|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 3, 2018 14:42:51 GMT -5
As far as the Real-Time Digital Data Transport, there are only a couple of "Bad Things" which can occur: Data Corruption/Loss and not arriving in time (FIFO Underflow for the DAC). These should both be present as statistics counters. And any errors like this should be readily solvable.
As far as the Analog DAC Circuitry and the Digital Data Transport, there's really only one thing that could go wrong: electrical noise on the input screwing up things. For this I often hear "Galvanic Isolation" being suggested as the solution.
Everything else is the DAC itself.
Casey
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 3, 2018 14:48:55 GMT -5
As far as the Real-Time Digital Data Transport, there are only a couple of "Bad Things" which can occur: Data Corruption/Loss and not arriving in time (FIFO Underflow for the DAC). These should both be present as statistics counters. And any errors like this should be readily solvable. As far as the Analog DAC Circuitry and the Digital Data Transport, there's really only one thing that could go wrong: electrical noise on the input screwing up things. For this I often hear "Galvanic Isolation" being suggested as the solution. Everything else is the DAC itself. Casey You are a perfect candidate to try one of these devices. You are a skeptic...like I was, like boomzilla was, like wilburthegoose was, and like many more. When skeptics listen and end up saying..."uh, I was wrong...they figured something out" - then that's kind of important. It says there's something missing in our understanding of how things work. That's not a bad thing - it's actually pretty cool, at least to me. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 3, 2018 15:07:39 GMT -5
I think these tools exist For those who want to use them. I will attempt to find out more THANKS garbulky! I'd be happy to invest the time & effort if I had access to tools. And I just got a chuckle from that phrase "Access to Tools" (the motto of the Whole Earth Catalog). Flashback to Divine Right's Trip... |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 3, 2018 15:49:12 GMT -5
You are a perfect candidate to try one of these devices. You are a skeptic...like I was, like boomzilla was, like wilburthegoose was, and like many more. When skeptics listen and end up saying..."uh, I was wrong...they figured something out" - then that's kind of important. It says there's something missing in our understanding of how things work. That's not a bad thing - it's actually pretty cool, at least to me. Well, the biggest change I can make right now is to significantly update my DAC. Right now I'm using an old Logitech Squeeze Touch as a Roon Bridge feeding into me old DMC-1 via Optical S/PDIF (Toslink). I plan on buying an RMC-1 for my birthday in May ... hopefully there'll be a Streaming Module for the RMC-1 by then ... Casey |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 16:41:29 GMT -5
I consider the fact that Roon always tells you what it's doing to be a Very Good Thing.
One of the problems with the old SqueezeServer, and with many DLNA implementations, is that they don't tell you when they resample or convert things.
I'm pretty sure that Roon Bridges don't do any sort of Audio Signal Processing. The Roon Bridge's job is to serve as a TCP/IP Network Endpoint (typically Ethernet) for the Roon Core to send Audio Data in order to bridge over to a different Transport Technology (USB, S/PDIF, i2s, etc.) or the actual DAC itself if it's Roon Ready. The only processing that I'm aware of that the Roon system performs is done in the Roon Core to do Volume Control (if Roon doesn't have access to the DAC's Volume Control) and translation to Audio Formats supported by the DAC if the Digital Audio Asset format isn't supported by the DAC (for instance, DSD to PCM). That said, if the Roon Bridge wasn't especially good and didn't know how to do, say, DSD in any manner (either DSD over PCM or "Native DSD"), then I presume the Roon Core would be forced to translate DSD Assets into PCM (which very well could introduce a sonic difference). Or maybe if the Roon Bridge were truly bad and couldn't support High Frequency PCM the Roon Core might have to translate that into a Lower Frequency PCM. But if either of the above were true, you'd see it in the Roon Controller's Signal Path Display UI element. Casey |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 16:48:32 GMT -5
Huh......
Both of those concepts make sense - when discussing room dimensions and shapes (or speaker cabinets). Having ratios that are not even multiples helps assure that the room modes for each dimension will be different - so they won't add or subtract as badly as even multiples would
And having non-parallel walls minimizes reflection-based resonances (however, if you really can do whatever you want, the ideal room shape is probably some sort of egg-oid with no flat surfaces at all).
However, neither of them has any special relevance to electronics, and nothing much at all of any benefit to cables or other electronics. (So, if they just wanted a gimmick, they'd be better off thinking up and patenting their own.)
Might mR have purchased George Cardas 'Golden Ratio' under license Or perhaps his 'Golden Trapagon' |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 3, 2018 16:48:55 GMT -5
You are a perfect candidate to try one of these devices. You are a skeptic...like I was, like boomzilla was, like wilburthegoose was, and like many more. When skeptics listen and end up saying..."uh, I was wrong...they figured something out" - then that's kind of important. It says there's something missing in our understanding of how things work. That's not a bad thing - it's actually pretty cool, at least to me. Well, the biggest change I can make right now is to significantly update my DAC. Right now I'm using an old Logitech Squeeze Touch as a Roon Bridge feeding into me old DMC-1 via Optical S/PDIF (Toslink). I plan on buying an RMC-1 for my birthday in May ... hopefully there'll be a Streaming Module for the RMC-1 by then ... Casey Fair. At some point, you should try one of these...I was shocked at how much better the sound was. For me, it was a bigger step than any DAC change I have done. And, I do hope the Emotiva streaming module comes to fruition and is as good as the devices many of us have talked for audio. Right now, I am skeptical because clearly Keith doesn't think that they can do anything of value like so many of us report. I don't know what Lonnie thinks, but...he's been silent on the topic, as has Dan - other than to say they hope to have a streamer (which we've heard for a very long time). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Dec 3, 2018 16:55:14 GMT -5
At this point I feel very comfortable telling skeptics, just go try one. Many here have been skeptics and have had positive results. I'll admit that some over at computer audiophile are so over the top that it is hard to trust them. But here we have solid non crazies (well most of us).
I think Emotiva should buy one as competative product to evaluate. Look how good computer audio can be done.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 16:56:08 GMT -5
I agree with what you said - in a practical sense - but not in a literal sense.
In a literal sense, there is in fact a "perfectly correct", at least when you're talking about a live recording.
It is simply the point at which no listener is in any able to tell the reproduction from the original.
A reasonably good copy of a Rembrandt is one that I can't tell from the original.
A VERY good copy is one that an art expert can't tell from the original. A VERY VERY good copy is one that even the guy at the museum, with an unlimited budget, can't tell without damaging it.
A PERFECTLY CORRECT copy would look the same, smell the same, taste the same, produce the same sort of ash if you burned it, and the same sort of pain if someone hit you with it.... (well, that would be a good start).
There are two simple issues that make this impossible with music (at least for now):
1)
Our technological capabilities are nowhere good enough
(For example, you can place microphones at strategic locations, but they cannot record the amplitude and direction of each individual sound signal).
2) In many cases, especially with modern recordings, there in fact is no original to replicate. (Many modern recordings are constructed, from pieces, in a mixing console.... so the "original" doesn't actually exist and never did.)
From the link above: Which is a standard form of a bad argument. Points 1 & 2 may well be correct, but point 3 leaps from an argument which is related to points 1 & 2, to an unrelated and unsupported conclusion. Unless of course you define "correct" as "the thing the user prefers" ... which is a very non-standard and deceptive use of that word's definitions. I.e. - It appears that current metrics for measuring Audio Systems are not capturing all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience.
- Different people have different preferences (quite possibly unrelated to accurate audio reproduction).
- Even if metrics are developed to cover the entire Human Auditory Experience, and Audio Systems are developed which accurately reproduce the original Audio Event, some people will prefer less accurate Audio Systems.
Is a better way of stating what's being argued. Casey And thus you restate the point. The bottom line is that since we are humans, what may or may not be defined as "correct" or "accurate" or "adequate" or to form a "standard" or a "measure" is moot when the question concerns individual perception and preference. Thus, there is no escape from subjectivity, and subjectivity simply cannot be codified nor defined nor turned into a standard. The question "who determines what is "correct?"" is the key, and the proper answer is "each of us, for ourselves." |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 16:59:02 GMT -5
HOWEVER, if you were to EXACTLY reproduce what arrived at the ears of each of those listeners, we would expect their brain to reconstruct the same conclusions. (Assuming you excluded or duplicated things like visual stimuli and any relevant environmental issues.)
An (exaggerated, but only slightly) anecdote from a focus group "blind test" experiment I once participated in. Four "average" people in a room, all relaxed and feeling good, told that they were about to hear a sound and we wanted them to describe what they heard. We play a recording of the Stanford student orchestra playing a series of tones. The first person says, "An orchestra playing tones." the second, "That was terrible, it hurt my ears." The third, "If you listen closely, the second violin is flat." The fourth, "Are you using Scan Speak slit-cone revelator mid range drivers?" Each person heard what they wanted to hear. Why? Because they were humans and we tried not to define perception biases for them. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 17:04:19 GMT -5
Interesting.... I would also point out that, if it really is "emphasizing a certain frequency range", then it would HAVE to be altering the bits. You cannot alter the frequency response, or the actual dynamic range, without altering the bits.
Of course, it would theoretically be possible to do something that is perceived as doing so, but really isn't.... like the audible version of an optical illusion. For example, an increase in "perceived clarity" could be the result of a reduction in jitter (if that reduction could be realized at the actual input to the DAC chip).
It would be very interesting, once and for all, for someone to capture the actual bit stream and confirm that it is or is not the same. Unfortunately, making an exact recording of a bit stream, over a Coax connection can be a bit of a challenge.)
I've now got the Schiit Eitr in my audio signal-chain again, allowing me to use the Microrendu with DACs that don't have a USB input (such as my Arcam AVR550). I've also now got the (most excellent) Sennheiser HD-650 headphones in the house that let me hear a bit deeper into the MR-voodoo. And these "enhancements" change my Microrendu listening how? In the first post of this thread, I speculated that the Microrendu emphasized the presence band. Mr. klinemj replied that he doubted it because the MR/Ultrarendu's effects were also audible in the bass and treble ranges. And while I agree with Mr. Kline, I think I also slightly disagree. To use an analogy, my Microrendu seems to add "Technicolor" effects to some otherwise bland recordings. And although the audio effects DO also affect the bass and treble portions of the frequency spectrum, the effects do not seem to be applied equally across the entire frequency range. Yes, there ARE more dynamics in the bass and treble, but that dynamic enhancing effect is DOUBLY applied to the presence range - affecting female voices and percussive leading-edge sounds particularly. Now I've used my Microrendu with three DACs (the Mytek Liberty, the Emotiva Stealth DC-1, and the Arcam AVR-550s built-in), and while the results of the Microrendu itself are consistent, the interaction with the DACs can create different results. In terms of their "sans-Microrendu" native sound, I'd rate the Mytek nominally the brightest (bordering on, but never quite sliding into Sabre glare), the DC-1 the closest to neutral (in my system), and the Arcam a tad laid-back. WITH the Microrendu (with or without the Schiit Eitr in the system), the Mytek becomes harsh, the DC-1 sounds like the (non-Microrendu) Mytek, and the Arcam now sounds like the (non-Microrendu) DC-1. In other words, each DAC seems to have more "presence range" with the Microrendu in the system. That said, the Microrendu doesn't really create any "etch" around the leading edges of presence-range sounds (an excellent trick, that) except slightly with the Mytek. So compared to headphone listening without the Microrendu, I think that the Microrendu's "more vivid presentation" IS slightly an artifact of an enhanced presence range. And although the Technicolor overlay is definitely pleasant with some (most?) music, and although it's also IMMEDIATELY audible for most listeners, it can still be "too much" with some associated equipment, and is, therefore, not a universal panacea. So depending on your equipment, I could understand some users trying this and saying "no thanks." The "negatives" of my Microrendu, to list them plainly, are the following: 1. The MR (to my ears and in my room) seems to slightly emphasize the presence range of female voices and percussive leading edges leaving slightly lower frequency sounds (tom-tom heads and male voices, for instance) sounding slightly lower in amplitude 2. With some equipment already prone to glare (my Oppo UDP-205 with its Sabre DAC and my Mytek Liberty with its Sabre DAC, for instance) the presence enhancement can sometimes be "too much" and cause "etching" on those presence range sounds 3. The device isn't cheap and mine uses a "Bozo the Clown" concoction of power supply components that are tedious to locate among your other equipment But for MY system, the positives of the Microrendu are generally greater than the negatives. That said, is the Microrendu worth its price? THAT becomes an entirely different kettle of whatever. Would your system benefit more from having an extra $1,000 in the pair of speakers that you're using? Would your system benefit more from $1,000 of room treatments? Would your family rather have the extra $1,000 in the bank? For many of us (particularly the younger Loungers who are still raising families and buying houses) these are all VERY significant questions. I don't see a Microrendu streamer being the best upgrade for a one to two thousand dollar system... But for those of us to whom a grand is not a big issue, then the Microrendu (or other similar streamers) is/are probably worth trying. For those who can't afford one, the value question is moot. But for those in the middle, definitely try it before you buy it - both Sonore and SOtM offer reasonably generous return periods. And who knows, you might fall in love. Boomzilla |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 3, 2018 17:13:19 GMT -5
HOWEVER, if you were to EXACTLY reproduce what arrived at the ears of each of those listeners, we would expect their brain to reconstruct the same conclusions. (Assuming you excluded or duplicated things like visual stimuli and any relevant environmental issues.)
An (exaggerated, but only slightly) anecdote from a focus group "blind test" experiment I once participated in. Four "average" people in a room, all relaxed and feeling good, told that they were about to hear a sound and we wanted them to describe what they heard. We play a recording of the Stanford student orchestra playing a series of tones. The first person says, "An orchestra playing tones." the second, "That was terrible, it hurt my ears." The third, "If you listen closely, the second violin is flat." The fourth, "Are you using Scan Speak slit-cone revelator mid range drivers?" Each person heard what they wanted to hear. Why? Because they were humans and we tried not to define perception biases for them. Yea well the entire point was all four people were in the same room at the same time exposed to the same sound and their perception was vastly different and colored by their own biases. So no, it's not an engineering construct at all. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 3, 2018 17:15:32 GMT -5
Interesting.... I would also point out that, if it really is "emphasizing a certain frequency range", then it would HAVE to be altering the bits. You cannot alter the frequency response, or the actual dynamic range, without altering the bits. Of course, it would theoretically be possible to do something that is perceived as doing so, but really isn't.... like the audible version of an optical illusion. For example, an increase in "perceived clarity" could be the result of a reduction in jitter (if that reduction could be realized at the actual input to the DAC chip). It would be very interesting, once and for all, for someone to capture the actual bit stream and confirm that it is or is not the same. Unfortunately, making an exact recording of a bit stream, over a Coax connection can be a bit of a challenge.)
I've now got the Schiit Eitr in my audio signal-chain again, allowing me to use the Microrendu with DACs that don't have a USB input (such as my Arcam AVR550). I've also now got the (most excellent) Sennheiser HD-650 headphones in the house that let me hear a bit deeper into the MR-voodoo. And these "enhancements" change my Microrendu listening how? In the first post of this thread, I speculated that the Microrendu emphasized the presence band. Mr. klinemj replied that he doubted it because the MR/Ultrarendu's effects were also audible in the bass and treble ranges. And while I agree with Mr. Kline, I think I also slightly disagree. To use an analogy, my Microrendu seems to add "Technicolor" effects to some otherwise bland recordings. And although the audio effects DO also affect the bass and treble portions of the frequency spectrum, the effects do not seem to be applied equally across the entire frequency range. Yes, there ARE more dynamics in the bass and treble, but that dynamic enhancing effect is DOUBLY applied to the presence range - affecting female voices and percussive leading-edge sounds particularly. Now I've used my Microrendu with three DACs (the Mytek Liberty, the Emotiva Stealth DC-1, and the Arcam AVR-550s built-in), and while the results of the Microrendu itself are consistent, the interaction with the DACs can create different results. In terms of their "sans-Microrendu" native sound, I'd rate the Mytek nominally the brightest (bordering on, but never quite sliding into Sabre glare), the DC-1 the closest to neutral (in my system), and the Arcam a tad laid-back. WITH the Microrendu (with or without the Schiit Eitr in the system), the Mytek becomes harsh, the DC-1 sounds like the (non-Microrendu) Mytek, and the Arcam now sounds like the (non-Microrendu) DC-1. In other words, each DAC seems to have more "presence range" with the Microrendu in the system. That said, the Microrendu doesn't really create any "etch" around the leading edges of presence-range sounds (an excellent trick, that) except slightly with the Mytek. So compared to headphone listening without the Microrendu, I think that the Microrendu's "more vivid presentation" IS slightly an artifact of an enhanced presence range. And although the Technicolor overlay is definitely pleasant with some (most?) music, and although it's also IMMEDIATELY audible for most listeners, it can still be "too much" with some associated equipment, and is, therefore, not a universal panacea. So depending on your equipment, I could understand some users trying this and saying "no thanks." The "negatives" of my Microrendu, to list them plainly, are the following: 1. The MR (to my ears and in my room) seems to slightly emphasize the presence range of female voices and percussive leading edges leaving slightly lower frequency sounds (tom-tom heads and male voices, for instance) sounding slightly lower in amplitude 2. With some equipment already prone to glare (my Oppo UDP-205 with its Sabre DAC and my Mytek Liberty with its Sabre DAC, for instance) the presence enhancement can sometimes be "too much" and cause "etching" on those presence range sounds 3. The device isn't cheap and mine uses a "Bozo the Clown" concoction of power supply components that are tedious to locate among your other equipment But for MY system, the positives of the Microrendu are generally greater than the negatives. That said, is the Microrendu worth its price? THAT becomes an entirely different kettle of whatever. Would your system benefit more from having an extra $1,000 in the pair of speakers that you're using? Would your system benefit more from $1,000 of room treatments? Would your family rather have the extra $1,000 in the bank? For many of us (particularly the younger Loungers who are still raising families and buying houses) these are all VERY significant questions. I don't see a Microrendu streamer being the best upgrade for a one to two thousand dollar system... But for those of us to whom a grand is not a big issue, then the Microrendu (or other similar streamers) is/are probably worth trying. For those who can't afford one, the value question is moot. But for those in the middle, definitely try it before you buy it - both Sonore and SOtM offer reasonably generous return periods. And who knows, you might fall in love. Boomzilla I don't work for them but they claim there is no "altering the bits." It's just they have purpose-built a super-quiet audio platform for decoding them. Again, do yourself a favor and stop trying to second guess 'why." Buy one and experience it yourself. Tear it apart if you desire. Have fun. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 17:33:57 GMT -5
I have to disagree there... but it's a matter of approaching it as an engineering problem.
First off, the fact that you're using Ethernet along the way is irrelevant. You start with a FILE, which is a known source of digital data.... You send that file through whatever sort of transport you want - using whatever gadgets you like.
Then you capture the output at the far end - by recording the data coming out the USB port at the output of the Rendu (or whatever). You save the captured data to another file.
If those two files are exactly the same then you know the data hasn't been altered. At that point, you must assume that the difference is caused by THE WAY IN WHICH THE DATA IS PRESENTED TO THE DAC. (For example, the quality of the clock, or noise which might be on the signal along with the data, and which "annoys" the DAC.) And, if the two files are not the same, then the mystery is solved... because the transport is altering the data along the way.
Files DO NOT have jitter. Files DO NOT have a clock. Files DO NOT even have timing. Files are simply a list of numbers.
This is something you should theoretically be able to do with a sound card - but the practice is sometimes more complicated than the theory. However, I do find it odd that the manufacturers of devices like the Rendu are unwilling or unable to make any specific detailed technical claims abut what their devices are doing.
...I mean, seriously, we have crazy people spending stupid amounts of money for insane gadgetry with no real definition of success. Would it break the bank to offer some concrete, real world, actually meaningful, data on what's really happening for the Digital Transport portions of the signal chain which ARE measurably "correct" in a concrete manner. Yea Gods ... After that, let the Analog Magic reign supreme ...Casey You touch on the core of the problem, Casey - There ARE no readily-available data analysis tools to compare a source audio file from an Ethernet source to a destination audio file from a USB source. The manufacturers don't WANT their devices analyzed, and the consumers lack the tools to do it themselves. And this is surprising because those tools SHOULD be software-based, not hardware. To analyze differences three things would be needed: 1. A software tool that could identify an audio sample and capture it to a file from an Ethernet source in a common format 2. A software tool that could identify the exact SAME audio sample and capture it to a file from a USB source in the same format 3. A software that can compare the Ethernet file and the USB file, identifying any differences and then analyzing those differences in comprehensible terms The only reason that "voodoo explanations" abound is that such tools are not readily available. May I also point out that not everyone is an engineer, and disdain for those who lack your training does not become you. The average Lounge member is intelligent, rational, and eager to find logical explanations for the differences that they hear. It isn't their fault that the tools to answer their questions are not readily available. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 3, 2018 17:45:10 GMT -5
...This is something you should theoretically be able to do with a sound card - but the practice is sometimes more complicated than the theory... LOL - KeithL - This is second-biggest understatement I've ever heard from you! ...However, I do find it odd that the manufacturers of devices like the Rendu are unwilling or unable to make any specific detailed technical claims abut what their devices are doing... ROTFLMAO - And this is the BIGGEST! Thanks kindly for my belly-laugh for today - It's appreciated!   |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Dec 3, 2018 17:48:47 GMT -5
I have to disagree there... but it's a matter of approaching it as an engineering problem. First off, the fact that you're using Ethernet along the way is irrelevant. You start with a FILE, which is a known source of digital data.... You send that file through whatever sort of transport you want - using whatever gadgets you like.
Then you capture the output at the far end - by recording the data coming out the USB port at the output of the Rendu (or whatever). You save the captured data to another file. If those two files are exactly the same then you know the data hasn't been altered. At that point, you must assume that the difference is caused by THE WAY IN WHICH THE DATA IS PRESENTED TO THE DAC. (For example, the quality of the clock, or noise which might be on the signal along with the data, and which "annoys" the DAC.) And, if the two files are not the same, then the mystery is solved... because the transport is altering the data along the way.
Files DO NOT have jitter. Files DO NOT have a clock. Files DO NOT even have timing. Files are simply a list of numbers.
This is something you should theoretically be able to do with a sound card - but the practice is sometimes more complicated than the theory. However, I do find it odd that the manufacturers of devices like the Rendu are unwilling or unable to make any specific detailed technical claims abut what their devices are doing.
You touch on the core of the problem, Casey - There ARE no readily-available data analysis tools to compare a source audio file from an Ethernet source to a destination audio file from a USB source. The manufacturers don't WANT their devices analyzed, and the consumers lack the tools to do it themselves. And this is surprising because those tools SHOULD be software-based, not hardware. To analyze differences three things would be needed: 1. A software tool that could identify an audio sample and capture it to a file from an Ethernet source in a common format 2. A software tool that could identify the exact SAME audio sample and capture it to a file from a USB source in the same format 3. A software that can compare the Ethernet file and the USB file, identifying any differences and then analyzing those differences in comprehensible terms The only reason that "voodoo explanations" abound is that such tools are not readily available. May I also point out that not everyone is an engineer, and disdain for those who lack your training does not become you. The average Lounge member is intelligent, rational, and eager to find logical explanations for the differences that they hear. It isn't their fault that the tools to answer their questions are not readily available. Cordially - Boomzilla We'll then try one. You telling me that there really can't be a difference doesn't mean that I don't hear one. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,266
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 3, 2018 18:02:21 GMT -5
The problem with your statement is that it is not truly correct.
They are NOT decoding the bits. They are simply taking data in one digital format (Ethernet packets) and converting it to another digital format (asynchronous USB). Both of those are simply digital data formats. They claim to not be altering the actual data (which is good).
The conversion to analog takes place in the DAC.
Therefore, at most, they are claiming to do something that affects extraneous conditions in such a way that they enable your DAC to to its job better.
The only real possibilities there are for them to eliminate things that are causing your DAC to function less than optimally. (And one would expect those things to be very different with different DACs.... and to affect them to very different degrees.... there is no "universal flaw" for them to be fixing.)
Interesting.... I would also point out that, if it really is "emphasizing a certain frequency range", then it would HAVE to be altering the bits. You cannot alter the frequency response, or the actual dynamic range, without altering the bits. Of course, it would theoretically be possible to do something that is perceived as doing so, but really isn't.... like the audible version of an optical illusion. For example, an increase in "perceived clarity" could be the result of a reduction in jitter (if that reduction could be realized at the actual input to the DAC chip). It would be very interesting, once and for all, for someone to capture the actual bit stream and confirm that it is or is not the same. Unfortunately, making an exact recording of a bit stream, over a Coax connection can be a bit of a challenge.)
I don't work for them but they claim there is no "altering the bits." It's just they have purpose-built a super-quiet audio platform for decoding them. Again, do yourself a favor and stop trying to second guess 'why." Buy one and experience it yourself. Tear it apart if you desire. Have fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 3, 2018 18:15:42 GMT -5
As I said, it would be awesome if simple USB/DAC statistics like Data Corruption (USB) and FIFO Underflow (feeding the DAC) were available. That way you'd know there was actually an issue, what that issue was, and could address it.
Casey
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 3, 2018 18:28:29 GMT -5
As I said, it would be awesome if simple USB/DAC statistics like Data Corruption (USB) and FIFO Underflow (feeding the DAC) were available. That way you'd know there was actually an issue, what that issue was, and could address it. Casey Just try one. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 3, 2018 18:28:51 GMT -5
KeithLOnce again...just try one.
|
|
