 as a digital preamp, removing my Pass Labs X-1 from the chain. The Esoteric has plenty of gain and removing the X-1 added another level of detail to the music. My D-05 didn't come with a remote, but for $80 I purchased a Logitec Harmony 510 and downloaded codes that allow me to change inputs and volume. Esoteric gets $200 for their remote. . .

 

Chris, this site has been a wealth of information and knowledge. . .keep up the good work.

 

Thanks,

 

Bob

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I may wait for the release of Amarra and run the music server on a macbook pro with firewire and a Sonic Studio 303 or 304"

 

To avoid confusion, I should point out that the Sonic Studio hardware being offered with Amarra is NOT the 303 or 304, but rather Model Three and Model Four. As it turns out, the Model Four is quite a bit different from the 304, based on the photo of the face plate as well as specs & features.

 

For starters, the 304 appears physically identical to the MH 2882, whereas the Model Four faceplate sports individual controls for eight channels. Also, Amarra and associated hardware handle 192kHz, whereas MH gear only supports up to 96K (which it has done for 7 years!).

 

enjoy

clay

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Bob - Great to hear your enjoying your system! High end audio is a wonderful hobby and it's fabulous when we can all help each other get better sound and better music.

 

Plus it really makes the site fun when readers report back with positive stories like you have.

 

[Suteetat]

I got more clarification from Esoteric. D-05 can accept upto 88 kHz via single XLR. For 176 kHz, I will need dual XLR connection. Hopefully Lynx AES 16 wide wire mode is the same thing as dual XLR connection for Esoteric.

 

 

 

[danish]

Bob,

 

Got the D-05 and it sounds very good indeed.

 

Is your Harmony 510 configured with Harmony Remote Software?

I have a Harmony One but I can't find the proper device which I guess would be the P-05. It would be a little too much to buy an original Esoteric remote for the sake of a few IR commands.

 

Thomas

 

[catastrofe]

Hi Thomas,

 

Yes, I have my 510 configured with the remote software. The D-05 doesn't show in Harmony's device listing. I downloaded codes for the AZ-1 amplifier, which provides control of inputs and volume. Hopefully they'll have the correct codes sometime in the future. . .it would be nice to have control over the upsampling from my listening chair.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

 

[jimim]

Chris,

 

You mentioned a bunch of pages back about the Alpha DAC not having an internal clock? From speaking with Steve on my last thread re: jitter he was saying that any DAC with an upsamler would have a clock? I'm confused now?

 

So dO you mean there is no cocking cause you are using the bypass setting so you get what goes in comes out?

 

If you upsample in the DAC then there is a reclocker taking over?

 

thanks,

jimi

 

[Mike in MD]

jimi,

 

The Alpha DAC has an internal clock, but not an input for an external word clock.

 

See the thread: Clocks and the Alpha DAC

which is about two weeks old. It has a reply on this subject from the designers of the DAC.

 

hope this helps,

Mike

 

 

 

 

[Suteetat]

I just borrowed the Esoteric P05 remote from my dealer and had the Harmony remote learned the command from that. However, since now no longer hooked my D-05 directly to my amplifier, I got rid off the remote. Hmm...now it might be time to get the remote working again

 

btw do you manage to get the D-05 to hook via dual XLR route for 176/24 connection? Doest it work with wide wire mode on Lynx AES16?

My AES16 card should be arriving this week and I am anxious to try this out. Although as far as I know, there are only about 10 commercial 176/24 recordings available and may be only 2-3 of those contain music that I might actually enjoy listening to, it would be nice to know that it will work !

 

 

 

[danish]

Bob, thanks for the tip! Somehow it never occurred to me to look in the amplifier category.

 

Suteetat, if the original remote has commands for every single input on the D-05, it would be great to be able to choose it in the harmony software.:-)

 

Regarding the AES16 I actually cancelled the order. After all I couldn't accept the thought of having a noisy desktop computer hooked up to my music system. I have decided to go the macbook/macmini firewire route through a firewire interface. I am probably soon going to try a TC Electronic Digital Konnekt X32 which seems to be able to connect all kind of digital formats to each other . One of my friends works at TC and I don't live very far from their Danish R&D department, so it is pretty easy for me to try one at home. If it doesn't work with 24/176 or 192 dual wire AES I might try the Weiss AIF1, even though it is somewhat limited in terms of digital input formats. (AES/EBU and ADAT only, I think).

I look very much forward to hear your findings about the AES16.

 

 

 

[Suteetat]

Thomas, I definitely am very eager to see how it will turn out. The card cleared the custom this am so Fedex should deliver it to me either today or tomorrow at the latest.

I went with AES16-SRC version which as if I understand correctly, will also do upsampling of 16/44 to 24/88 or 24/176 as well. Just hope that wide wire mode will work with D-05.

 

The remote for P-05 has all the control for D-05 if I remember correctly, volume control, source switching, menu etc, all in all about 5-6 buttons, just like what's on the panel of D-05.

 

I downloaded some Linn 24/88 files and ordered a couple of RR 24/176 so I i will keep my fingers crossed.

 

Noise on PC is not too bad. I have my PC next to the stereo then run a 10m HDMI cable under area rug to a monitor next to my couch for easy control. I did not go silent route with Zalman heat pipe case and such but just have a couple of large low RPM, low noise fan in aluminum case and that seems to work ok for me. Also, there are some acoustic dampening material you can add to the case as well but I have not experiment with that yet.