DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Oct 31, 2018 16:59:19 GMT -5
Thanks, DYohn You wouldn't happen to mean squeezeplay or squeezelite? I used the latter with good results, albeit depending on OS and/or DAC, kernel mods were sometimes needed. Ah yes, sorry, Squeezelite. It's a good player for the LMS environment. Squeezesoft was an old PC-based player that stopped being supported years ago. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,096
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 31, 2018 20:07:26 GMT -5
Not to tee-off the Pi lovers, but remember: the Pi is just a crappy little ARM-based computer that can be programmed to do audio. But it is not specifically designed for this purpose. In my opinion it's only real appeal is it is super cheap, and if you are a DIY sort of person it can be fun. Products designed as network media players like the Sonic Orbiter-based devices, the Micro and Ultrarendu, the SoTM devices, Elac, Arender, Blue Sound products, etc. etc. etc. are also just crappy little ARM-based (usually) computers but they ARE designed specifically for audio, employing low-noise P/S circuits and optimized USB busses and fast memory, etc. And they require no DIY. That's what you pay the extra money for: purpose-built systems, purpose-built software, and ease of use. Whether that's worth the cost to you or not is an individual decision. Same with Roon VS DLNA or bubbleUPNP or any other freeware. It's about what's worth the cost to each user as an individual. I AM a DIY kind of guy and I have played with a Pi and also with a couple other ARM-based crappy little computers, and I can tell you that in my experience the extra cost made a WORLD of difference in sound quality and also in ease of use. YMMV. Respect your opinion - what are you using, if anything? PS - I'm using the Pi for my non-critical listening in my home office. It's a perfect solution to get my Roon music to my old Denon receiver up there. (I had been using Airplay, but, holy cow, was the audio quality crappy). I agree that a Pi is a great solution for non-critical listening. I have one myself for just that purpose. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by liv2teach on Nov 1, 2018 1:21:30 GMT -5
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 1, 2018 2:59:18 GMT -5
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup? Hi, liv2teach - Let's focus on what's really important here - You're enjoying your Tidal subscription? You're happy with how things sound? Then you've answered your own questions! What someone else thinks about it is academic. Enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Nov 1, 2018 4:37:20 GMT -5
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup? Well, if you're asking about the possibility of getting better sound, then you must be curious, and may be even willing to try something new, which is standard audiophile practice, so it is nothing to feel awkward about. In general getting better sound is almost always possible, no matter how great we consider our present system to be, and the idea of trying new things, of exploring new possibilities, is perfectly legitimate, and even desirable for most people in this hobby, otherwise, most of us would probably be satisfied with our first boombox from Sony or Bosé, and never look back. But how entertaining would that be?  The real question is how keen you are to get that better sound now, and how far you are willing to go, at this moment, to get it. Ultimately, only you can answer that question. I am sure you know all of this already, and even practice this approach, as most audiophiles do. On the other hand, your description of your current set up suggests diverse possible upgrade paths. If you're seriously thinking of upgrading, and would like to approach the process, one component at a time, then you need to be more specific about which one you would like to improve or replace at this very moment. Even if you're not thinking of changing anything now, it still did not hurt for you to ask... so your head is safe, as far as I am concerned |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Nov 1, 2018 6:09:55 GMT -5
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup? You are certainly getting your money's worth. My setup - I have a very beefy desktop (Asus, like you). It's an Intel i5 quad core (about 2.7 Mhz clock speed), 32 Gb of memory and a 2Tb SSD. I have USB from my PC to my XMC-1. I upscale everything to 192KHz/24 bits. MQA set to Decoder only. Sounds very good. I'm using the built-in audio functions, and I'm getting the blue light on my Roon client. To me, the question is "bang for the buck". I work in Info Tech, and we have uptime metrics - the goal is 99.9999%. Going from 90% to 98% doesn't cost a lot*, but getting from 99.9% to 99.9999% is pretty darn expensive * - cost = financial and getting staff to change their paradigms. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 1, 2018 9:04:21 GMT -5
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup? The biggest weak link in my opinion is using the headphone amp to drive the line level inputs on your preamp. As long as you don't turn the headphone volume up you should be OK, but it is the most likely place to introduce distortion and other bad things. But, as has already been said, if you like the way it sounds then enjoy the music! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 9:25:37 GMT -5
When it comes to streaming video the Raspberry Pi is somewhat limited in processing power - especially for 4k. However, when playing audio from a local disc, it gives you exactly the same bits as any other computer (or other player device) - assuming both are bit perfect. And, assuming your DAC isn't sensitive to jitter or ground noise, that's basically all there is.
I would not assume that the Pi is especially low in terms of ground or power supply noise... but all USB sources are packet-based and so none of them can possibly be "jitter free". Also, when streaming, there can be other issues, like network stability, which can be a factor.
Methods like AirPlay may simply not be bit-perfect, or may have totally unacceptable latency, or even packet loss, under some circumstances... but that's a whole other issue.
(And streaming methods like DLNA have different capabilities when used with different equipment - so may not always be bit perfect either.)
Respect your opinion - what are you using, if anything? PS - I'm using the Pi for my non-critical listening in my home office. It's a perfect solution to get my Roon music to my old Denon receiver up there. (I had been using Airplay, but, holy cow, was the audio quality crappy). I agree that a Pi is a great solution for non-critical listening. I have one myself for just that purpose. Mark |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 9:27:43 GMT -5
+1 To get this thread back on track - Boom, consider using an Raspberry Pi as Roon endpoint to start with, possibly with an add-on board such as HifiBerry or similar. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 10:14:16 GMT -5
I would agree with that.
You may also find that the Walkman is susceptible to ground noise from the computer (as are many portable devices without good grounds when connected to grounded equipment). The DACs in many pieces of portable gear also don't perform very well compared to purpose built DACs. However, both of those factors vary widely from model to model, so use your ears.
Think about what limitations you currently notice... and aim at those first. And, if you don't notice ANY limitations, then relax.
At the risk of getting my head handed to me... I'm streaming Tidal from my older Asus via USB into my Sony Walkman ZX300 running in DAC mode. From there I'm coming out of the 4.4mm balanced out headphone jack into the rca connections on my preamp and of course on then to the amps and speakers. Everything sounds pretty darn good to me... Am I missing something? Should I have some special equipment to get a better sound? Am I getting my monies worth out of Tidal with this setup? The biggest weak link in my opinion is using the headphone amp to drive the line level inputs on your preamp. As long as you don't turn the headphone volume up you should be OK, but it is the most likely place to introduce distortion and other bad things. But, as has already been said, if you like the way it sounds then enjoy the music! |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 10:33:28 GMT -5
Yes, isn't it funny how, after all the hyperbole, it can be difficult to figure out what some of these little gadgets are supposed to actually DO? 
The SOTM is essentially a streaming network music player. It is simply a small computer that is claimed to be "heavily optimized for playing streaming music over a network".
The Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter.
It replaces the USB input section on your DAC (which may be a huge improvement if your DAC has a lousy USB input section). It also includes galvanic isolation - which MAY reduce the amount of ground and power supply noise from your computer that makes it into your DAC.
Some DACs already include galvanic isolation on some or all of their inputs; some do not; some are far more sensitive to ground noise than others; and your system may have more or less ground noise to begin with. (The most common symptom of this sort of noise is being able to hear noises out of the DAC from your computer when music isn't playing... like "hearing" little chortling noises when you open windows, make menu selections, or your AC comes on).
The AudioQuest JitterBug is simply a "power filter" that claims to reduce the noise on the USB power supply and outputs in your computer. It claims to filter noise from the USB power outputs, and the "USB system power" in general, and also to filter out very high frequency noise that may be present on the USB data lines. (Neither of these functions should be necessary, but I suppose it might improve something in certain problem situations.)
There are also other "USB re-clockers".... which is a way of saying "a USB hub with a good clock" (All USB hubs re-clock the data.). Since the USB clock really isn't all that critical this is unlikely to make much difference.
Some include galvanic isolation, which may deliver a significant improvement, IF you currently have a ground noise problem.
I've also seen various Ethernet tweaks - including "packet re-clockers". This is essentially what most Ethernet switches already do, and really serves very little purpose with audio devices. (If you can actually find the spec, "store-and-forward" switches re-clock the packets, "cut-through" switches essentially do not.)
In general, you are quite correct.... the USB interface is noisy and jittery.... and improving it is dubious at best. It's usually better to simply let the equipment it's connected to ignore the problems - as IT should be designed to do.
...Where did I ever write that it sounds better that what you have and why on earth are you quoting me?  Maybe you should practice reading more and writing long rude posts more.... Hi qdtjni - I owe you an apology, sir. I "kind of quoted" from a BUNCH of different posts (and threads) there, and shouldn't have appended anything to your post at all. I apologize for confusing you (and a bunch of others), and I also apologize for being rude (which I was). You're also accurate when you say that I don't spend enough time back-reading the thread looking for links. Mea culpa. I'll try to do better in the future, and thanks for bringing these issues to my attention. I value your posts, by the way, and appreciate your candor. Boom NOW I'm shifting gears, and the rest of this post is NOT in any way referring to your post that I've quoted above: Back to the topic at hand, klinemj and/or novisnick have told me that the Micro-Rendu and the SOtM devices are not the same as the Audioquest jitterbug and the Schiit Eiter. Would you guys be kind enough to elucidate the differences? I do see some obvious ones through casual inspection: The SOtM, for example, is an "active" device using its own computer to convert Ethernet packets to a USB (PCM) stream. I'm not sure about the Micro-Rendu. The AQ, on the other hand, seems to be a simpler device. The Jitterbug (per its name) claims to reduce USB jitter. I bought one of these, tried it, and upon hearing no audible improvement, sent it back. The Schiit Eitr, though, uses a transformer to remove noise and (per Schiit's claims) also removes jitter. I'm not sure how the jitter removal works, but I don't think that Schiit's lying... I've tried an Eitr in my system before, thanks to a generous loan from DYohn , and didn't find it to do a whole lot - certainly not the degree of audible improvement you guys are claiming for the MR & SOtM. So my question is: Do the AQ and the Schiit not remove ENOUGH noise and jitter to provide benefit? Or do my "no difference" results indicate that my Mac Mini server already has a low enough noise and jitter rate to not need such "clean-up" devices? Further, all of these devices claim to improve USB streams. Why use USB at all? I find it the worst-sounding interface of all the available options (tying for last place with TOSLINK optical). Said another way - HDMI sounds best with coaxial SPDIF a close second in my experience. Why would I want to use USB output from my server OR USB input for my DAC if I don't have to? Of the four devices under discussion, only the Schiit Eidr offers a coaxial output, and I heard little to no improvement from it vs. my existing HDMI connection. Isn't improving the USB interface like putting lipstick on a pig? Boomzilla |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,096
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 1, 2018 11:16:30 GMT -5
When it comes to streaming video the Raspberry Pi is somewhat limited in processing power - especially for 4k. However, when playing audio from a local disc, it gives you exactly the same bits as any other computer (or other player device) - assuming both are bit perfect. And, assuming your DAC isn't sensitive to jitter or ground noise, that's basically all there is.
I would not assume that the Pi is especially low in terms of ground or power supply noise... but all USB sources are packet-based and so none of them can possibly be "jitter free". Also, when streaming, there can be other issues, like network stability, which can be a factor. Methods like AirPlay may simply not be bit-perfect, or may have totally unacceptable latency, or even packet loss, under some circumstances... but that's a whole other issue.
(And streaming methods like DLNA have different capabilities when used with different equipment - so may not always be bit perfect either.)
While what you say is true in theory, as you noted on 10/30/18...you've not heard the devices like the SOtM or the rendu's, so you have not compared them to other options - including the Pi. I have...and I own a Pi and an ultraRendu and have extensively listened to a microrendu and also heard the Signature Rendu SE. Theory is great (and as an engineer, I use theory heavily), but when 2 things sound very different that should sound the same...there's something missing in our theory. It's really that simple. Mark |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 1, 2018 11:30:09 GMT -5
Theory is great (and as an engineer, I use theory heavily), but when 2 things sound very different that should sound the same...there's something missing in our theory. It's really that simple. Mark Or more likely the theory that "digital is digital" is simply wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 1, 2018 12:37:38 GMT -5
Yes, isn't it funny how, after all the hyperbole, it can be difficult to figure out what some of these little gadgets are supposed to actually DO?
The SOTM is essentially a streaming network music player. It is simply a small computer that is claimed to be "heavily optimized for playing streaming music over a network".
The Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter.
It replaces the USB input section on your DAC (which may be a huge improvement if your DAC has a lousy USB input section). It also includes galvanic isolation - which MAY reduce the amount of ground and power supply noise from your computer that makes it into your DAC.
Some DACs already include galvanic isolation on some or all of their inputs; some do not; some are far more sensitive to ground noise than others; and your system may have more or less ground noise to begin with. (The most common symptom of this sort of noise is being able to hear noises out of the DAC from your computer when music isn't playing... like "hearing" little chortling noises when you open windows, make menu selections, or your AC comes on).
The AudioQuest JitterBug is simply a "power filter" that claims to reduce the noise on the USB power supply and outputs in your computer. It claims to filter noise from the USB power outputs, and the "USB system power" in general, and also to filter out very high frequency noise that may be present on the USB data lines. (Neither of these functions should be necessary, but I suppose it might improve something in certain problem situations.)
There are also other "USB re-clockers".... which is a way of saying "a USB hub with a good clock" (All USB hubs re-clock the data.). Since the USB clock really isn't all that critical this is unlikely to make much difference.
Some include galvanic isolation, which may deliver a significant improvement, IF you currently have a ground noise problem.
I've also seen various Ethernet tweaks - including "packet re-clockers". This is essentially what most Ethernet switches already do, and really serves very little purpose with audio devices. (If you can actually find the spec, "store-and-forward" switches re-clock the packets, "cut-through" switches essentially do not.)
In general, you are quite correct.... the USB interface is noisy and jittery.... and improving it is dubious at best. It's usually better to simply let the equipment it's connected to ignore the problems - as IT should be designed to do.
Hi qdtjni - I owe you an apology, sir. I "kind of quoted" from a BUNCH of different posts (and threads) there, and shouldn't have appended anything to your post at all. I apologize for confusing you (and a bunch of others), and I also apologize for being rude (which I was). You're also accurate when you say that I don't spend enough time back-reading the thread looking for links. Mea culpa. I'll try to do better in the future, and thanks for bringing these issues to my attention. I value your posts, by the way, and appreciate your candor. Boom NOW I'm shifting gears, and the rest of this post is NOT in any way referring to your post that I've quoted above: Back to the topic at hand, klinemj and/or novisnick have told me that the Micro-Rendu and the SOtM devices are not the same as the Audioquest jitterbug and the Schiit Eiter. Would you guys be kind enough to elucidate the differences? I do see some obvious ones through casual inspection: The SOtM, for example, is an "active" device using its own computer to convert Ethernet packets to a USB (PCM) stream. I'm not sure about the Micro-Rendu. The AQ, on the other hand, seems to be a simpler device. The Jitterbug (per its name) claims to reduce USB jitter. I bought one of these, tried it, and upon hearing no audible improvement, sent it back. The Schiit Eitr, though, uses a transformer to remove noise and (per Schiit's claims) also removes jitter. I'm not sure how the jitter removal works, but I don't think that Schiit's lying... I've tried an Eitr in my system before, thanks to a generous loan from DYohn , and didn't find it to do a whole lot - certainly not the degree of audible improvement you guys are claiming for the MR & SOtM. So my question is: Do the AQ and the Schiit not remove ENOUGH noise and jitter to provide benefit? Or do my "no difference" results indicate that my Mac Mini server already has a low enough noise and jitter rate to not need such "clean-up" devices? Further, all of these devices claim to improve USB streams. Why use USB at all? I find it the worst-sounding interface of all the available options (tying for last place with TOSLINK optical). Said another way - HDMI sounds best with coaxial SPDIF a close second in my experience. Why would I want to use USB output from my server OR USB input for my DAC if I don't have to? Of the four devices under discussion, only the Schiit Eidr offers a coaxial output, and I heard little to no improvement from it vs. my existing HDMI connection. Isn't improving the USB interface like putting lipstick on a pig? Boomzilla @kiethl , SOTM is a manufacturer, not a particular device it produces! They produce many different typse of gear. One of which is a streamer with a few options available to add on for other functions. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,096
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 1, 2018 13:15:44 GMT -5
Theory is great (and as an engineer, I use theory heavily), but when 2 things sound very different that should sound the same...there's something missing in our theory. It's really that simple. Mark Or more likely the theory that "digital is digital" is simply wrong. As inventor on over 130 patents, I've seen that truly breakthrough innovations no longer follow the old theories/old formulas. They may simply add a new variable (something else which must be measured to predict outputs from given inputs) or they render the whole formula obsolete. In either case, the old theory is no longer correct in that it is incomplete. As I have many times in my work career - all models are wrong, and some are useful (but they are only useful until proven wrong). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Nov 1, 2018 13:19:55 GMT -5
Or more likely the theory that "digital is digital" is simply wrong. As inventor on over 130 patents, I've seen that truly breakthrough innovations no longer follow the old theories/old formulas. They may simply add a new variable (something else which must be measured to predict outputs from given inputs) or they render the whole formula obsolete. In either case, the old theory is no longer correct in that it is incomplete. As I have many times in my work career - all models are wrong, and some are useful (but they are only useful until proven wrong). Mark But how good is a theory if there is not a potential to be proved wrong or lacks internal validity? 🤔 |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 13:39:24 GMT -5
Agreed....
But, when differences do exist, it would be nice to have at least some theory as to why.... to avoid the possibility of any confusion. If two digital sources claim to be delivering the same audio, but they seem to sound different, then there must be an actual reason.
So, for example, if two digital sources sound different, but both claim to be bit perfect, and are both being put through a re-clocker that claims to remove all jitter and noise, then somebody must be fibbing. If they were delivering the same bits, with the same quality clock, and no jitter or noise, then they would sound the same; therefore, either one or the other isn't really bit-perfect, or the re-clocker really isn't removing all the jitter or noise.
Now, the reality is that very few things are absolute...
For example, an ASRC doesn't remove ALL jitter - what it does is to reduce any jitter present by at least 40 dB or more - which is not exactly the same thing.
And an asynchronous USB input provides a local data clock, but is still limited by the quality of that local clock, and cannot absolutely ignore data dropouts or upstream data errors.
However, what I really dislike is explanations that are clearly incorrect..... or that make specific claims that are unjustified. For example, when a re-clocker claims "to eliminate or reduce data errors", but claims to improve bit-perfect data. By definition, if your data is already bit-perfect, it has no data errors, so there are no errors to reduce or eliminate. And, therefore, any device that claims to improve how it sounds by removing data errors, CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DOING SO. Likewise, data errors are relatively simple to measure, so it should be simple to demonstrate that it is actually reducing the number of data errors.
If I'm selling a device that "reduces data errors" then I should be able to provide a few examples of test results showing numbers before and after. I get annoyed with devices that claim, for example, to reduce data errors when playing CDs... when, of the hundreds of CDs I've ripped, all but two of the showed ZERO data errors to begin with. Now, perhaps some of those devices made something sound better for a different reason, but it's impossible for any of them to reduce the number of errors on a typical CD to fewer than zero.
(Therefore, assuming that the difference it seems to be making is real, then something else must be going on.)
I am quite convinced that this is the main reason why different people have such different experiences with many of these devices.
Analog signals have a lot of variables... but digital signals have far fewer... and digital systems are specifically designed to ignore almost all of them. This is one of the things that's so great about digital data... it really is just numbers... (the clock really only comes into play when the data is in motion or being converted; files on a disc do not have a clock).
When it comes to streaming video the Raspberry Pi is somewhat limited in processing power - especially for 4k. However, when playing audio from a local disc, it gives you exactly the same bits as any other computer (or other player device) - assuming both are bit perfect. And, assuming your DAC isn't sensitive to jitter or ground noise, that's basically all there is.
I would not assume that the Pi is especially low in terms of ground or power supply noise... but all USB sources are packet-based and so none of them can possibly be "jitter free". Also, when streaming, there can be other issues, like network stability, which can be a factor. Methods like AirPlay may simply not be bit-perfect, or may have totally unacceptable latency, or even packet loss, under some circumstances... but that's a whole other issue.
(And streaming methods like DLNA have different capabilities when used with different equipment - so may not always be bit perfect either.)
While what you say is true in theory, as you noted on 10/30/18...you've not heard the devices like the SOtM or the rendu's, so you have not compared them to other options - including the Pi. I have...and I own a Pi and an ultraRendu and have extensively listened to a microrendu and also heard the Signature Rendu SE. Theory is great (and as an engineer, I use theory heavily), but when 2 things sound very different that should sound the same...there's something missing in our theory. It's really that simple. Mark |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 13:40:22 GMT -5
Yes... I forgot. Yes, isn't it funny how, after all the hyperbole, it can be difficult to figure out what some of these little gadgets are supposed to actually DO? The SOTM is essentially a streaming network music player. It is simply a small computer that is claimed to be "heavily optimized for playing streaming music over a network". The Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter.
It replaces the USB input section on your DAC (which may be a huge improvement if your DAC has a lousy USB input section). It also includes galvanic isolation - which MAY reduce the amount of ground and power supply noise from your computer that makes it into your DAC.
Some DACs already include galvanic isolation on some or all of their inputs; some do not; some are far more sensitive to ground noise than others; and your system may have more or less ground noise to begin with. (The most common symptom of this sort of noise is being able to hear noises out of the DAC from your computer when music isn't playing... like "hearing" little chortling noises when you open windows, make menu selections, or your AC comes on). The AudioQuest JitterBug is simply a "power filter" that claims to reduce the noise on the USB power supply and outputs in your computer. It claims to filter noise from the USB power outputs, and the "USB system power" in general, and also to filter out very high frequency noise that may be present on the USB data lines. (Neither of these functions should be necessary, but I suppose it might improve something in certain problem situations.)
There are also other "USB re-clockers".... which is a way of saying "a USB hub with a good clock" (All USB hubs re-clock the data.). Since the USB clock really isn't all that critical this is unlikely to make much difference.
Some include galvanic isolation, which may deliver a significant improvement, IF you currently have a ground noise problem. I've also seen various Ethernet tweaks - including "packet re-clockers". This is essentially what most Ethernet switches already do, and really serves very little purpose with audio devices. (If you can actually find the spec, "store-and-forward" switches re-clock the packets, "cut-through" switches essentially do not.)
In general, you are quite correct.... the USB interface is noisy and jittery.... and improving it is dubious at best. It's usually better to simply let the equipment it's connected to ignore the problems - as IT should be designed to do.
@kiethl , SOTM is a manufacturer, not a particular device it produces! They produce many different typse of gear. One of which is a streamer with a few options available to add on for other functions. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 13:47:31 GMT -5
That assertion depends on the context.... and, in some contexts, it is not really valid.
For example, here's a list of ten numbers: 1, 2, 4, 65, 65, 71, 86, 98, 102, 27 I assert that a different list of THE SAME TEN NUMBERS would be identical - REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY WERE ARRIVED AT OR DERIVED. Another list of those same ten numbers will not and cannot be "different" because of where it came from, what equipment it passed through on the way, or anything that was done to it. A digital audio file is simply a list of numbers.
Now, when you choose to convert those numbers into analog audio, a whole bunch of factors come into existence. For example the clock. The clock, while it may appear simple, is actually subject to a large number of variables. And the conversion process itself is subject to many more.
However, SPEAKING STRICTLY FOR THE ORIGINAL LIST OF NUMBERS, there is nothing you can do to "make those numbers sound better" WITHOUT CHANGING THEM. It is both a logical and practical impossibility.
Theory is great (and as an engineer, I use theory heavily), but when 2 things sound very different that should sound the same...there's something missing in our theory. It's really that simple. Mark Or more likely the theory that "digital is digital" is simply wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 1, 2018 14:08:35 GMT -5
By the way, since this subject of USB "issues" for music delivery seems to keep coming up again and again and again like an unkillable zombie — darn, one day late for Halloween — will the new RMC-1, RMC-1L (AKA RMC-2), XMC-2, and DC-2 all have "good" USB Input sections which are immune/insensitive to Electrical Noise and fully reclock all of the Audio Data?
Casey
|
|
The real question is how keen you are to get that better sound now, and how far you are willing to go, at this moment, to get it. Ultimately, only you can answer that question. I am sure you know all of this already, and even practice this approach, as most audiophiles do. 
Maybe you should practice reading more and writing long rude posts more....
