Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by beerandmusic

  1. But who knows what "jitter" is audible anyway (grin). I still say for my ears, many times hdmi sounds much better than analog out of many/most universal disc players that i have heard. They usually sound more dynamic and better bass, but i guess that just means that the dac in the avr (in my case, i use a marantz sr6013 as a preamp) is better than the dac in the universal disc player regardless of hdmi jitter. I don't argue on these sites much anymore as my hearing has continued to get worse (smile)....seems like not much i throw at my system makes it sound "next level" in my budget anymor
  2. i am referrring to the "box" that gmgraves purchased that converts the hdmi signal to i2s for the dac. I would think that some hdmi protocol would be needed to convert it.
  3. but isnt the hdmi protocol used in the conversion? How else would the audio signal be translated? To be honest, to my ears, I have many times thought that hdmi sounded pretty damn good (at least compared to typical bluray internal dacs).
  4. I thought i have heard for many years that hdmi was an inferior interface because of jitter and why no one uses hdmi in the "audiophile" world?
  5. Well I got my Gustard A18 and it sounds as good or better than any DAC I have heard, and I am pleased. Most notably is depth and detail especially with native DSD256.
  6. before the dac all that exists is digital music and noise....and the digital music is received perfectly, so nothing left to compensate for besides noise.
  7. I asked Barrows the same question comparing to the Teac Nt503 about 4 years ago and he couldn't answer and the teac was only about $1k if i remember. I am not convinced it would sound any better than just streaming to a marantz nd8006....put your money in speakers.
  8. i have been using sony blu-ray players to stream dsd since 2013 and i think the Teac NT503 network dac came out in 2014?
  9. how did the qutest compare with your hegel dac? I thought about trying "chord magic" after Davide talks up his mojo so much, but then ran into someone else that had the mojo and said it sounds the same as any other dac he has owned, and has had pretty much same experience as me, hoping for an appreciable upgrade from a dac and never getting one. Qutetst was going to be my last hope...curious if i will hear any real appreciable difference.
  10. do you happen to know if the remote allowed you to power off the unit with long-hold, or no way to turn off with remote?
  11. i got the gustard a18 from them (Apos audio). I am surprised they let you return it after 4 weeks? I understand the gustard a18 is heavier and feels more solid than the d90.
  12. i would think so, comparing $700 topping d90 dac to your $2500 dac...that hegel looks nice... i don't think my $500 gustard a18 dac will compare much to your $2500 dac either....but there is always the other side of the fence that believes all dacs that measure well will sound the same....who knows...
  13. I just bought the gustard a18 It's the lowest price DAC that supports DSD with an LPS that measures "well". Sports the new ak4499 chips In all likelihood, i won't hear an appreciable difference, and will prefer streaming via my marantz (yawn)....but i need a new toy. AND IT'S ON SALE !! I love sales. $505 (bought at apos.audio and had them match shenzenaudio https://shenzhenaudio.com/products/gustard-dac-a18-ak4499-balanced-dac-lme49860-6-decoder-with-remote-control )
  14. I think any new dac i buy will specifically market galvanic isolation, and if that isn't really necessary, then the topping d90 is looking better all the time...but i still don't think it will sound any better than just streaming with my marantz, as that has been my experience after trying about 15 different dacs.
  15. Anyway, i liked your first response better, that i believe, if i understand correctly, is that all dacs "regenerate" (term used loosely) to indicate it goes through some processor, and no dac literally isolates the usb 5v reference....so we are back at square one...do dacs compensate for usb noise sufficiently or not....one side will say they do and that usb noise cannot make a difference and they will all sound the same, and the other side will say you have to spend a lot of money and they still will not compensate enough.......which is why i would like a dac that does isolate as best as poss
  16. That may be true, but how is it possible for anyone to make a decision then on which ones to try? They can't base it solely on measurements, and they can't base it on debatable technologies. THat is the problem with the hobby. Sure you can say base it on your own hearing...I have already tried that as well trying a multitude of them. No one can seem to offer "logical" reasoning for the layman. By definition of function of the dac, all dacs should sound exactly the same, and I have yet to find one usb dac that sounds as good as other interfaces. I am very close to giving up on the
  17. Regarding 5v reference, i probably misunderstood schiits marketing::: Self-power by the DAC for the critical low-noise re-clocking and latching sections. I thought that meant that they are providing their own voltage (assuming some type of regulators), to do the reclocking so they didn't need to rely on the 5v from the usb in case it had problems. I guess i just have a wild imagination (grin)...again, thinking the purpose is to isolate the usb noise.
  18. In your quote above, did you mean the gen5 already had Wurth Ethernet transformer module and a standard digital isolator on the I2S lines, or that is a new feature of the unison? Not that it matters, because i don't want to fork out for a yggi, and miska suggests the bifrost sampling rate is not high enough, so I am not going to look at schiits anymore...at least not any of their current offerings.
  19. oh and regard to reclocking, i just noticed that schiit used that term, and I thought it had to do with "regenerating" the perfect bits, thinking that it may be necessary for timing purposes. (in my mind i just picture the bits coming into a circuit and then the dac uses it's own clock to pass the bits on to its circuitry at a control point that it is managing).... I don't really understand why reclocking may or may not be necessary. I believe your device "regenerates" the signal because it is trying to compensate for usb noise that may affect the digital music?...and my thinking IF it is nec
  20. THanks for sharing...it will take awhile for me do digest even a fraction of this. I guess where I am "trying to go", is that I am stuck... I want usb for functionality purposes, but I always "think" that any solution other than usb (enet,toslink,thumbdrive, even hdmi) sound better. Objectivists are trying to convince me that usb noise is not a problem and that all competent dacs will pretty much sound the same, and that my thinking is likely just a problem with "level-matching". Leaving that aside for a moment, i know that the only inputs to a dac are the
  21. Thanks for sharing..this is the type of information i am looking for. In your statement:: Such isolation requires that the DAC re-clock the I2S lines before conversion, hopefully via a masterclock and flip flop located very close to the final conversion stage. Of course an isolated USB receiver needs a dedicated power supply, this can be provided very well by the USB 5 VDC supply, if one is sure their USB source has a clean/low impedance 5 VDC supply, and that the USB cable keeps this supply clean/low impedance. ----------------------------------- Can you clarify.
  22. I don't know if I understood another person correctly or not, but I thought I understood them to say that almost all DACs use their own clock in modern day dacs, so why would the pc source clocks matter regarding timing?
  • Create New...