Hal, If you read through the thread, the issue is not claimed to have anything to do with data loss, data integrity, the ones and zeros, etc. We have already been though all that. The issues may include EMI/RFI and or data timing variations resulting in noise incursion to very sensitive analog dac circuitry. IME in cheap junk dacs it might not make any difference, but in a very resolving dac some small problems can be audible to some attentive listeners.
It's not. There is buffering and retransmission so that this is not a factor. Either the packets flow and you have sound or they do not flow and there is no sound. You seem to lack the most basic understanding of how Ethernet and IP works, yet you like to lecture people on how imaginary network problems create imaginary audible artifacts.
Here there are quite a few people who clearly understand the technology that are patiently trying to explain the underlying mechanisms to you. Are you looking for knowlegde or are you looking for validation?
There is buffering going on. Data transmission in IP networks is not synchronous, it is asynchronous. You should at least learn the basics of packet switched networking before making wild claims.
The actual, relevant, clocking happens in the DAC. Everything before that is asynchronous transmission.
Validation at last?
They do not.
We do not.
Again there seems to be some confusion about what is being claimed. If you read the thread you should understand that nobody is making a claim about a problem with data loss, data integrity, ones and zeros, etc. Not sure why people can't understand that.
My I ask about your familiarity with dacs? Dac Vref requirements, dac clock requirements, phase noise, amplitude noise, noise incursion, mode conversion, EMI/RFI, etc.? In other words, I am saying that dacs need more than the ones and zeros to be right. They need extremely low noise, low EMI/RFI, low power supply modulation etc.
Maybe you know that CRT display data can be read without a physical connection to computer or monitor, and with the monitor screen unobservable. Electronic emissions, radio waves, emitted from the monitor tell everything about information being displayed. Impossible you say? Only the ones and zeros have information you say? If so, you are wrong.
In the case of very high performance audio dacs, similar secondary effects can manifest as audible aberrations. Impossible you say? Again, if that's what you believe, you would be wrong. Sorry.
Somehow I get the feeling that you are projecting the issues you are facing with your dac to everybody else. Even if your dac is riddled with EMI/RFI does not mean that others suffer from it.
Somehow, it seems when you complain about the sound of the Purifi files you always mention that one is amplitude modulated. Why don't you complain that the other is frequency modulated? Can't hear it? Doesn't bother you? Makes me suspect your listening attentiveness/skill level may not be up to your self-assessment.
Mostly you seem to keep posting barbs aimed at me, and I have politely refrained from doing the same to you. One thing I have have not said before purely out of politeness is that I doubt you really know how to make a first class dac for music reproduction. An FFT measurement dac might be another matter.
Having finally said it, will try to return to polite mode.
Mostly you seem to keep posting barbs aimed at me, and I have politely refrained from doing the same to you. One thing I have have not said before purely out of politeness is that I doubt you really know how to make a first class dac for music reproduction. An FFT measurement dac might be another matter.
Having finally said it, will try to return to polite mode.
Last edited:
Coming from somebody who does not know how to make any kind of dac I take that as a compliment
If your network DAC is disturbed by the network you use it on, then maybe it's not a good DAC.
DACs? Never met one in person.
Seriously though, the Apple USB C DAC is quite a good performer with all types of RF around it. Wifi. LTE, 5G, GPS, you name it. It's designed to work in these surroundings. The Meizu CS43131 is another example. Immune to all kinds of RF from the smartphone it's connected to and it performs just fine. Heck, even my old PCM2906 works to spec running off USB connected to a naked SBC powered by a wall wart.
If the design is sound, LAN in the visicinity is no problem. If you can improve your supoosedly high quality network DAC with a different switch in front of it, I'd suggest you have a faulty DAC.
I use a USB3 to VGA dongle as a software defined radio transmitter.
Project much?
If I can wave my magic wand next to your DAC to influence the sound, it's not all that high performance now, is it?
But you can't read an LCD monitor. In an earlier life I was involved with working on facilities that were shielded to TEMPEST standards in the days of huge greenscreens. But a 25kV electron source with large magnets wrapped around it really doesn't help your argument. Again read the article I referenced and see what a dogs dinner the setup where the magical changes were reported is.
Possible that singletons in sighted listening report a difference I believe. Measureable across any population with any form of blinding I don't believe.
From the basics:
You cannot change the way the DAC works, from amplitude mode to phase mode, or whatever, so the discussion is a little pointless.
So simply find out which DAC chip works in your preferred mode, and build one for yourself.
Or buy a DAC which uses that mode.
Also, think why the normal DAC are in the mode YOU do not prefer.
Why is the wrong (according to you) mode the preferred mode of most makers?
The easy / repurpose way is to take an old set top box (for TV), and use the processor inside, do the DAC in software.
Build the unit with all the improvements you feel are needed, like a metal cabinet and power supply with noise suppression and so on.
After it is ready, do a set of tests to satisfy yourself, and then do blind tests.
Then tell us all about it.
Discussing X-Y, and R-P coordinate systems is pointless, as the DAC works in the mode it is programmed to do....you could also reprogram a DAC, and modify it for low noise.
Noise?
Rubbish, we have a moderator here, Sangram, who routinely shifts 800 GB of data without losing a single bit, says it is part of his job, which I assume has something to do with computer administration.
Also, see how many makers and how many models of DAC are sold, I feel less than 50 in total...go through their data, and work out for yourself the price range, most of the 'high performance' DAC use a chip which is maybe $2 more expensive in OEM quantities, so paying $500 more for it is, let us say, injudicious.....
You cannot change the way the DAC works, from amplitude mode to phase mode, or whatever, so the discussion is a little pointless.
So simply find out which DAC chip works in your preferred mode, and build one for yourself.
Or buy a DAC which uses that mode.
Also, think why the normal DAC are in the mode YOU do not prefer.
Why is the wrong (according to you) mode the preferred mode of most makers?
The easy / repurpose way is to take an old set top box (for TV), and use the processor inside, do the DAC in software.
Build the unit with all the improvements you feel are needed, like a metal cabinet and power supply with noise suppression and so on.
After it is ready, do a set of tests to satisfy yourself, and then do blind tests.
Then tell us all about it.
Discussing X-Y, and R-P coordinate systems is pointless, as the DAC works in the mode it is programmed to do....you could also reprogram a DAC, and modify it for low noise.
Noise?
Rubbish, we have a moderator here, Sangram, who routinely shifts 800 GB of data without losing a single bit, says it is part of his job, which I assume has something to do with computer administration.
Also, see how many makers and how many models of DAC are sold, I feel less than 50 in total...go through their data, and work out for yourself the price range, most of the 'high performance' DAC use a chip which is maybe $2 more expensive in OEM quantities, so paying $500 more for it is, let us say, injudicious.....
Last edited:
For the 3rd time in the last few posts, there appears to be confusion on the part of a number of people as to what is being claimed. Again, there is no claim of data loss, no claim of losing a single bit. So why can't people understand what has been said? Not bothering to read?
Bill, come on. I know you know that CM noise and or power supply modulation due to bursts of current draw due to the need to handle uneven flow of data coming in from the network can influence sensitive circuitry. Even ground currents from digital circuitry passing under clock modules produce magnetic fields that can cause jitter, since there is a sensitive analog amplifier inside the clock module that is part of the oscillator. Similar concerns for Vref amplitude noise incursion. It can happen. That stuff probably happens constantly to a dac in a laptop. But how many bits is that dac really good to, how low is distortion and noise, etc.? Make a really good dac, run it in DSD mode, and put it in a really good system with large panel ESL speakers and you are likely to hear small details for first time that you never realized existed in a recording. If you can hear those things then you might also be able to hear low level EMI/RFI effects on sensitive circuitry.
That is a function of ethernet and a fancy pants switch won't affect that. The data flow will not be that uneven when you have 100BaseT link dedicated to the DAC which controls the flow rate. But again, the L2 switch will not impact that. You are accusing dCS of being unable to design a class A DAC here of course...
These are DAC design issues and a L2 switch isn't going to change any of that.
Yeah yeah, my system isn't good enough. Pull the other one.
I haven't tried the the switch in question with a dCS dac, so no specific opinion on that. However, have been told some people seem to think dCS isn't the best sounding dac available to today, regardless of price. If so that would suggest they may unable to do something or other optimally.
Again, to go back to what I said before, I do not know if the switch works as the manufacturer and some customers claim. I don't know for a fact that it never works either. My policy in this case is to defer judgement. There is no urgency to arrive at certainty instantly. So, what we actually keep talking about is that I am being asked to speculate about possible mechanisms, and so I try to explain about some real mechanisms that have known to cause problems in low level sensitive circuitry in electronic systems in general, not necessarily specific to dacs. Since I keep being asked to speculate, you should expect me to respond speculatively. In fact, the reason I prefer to defer judgment is because there is no proof the switch can work, nor is there proof that it can never possibly help at all.
Markw4, you are not serious enough with all that distortion FUD stories. Noise floor modulation, intermittent packing flooding, EMI/RFI incursion through any imaginable cable connected to DAC, digital circuitry modulating completely separate analog supplies, magnetic fields disrupting clocks ….. Phew, what a junk that specific DAC must be. 
I don’t get it how do you omit influence of gravity waves. They are unstoppable and could invoke all parts vibration. Ceramic capacitors and clocks will not approve. I believe that your highly resolving system and trained perception could spot influence of gravity waves on the DAC sound, especially after some supernova collapsing to black hole. Will you examine?
I don’t get it how do you omit influence of gravity waves. They are unstoppable and could invoke all parts vibration. Ceramic capacitors and clocks will not approve. I believe that your highly resolving system and trained perception could spot influence of gravity waves on the DAC sound, especially after some supernova collapsing to black hole. Will you examine?
I believe more stererophile reviewers use dCS as their reference, not sure what that says. But at least I can put names to them rather than 'some people'
That is a definition of gullible right there. I have a bridge for sale in london if you are interested?
You are not speculating, you are scatter gunning with every known FUD factor from the last 20 years of high end marketing. And TBH you seem to have little experience of ethernet and no willingness to apply logic to the problem when there is FUD to fling instead. And this is what the marketing dept of Nordost want to happen. In days of SPDIF jitter reduction boxes were sold (and many have been since shown not to work despite glowing reviews at the time). When USB came along reclockers and isolators became a must have for the magazine savvy high end poseur. Now Roon and the like are gaining traction streaming end points are ever more popular so the same fud on noise and jitter from SPDIF days is chucked out again on new, expensive and pointless products. Anyone with an enquiring mind would read the stereophile review and realise that the test setup was hopeless and the reviewer clueless on ethernet so bought the marketing line (for a discount on the parts probably).
You are trying to defend the indefensible. And for no reason as you don't own an ethernet input DAC?
From ICS542 Datasheet:
"...Other signal traces should be routed away from the ICS542. This includes signal traces just underneath the device, or on layers adjacent to the ground
plane layer used by the device"
For Topping D90 dac, there were ground plane keepouts under the clocks.
From LT3042 datasheet:
"The LT3042 demo board layout utilizes magnetic field cancellation techniques to prevent PSRR degradation caused by this high-frequency current flow..."
https://ecsxtal.com/crystal-and-oscillator-printed-circuit-board-design-considerations :
"Do not run Digital / RF signal lines or power under oscillators for multi-layered PCB, as this will add noise."
From Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering (Ott):
"For higher resolution systems (18 bits and up), even more ground noise voltage isolation may be required for adequate performance. These converters often have minimum resolution voltages in the single digit microvolt range or less."
"..As indicated in the previous paragraph, a current of only 0.1% or even 0.01% of the total digital ground current may cause a problem if it flows through the analog ground plane."
I don't make this stuff up, and I know how hard it is to get right. Such effects can be audible however they come about.
One question though: haven't been been about to find anything about gravity waves known to have some effect on clock jitter. Do you have a reference?
"...Other signal traces should be routed away from the ICS542. This includes signal traces just underneath the device, or on layers adjacent to the ground
plane layer used by the device"
For Topping D90 dac, there were ground plane keepouts under the clocks.
From LT3042 datasheet:
"The LT3042 demo board layout utilizes magnetic field cancellation techniques to prevent PSRR degradation caused by this high-frequency current flow..."
https://ecsxtal.com/crystal-and-oscillator-printed-circuit-board-design-considerations :
"Do not run Digital / RF signal lines or power under oscillators for multi-layered PCB, as this will add noise."
From Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering (Ott):
"For higher resolution systems (18 bits and up), even more ground noise voltage isolation may be required for adequate performance. These converters often have minimum resolution voltages in the single digit microvolt range or less."
"..As indicated in the previous paragraph, a current of only 0.1% or even 0.01% of the total digital ground current may cause a problem if it flows through the analog ground plane."
I don't make this stuff up, and I know how hard it is to get right. Such effects can be audible however they come about.
One question though: haven't been been about to find anything about gravity waves known to have some effect on clock jitter. Do you have a reference?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.