pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > audio

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 22-09-17, 12:40 AM
Suffolk Tony Suffolk Tony is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by beammeup View Post
All I can say is, after my experience it's worth a try even on systems that sound "just fine" with USB directly connected. For example, before considering upgrading your DAC in case there's more "under the hood" of your DAC ready to be exploited using a 'good quality' converter. Perhaps not but, but worth a shot I would think.
An eminently sensible suggestion. In my case, the USB option sounded better, but there's no way you can tell what's best unless you try it.
__________________
Upper Sheep's Bottom,
Suffolk.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 22-09-17, 12:46 AM
davidsrsb davidsrsb is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,126
Does lower jitter sound "better" to everyone? SPDIF is a horrible interface as there is no way to cleanly extract clock from it
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 22-09-17, 03:16 AM
Yomanze Yomanze is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsrsb View Post
Does lower jitter sound "better" to everyone? SPDIF is a horrible interface as there is no way to cleanly extract clock from it
Depends on the type of jitter. Sometimes the impact can be a slight 'blurring' or softening of the sound, which some people might like, finding a clock upgrade to be 'bright' or 'etched'...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 22-09-17, 04:04 AM
darrenyeats darrenyeats is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,871
Jitter is taken care of so well these days in transports and DACs (ASRC, PLL etc) so I think galvanic isolation is the first thing to tick off.

With my DAC I prefer TOSLINK to coax, I think it's due to the above reason.
__________________
Check it, add to it! http://dr.loudness-war.info
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 22-09-17, 05:13 AM
clivem2 clivem2 is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenyeats View Post
Jitter is taken care of so well these days in transports and DACs (ASRC, PLL etc) so I think galvanic isolation is the first thing to tick off.

With my DAC I prefer TOSLINK to coax, I think it's due to the above reason.
I don't disagree with what you say. I would however add a note of caution. I see people using the term galvanic isolation as though it's a panacea for any remaining issues. GI sounds like an absolute term but the reality is different; it does not totally isolate and isolation varies I believe by frequency. We could do with the specs for the various GI methods used.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 22-09-17, 05:43 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by clivem2 View Post
I don't disagree with what you say. I would however add a note of caution. I see people using the term galvanic isolation as though it's a panacea for any remaining issues. GI sounds like an absolute term but the reality is different; it does not totally isolate and isolation varies I believe by frequency. We could do with the specs for the various GI methods used.
Strictly taken, the term "galvanic isolation" refers to DC, and in that context it is an absolute. In normal usage, it also includes mains frequency AC.

In the case of optical S/PDIF it is an absolute even for very high frequency signals - *no* real-world electrical signal will pass through an optical fibre.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22-09-17, 05:44 AM
adamdea adamdea is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by clivem2 View Post
I don't disagree with what you say. I would however add a note of caution. I see people using the term galvanic isolation as though it's a panacea for any remaining issues. GI sounds like an absolute term but the reality is different; it does not totally isolate and isolation varies I believe by frequency. We could do with the specs for the various GI methods used.
Well toslink really does isolate galvanically. Aside from that, where isolation is partial, the specs would be interesting if they were meaningful. But that could only be the case if there is a clearly defined problem to solve ie a particular unwanted signal we were wanting to block out.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22-09-17, 05:45 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_F View Post
I think it's great to have people like Thetiminator who are willing to go further than most of us would dream, or consider worth trying. When trying to improve performance you need to examine every aspect and try to iron out the weaknesses.
It's just somewhat strange that someone would go through all that effort without making any effort to verify the results in any objective way. It is like a Formula 1 team that would never do any timing, performance or speed measurements, but only rely on the driver to report how fast he felt the car went.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22-09-17, 05:56 AM
Yomanze Yomanze is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenyeats View Post
Jitter is taken care of so well these days in transports and DACs (ASRC, PLL etc) so I think galvanic isolation is the first thing to tick off.

With my DAC I prefer TOSLINK to coax, I think it's due to the above reason.
ASRC / up-sampling is not bit perfect, and any form of sampling rate conversion does introduce additional artefacts. PLLs can suffer from jittery inputs & clock drift, which can be remedied through good analogue design principles (PLLs are analogue, not digital) and receiving extremely low jitter / clock drift signals.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22-09-17, 06:15 AM
clivem2 clivem2 is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Strictly taken, the term "galvanic isolation" refers to DC, and in that context it is an absolute. In normal usage, it also includes mains frequency AC.

In the case of optical S/PDIF it is an absolute even for very high frequency signals - *no* real-world electrical signal will pass through an optical fibre.
The way the term is often used it seems as if people expect all noise to be blocked by GI. Clearly all noise is not blocked - that's the point I was trying to make.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 22-09-17, 06:21 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by clivem2 View Post
The way the term is often used it seems as if people expect all noise to be blocked by GI. Clearly all noise is not blocked - that's the point I was trying to make.
Fair enough - but what noise is not blocked by an optical connection?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22-09-17, 06:22 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze View Post
ASRC / up-sampling is not bit perfect, and any form of sampling rate conversion does introduce additional artefacts.
ASRC is of course not, by definition, bit perfect - but does it introduce audible differences?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22-09-17, 06:49 AM
clivem2 clivem2 is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Fair enough - but what noise is not blocked by an optical connection?
Sure optical should block but the context of the thread USB vs SPDIF.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22-09-17, 07:02 AM
darrenyeats darrenyeats is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,871
TOSLINK and coax are both S/PDIF - I guess one point is, if you're unhappy with your coax/USB and it's not galvanically isolated, you might try TOSLINK before spending any money. From measurements I've seen, that's likely the biggest win. In general, these days. But it depends on your DAC.

Of course that doesn't stop you getting one of these converters that galvanically isolates AND reduces jitter.
__________________
Check it, add to it! http://dr.loudness-war.info

Last edited by darrenyeats; 22-09-17 at 09:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22-09-17, 08:20 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by clivem2 View Post
Sure optical should block but the context of the thread USB vs SPDIF.
As Darren pointed out, S/PDIF comes in optical and coax versions, and toslink has been mentioned here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
pink fish media