|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 15, 2016 12:21:14 GMT -5
Should one cable differ from another? Assuming adequate construction, no. Over time, they may oxidize at different rates depending on the metallurgy, but when new, they work or they don't.
Do correction capabilities differ? Probably. But since the consumer will never know which device has the most effective correction capabilities, then you're right - there is no "best" interface.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 15, 2016 12:21:43 GMT -5
My question is this. I can understand the need for streaming on the fly with movies. But for audio we already have substantially good error correction models in say ethernet stuff. where there is a buffer or sometimes the entire file is transmitted as a whole. And then the player (for instance the Oppo) decodes the entire file. This removes to a large part the need for jitter protocols. The file is bit perfect. Timing is unimportant as it is no longer streamed. It sits in the player memory. I am curious why most audiophile setups simply don't have it where the entire file is read and stored in memory and then decoded right at the decoding point.
Then the only jitter then will come from within the player itself versus jitter from the transport. Jitter from the cable. Jitter from the input of the player. etc etc
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jan 15, 2016 12:26:20 GMT -5
Then you have guys that hear differences in the stored media...say a hard drive vs. a solid state drive: "Paul McGowan <paul@psaudio.com> Jan 10 at 5:05 AM To jmilton7043@yahoo.com Message body Armchair critics It’s easy to ignore–often criticize–the hard won victories of creative people designing leading edge technology. In fact, it’s one of the double edged swords of our abundantly-connected society that empowers readers with just enough information to miss the bigger picture. And this is part of the problem I find in helping unravel the workings of audio – and explaining the mysteries of differences in sound quality when none should be there. For when we wave our hand and suggest they should have done a better job, we gloss over all that does work well. Take the relationship between a DAC and its source as an example. The architecture of the CD playback system was originally developed in the early 1980’s as an integrated device; a transport and DAC in one box. Within that box the optical drive supplies the master clock to the DAC through a variable timing mechanism; its variability essential to accommodating disc variations. Variations in the master clock result in increased levels of jitter, reflected back to the listener in degraded audio performance. Armchair critics can suggest that DACs should have been designed as independent entities–instead of slaves to the source–and few would argue in hindsight. However, let us not wave our hand in a dismissive gesture. I find it more instructive to understand and appreciate the mechanisms behind the technology, even if they have flaws, rather than brush them off like a bothersome insect. I suggested that different types of hard drives present music differently. I know this raises the eyebrows and hackles of many. But, I can tell you with no uncertainty that a solid state hard drive inside my Mac Mini server sounds markedly different than a mechanical one. Want more? The type of RAM employed matters too. How can this be? Data is data. Bits are bits. Right? Well, it’s true only in some cases. A solid state hard drive sounds identical to a mechanical hard drive only when connected over a network, but different when powered by a computer connected to a DAC. Power supply variations in computers attached to DACs increase jitter levels in the same way that jittered master clocks in CD transports do. But, network connected storage is different. It is physically isolated from the DAC and the device feeding the DAC. Jitter can result from differences in power supply and processing demands. Want to learn more? I would recommend re-watching our DAC designer, Ted Smith, in his series on what jitter is and why jitter matters." |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 15, 2016 12:31:21 GMT -5
Then you have guys that hear differences in the stored media...say a hard drive vs. a solid state drive: "Paul McGowan <paul@psaudio.com> Jan 10 at 5:05 AM To jmilton7043@yahoo.com Message body Armchair critics It’s easy to ignore–often criticize–the hard won victories of creative people designing leading edge technology. In fact, it’s one of the double edged swords of our abundantly-connected society that empowers readers with just enough information to miss the bigger picture. And this is part of the problem I find in helping unravel the workings of audio – and explaining the mysteries of differences in sound quality when none should be there. For when we wave our hand and suggest they should have done a better job, we gloss over all that does work well. Take the relationship between a DAC and its source as an example. The architecture of the CD playback system was originally developed in the early 1980’s as an integrated device; a transport and DAC in one box. Within that box the optical drive supplies the master clock to the DAC through a variable timing mechanism; its variability essential to accommodating disc variations. Variations in the master clock result in increased levels of jitter, reflected back to the listener in degraded audio performance. Armchair critics can suggest that DACs should have been designed as independent entities–instead of slaves to the source–and few would argue in hindsight. However, let us not wave our hand in a dismissive gesture. I find it more instructive to understand and appreciate the mechanisms behind the technology, even if they have flaws, rather than brush them off like a bothersome insect. I suggested that different types of hard drives present music differently. I know this raises the eyebrows and hackles of many. But, I can tell you with no uncertainty that a solid state hard drive inside my Mac Mini server sounds markedly different than a mechanical one. Want more? The type of RAM employed matters too. How can this be? Data is data. Bits are bits. Right? Well, it’s true only in some cases. A solid state hard drive sounds identical to a mechanical hard drive only when connected over a network, but different when powered by a computer connected to a DAC. Power supply variations in computers attached to DACs increase jitter levels in the same way that jittered master clocks in CD transports do. But, network connected storage is different. It is physically isolated from the DAC and the device feeding the DAC. Jitter can result from differences in power supply and processing demands. Want to learn more? I would recommend re-watching our DAC designer, Ted Smith, in his series on what jitter is and why jitter matters." So what I got out of this: Sure there is a difference between solid state and mechanical drives. I bet the solid state sounds more sterile and cold. What audiophiles need are tube hard drives. Or store data on vinyl. And all jitter matters, not just coax jitter or toslink jitter or USB jitter. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jan 15, 2016 12:39:34 GMT -5
Yes. You captured the very essence of what he was saying. And that being a bottle cap collector is more rewarding, and certainly easier, than being an audiophile.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 15, 2016 12:56:20 GMT -5
There shouldn't be any significant difference between the two SPDIF cables since they are both using the same protocol. The big advantage optical has is that it optically isolates the components. No need to worry about electrical noise or ground loops. The tradeoff is that the max distance is much shorter. Some people hear a difference. If you do, go with the better one. The protocol is the same, but the jitter performance isn't. The whole purpose of asynchronous USB is to take this particular part of the jitter problem out of the equation, which, provided that is has been implemented properly, it does strikingly well compared to either type of S/PDIF (i.e. compared to *both* optical S/PDIF *and* coaxial S/PDIF). Only caveat, for S/PDIF and HDMI the clocking information is not provided as a separate clock signal. Instead, the clock signal has to be *derived* from the data signal at the receiving end of the digital connection, which thereby induces its own jitter. While there exist various possible mechanisms that can be added to clean up this jitter, the simple fact that asynchronous USB doesn't induce this jitter so that it doesn't have to be cleaned up anyway in the first place is still inherently better, even though you obviously are right that the implementation matters. If you don't get along with computers, you probably are better off if you stop using computers.  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 15, 2016 13:31:59 GMT -5
Yes. You captured the very essence of what he was saying. And that being a bottle cap collector is more rewarding, and certainly easier, than being an audiophile. But what he was saying is only one particular part of the story. Computer hardware components generate massive amounts of both electric noise and EMI/RFI. The metal conductors in a coaxial S/PDIF cable or USB cable act as antennae so they pick up EMI/RFI from the air that surrounds them. While this can be effectively countered either by using e.g. a double or triple shielded cable, electric noise coming out of the digital data output connector can still ride the data lines in the cable so some sort of isolation is required in addition to this. In the case of an optical cable, an optocoupler in the transmitter part of the digital connection is still subjected to electric noise, and, obviously so is the *clock* part of the optical transmitter component. On top of that, optical S/PDIF typically has far worse jitter performance than coaxial S/PDIF has. Furthermore, optocouplers tend to slowly degrade over time. As a typical result, isolation transformers are much preferred over optocouplers. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 15, 2016 14:23:45 GMT -5
Just popped another CD into the ERC-3, so easy.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 15, 2016 15:01:08 GMT -5
There shouldn't be any significant difference between the two SPDIF cables since they are both using the same protocol. The big advantage optical has is that it optically isolates the components. No need to worry about electrical noise or ground loops. The tradeoff is that the max distance is much shorter. Some people hear a difference. If you do, go with the better one. The protocol is the same, but the jitter performance isn't. The whole purpose of asynchronous USB is to take this particular part of the jitter problem out of the equation, which, provided that is has been implemented properly, it does strikingly well compared to either type of S/PDIF (i.e. compared to *both* optical S/PDIF *and* coaxial S/PDIF). True, they do differ in that regard. In my mind, I put that difference in the insignificant category. Others claim it makes a big difference. People should try both for themselves, if they are worried. Some equipment works better with toslink, others with coax so no definitive answer, unfortunately. -tm |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Jan 15, 2016 16:03:15 GMT -5
Just popped another CD into the ERC-3, so easy. Cheers Gary I agree that this is the best 'digital' interface!   |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jan 15, 2016 16:17:47 GMT -5
Just popped another CD into the ERC-3, so easy. Cheers Gary ...well played. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jan 15, 2016 16:20:01 GMT -5
Hemster beware!...
You do not know where that digital interface has been.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Jan 15, 2016 17:03:29 GMT -5
Hemster beware!... You do not know where that digital interface has been. If unsure one must don a digital interface prophylactic.  |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jan 15, 2016 17:06:55 GMT -5
Yes. You captured the very essence of what he was saying. And that being a bottle cap collector is more rewarding, and certainly easier, than being an audiophile. Nothing wrong or hard about being an audiophile. Now, being an audiophool, that my friend is a path strewn with those who make endless "I can hear it!" claims backed up with no evidence, and nights spent wondering if their ethernet cable has the correct amount of twists per inch in the "green-white / blue" twisted pair cause heaven help them - something doesn't sound "quite right" and the 0's and 1's must be getting trapped in a kink. And all that bluetooth and wifi must _surely_ be slowing down the 1's because the 0's have holes in them for the radiation to travel through. Me personally, I tap all the 0's and 1's on a typewriter straight into my DAC. Can't be too careful these days. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 15, 2016 17:08:21 GMT -5
Just a reminder, the ASRC (asynchronous sample rate converter) in the XMC makes input jitter a minor issue, if an issue at all. And that includes the HDMI inputs as verified by Emotiva a while back.
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 16, 2016 3:34:10 GMT -5
The protocol is the same, but the jitter performance isn't. The whole purpose of asynchronous USB is to take this particular part of the jitter problem out of the equation, which, provided that is has been implemented properly, it does strikingly well compared to either type of S/PDIF (i.e. compared to *both* optical S/PDIF *and* coaxial S/PDIF). True, they do differ in that regard. In my mind, I put that difference in the insignificant category. Others claim it makes a big difference. People should try both for themselves, if they are worried. Some equipment works better with toslink, others with coax so no definitive answer, unfortunately. -tm In *my* mind, I can put the difference in the *nonexistant* category thanks to the fact asynchronous USB is specifically designed to make it completely disappear. So it's the most definitive way of scratching the "if" out of "if they are worried".  |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Jan 16, 2016 12:38:12 GMT -5
It's possible that none of the protocols are "the best". On Sony's top player, the HAP-Z1ES, I've wondered why you can only play music that has been transferred and saved to the player. No S/PDIF, USB, coax, AES/EBU, ethernet, wireless or HDMI.
This is very inconvenient but may have to do with how data errors are resolved. When transferring the file (over wifi), the Sony is able to ask the computer which is supplying the music file to resend data that was received with an error. And when the Sony is playing the file, I suppose the hard disk would be made to re-read any data that was not received correctly. The same cannot be said for some of the protocols.
That said, I didn't hear anything special when I heard the Sony. It just sounded like a good CD source.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 16, 2016 13:40:38 GMT -5
True, they do differ in that regard. In my mind, I put that difference in the insignificant category. Others claim it makes a big difference. People should try both for themselves, if they are worried. Some equipment works better with toslink, others with coax so no definitive answer, unfortunately. -tm In *my* mind, I can put the difference in the *nonexistant* category thanks to the fact asynchronous USB is specifically designed to make it completely disappear. So it's the most definitive way of scratching the "if" out of "if they are worried". Well, I was just talking about toslink vs coax there. I don't disagree, however. USB is my favorite. Sounds great and no HDMI hassles. -tm |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 16, 2016 14:17:44 GMT -5
My main problem is there isn't any realistic consumer sources for AES/EBU or even BNC for the computers. There are the professional cards with 32 channel break out AES cables which look awful. But I'm not looking for that. Those look to be really meant for large amounts of channels with tons of cables coming out of them. Not necessarily for excellent two channel performance. Like this monstrosity  There is a few USB to AES converters. Not looking for that either. Why would I Want to convert to AES from something else? All these devices coming out have AES and BNC connections. Considering that a large majority (I assume) do not use CD players with AES and BNC connections for their main source why are all these manufactures making them? Or more importantly where the heck are the people capitalizing on this lack by introducing their own? The technology is there. It isn't impossible.... The best I've found that looks realistic dedicated and not hideous was this BNC output. www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA36T19U0786 And it isn't saying much as we have little in the way of measurements, types of clocks etc. I'm okay with spending $250 on a dedicated transport for the computer maybe a bit more even. But not say $1000 on these hideous looking professional cards. Right now it seems like the only other option is to use a dedicated PCI express USB 3 output card to output a dedicated USB port. Then use that port to output it to a USB to AES or BNC connector. And honestly I am not thrilled with the idea of USB. Regardless of their asynchronous communication and clock capabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 17, 2016 17:34:00 GMT -5
Boom, this quote is from a company who are actual experts in digital audio:
"Keep in mind that toslink is not a reliable format for higher PCM sample rates. Some equipment doesn't do well even at 88.2 or 9k6Hz. It can work but we've found that some toslink pipes are better than others and it's common to have trouble due to dirty/contaminated connectors. The original Aries has a coax S/PDIF output that I tested to operate correctly up to 192kHz with our equipment."
|
|
