Jump to content

barrows

  • Content Count

    6359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

About barrows

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    High above Boulder

Recent Profile Visitors

16073 profile views
  1. Without knowing more about the exact circuitry of the DAC i could not say, this is a question I would suggest you address to Holo Audio.
  2. A PLL has a kind if window function, and the opening of that window can be wide, or it can be narrow. A very wide window will be able to lock to high jitter streams coming in, and a very narrow window will require a lower jitter signal to begin with. For example, the ESS 9038 DAC chip has an onboard PLL, with an adjustable input "window", when you adjust the window to its lowest opening, the DAC will not lock to some (higher jitter) sources, and the solution is to either open the window a bit, or reduce the jitter of the source. Opening the window a little wider is a compromise, because it
  3. One big difference between these two DACs is that the Terminator DACs do not have any additional output stage to drive the output, and hence they have a rather high output impedance. It does appear that Holo Audio pays a lot of attention to the design of their output stages as well, with a hybrid design and an IC based I/V section and a discrete transistor drive section. Additionally, one cannot achieve the very excellent measurements of the May without the output stage being very, very well engineered.
  4. I have not made a direct comparison between the 1.4 and 1.5, but I would highly doubt the 1.5 would sound better than the (limited edition) 1.4. The 1.4 version was a big step better than the original µR. The 1.4 should hold its value, I know I am keeping mine (used in my bedroom system)!
  5. The Sonore Power supply could be available at different voltages on a custom order basis... Anybody interested in that could send me a PM to discuss your needs.
  6. Ummm... First of all, we would need ot specify what jitter you are referring to: As you mention Rendu Series renderers, I guess you mean Ethernet jitter, and not digital audio jitter? For Ethernet, at every step along an Ethernet pathway, any jitter is removed because indeed, the data is buffered, and then re-clocked out of that buffer. So every device an Ethernet signal goes through buffers and re-clocks the data, every router, switch, modem, and fiber media converter buffers and re-clocks the data, removing any jitter from the incoming stream, and creating a new jit
  7. Thanks Chris... Right now I am on my third day of being evacuated form my home due to wildfire... Needless to say, I am missing playing music on my system at home. Fingers crossed...
  8. I develop high performance linear power supplies for audio products professionally, and am quite confident that these supplies are the equal of anything available from anywhere. These supplies are evaluated both through measurements and by listening. It really is not very difficult to design a state of the art linear power supply as long as the budget for parts is not limited, despite the cult like following for some power supplies out there... If you heard a DAC sound better with a linear, the only reason for that would be that the SMPS used was not as good as it could be. Ther
  9. I applaud you for not just following the crowd, and being willing to test every approach in your own system, and make changes based on your observations despite what other's may say about what sounds "better"! Thanks for sharing this path... On SMPS, yes many of them are a problem and should not be in the audio system. But it is important to realize that all SMPS are not created equal. Most SMPS are designed to be as affordable as possible, and only address noise enough to pass FCC regulations (in the US) on interference and not be high quality in terms which woudl affect au
  10. Buffer size used depends on the transfer protocol used (RAAT, DLNA, NAA, LMS) the are all different. And some, like LMS allow for some adjustment of that. That said, after having experimented with buffer sizes in the LMS settings, I struggled to hear any difference at all, to the point that the differences I might have heard could just as easily been imaginary. If there were differences, there was certainly no clear conclusion: in other words, longer/bigger buffering was not superior. As far as hardware buffer capability of the µR, uR, and oR, that would be proprietary and not some
  11. I did not mention anything about data errors, and I fully agree that I do not think anyone here is suggesting that data errors are to blame for the SQ differences which some claim to perceive. My objection is to the use of the terminology that somehow, some mysterious "thing/problem" is "embedded" in the data. There is nothing "embedded" in the data when it goes into a receiving buffer, the data is perfect, and it contains nothing in terms of clocking, as their is no clock in the buffer, just the perfect data and nothing else. Data is clocked into the buffer, and clocked out of the buffer,
  12. I do not agree that many of these things cannot be proved, although proving a negative is virtually impossible, proving a positive improvement should be very possible. The measurement tools certainly do exist for this, as we have measurements which can resolve many things well below the threshold of audibility; the real challenge in proving things is figuring out exactly what to measure. This is an old problem, with a bit of a new paradigm on it from the current state of affairs in the US: unfortunately our culture here in the US has, in the past few years, embraced a concept of there be
  13. When person(s) make extraordinary claims which are completely contrary to how Network data transfers actually work in a technical sense, then the onus for "proof' would fall on the person making the extraordinary claim, not on the person suggesting that the claim is unsupported by any reasonable technical explanation.
  14. Or perhaps, if one looks at this excerpt: "You can do that same test in my system, and although you disconnect the cable while playing, the buffered tracks using the switch with the upgraded clock sound much better. In other words, even if you disconnect the network cable, whatever good or bad things your network does is already embedded in the buffered track somehow. Don't ask me how or why... I wish I could explain all that, but I can't. Sorry to tell you that, but I don't agree with your simple theory. I wish it was that simple, but it's a lot more complex than th
×
×
  • Create New...