MMMM, some bad news on these Y's over here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121552
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121552
Re: ongoing.
Hi IY,
Still waiting on the replacement "Y" to turn up.
Implementation is more important than a few boutique parts. There are a few interesting threads in the archives about SPDIF and SPDIF reclocking.
For example:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21835
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54742
searching turns up lots more informative but quite technical results...
In a discussion about hysteresis Jocko Homo mentions the YM3623b reflects very little "crud" back into the SPDIF line. However without careful implementation the CS841X causes large amounts of "crud" to be reflected in the SPDIF connection. The "crud" as I understand it is partial reflections of the digital stream transmitted from transport to dac. The reflections apparently make it more difficult to recover the data and clock cleanly and can result in additional jitter in the recovered clock.
Audiotuning's site mentions that the board was designed as a plugin for early Audionote DAC's and might work with other equipment. Unless you can be sure that the combination of your DAC's existing spdif circuit and whatever Audiotuning have designed in front of the CS8414's spdif inputs will play together odds are you are not going to get the performance you are paying for, BG cap or not.
cheers
Paul
irgendjemand said:
Hi IY,
Still waiting on the replacement "Y" to turn up.
Implementation is more important than a few boutique parts. There are a few interesting threads in the archives about SPDIF and SPDIF reclocking.
For example:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21835
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54742
searching turns up lots more informative but quite technical results...
In a discussion about hysteresis Jocko Homo mentions the YM3623b reflects very little "crud" back into the SPDIF line. However without careful implementation the CS841X causes large amounts of "crud" to be reflected in the SPDIF connection. The "crud" as I understand it is partial reflections of the digital stream transmitted from transport to dac. The reflections apparently make it more difficult to recover the data and clock cleanly and can result in additional jitter in the recovered clock.
Audiotuning's site mentions that the board was designed as a plugin for early Audionote DAC's and might work with other equipment. Unless you can be sure that the combination of your DAC's existing spdif circuit and whatever Audiotuning have designed in front of the CS8414's spdif inputs will play together odds are you are not going to get the performance you are paying for, BG cap or not.
cheers
Paul
1 minute waiting time for a recloking...
Hi Paul & everybody here,
Before going to the problematic - I read the several threads in the archives (about SPDIF and SPDIF reclocking), only after which I had several talks to the Audiotuning people - exactly for the reasons you Paul mentioned here. Our conclusion at the time was - it might works or not, just “give it a try...”
Now comes the more interesting story and I have very good reason to agree with you about the highest priority of the implementation. Just read the following:
In my AVM DAC 1.2, the device (Audiotuning CS8414 Adaptor) needs about 1 min (!) until it stabilized (!). First it shows 32 KHz, then, few seconds later - a terrible noise is coming; and then it "Pendle" for 48 Khz +32 Khz (both LEDs lights together...) and all the noise completely disappears!
Another 30 seconds or so - and it shows 44 Khz. Finished! All works perfectly.
Something is of course wrong; I should have mentioned this before. However, once the "lock" process is completed, one can really enjoy great music.
The first minute of operation it obviously very wired... Audiotuning's people were surprised to hear all this from me, but for a quite different reason: They thought that the LED on my DAC will not at all light. According to them, one can see the LED now as a "cosmetics" only. A by-product.
Well, as I said, after 1 min. of "searching", both LEDs and SOUND are working OK.
Musically talking, the combination of my DAC's existing spdif circuit and Audiotuning CS8414's spdif inputs plays very well together, and since I changed to OsCons capacitors in the DAC, it is even better. It is very impressive, high-quality sounding, no doubts.
Note: I am much aware to the differences between te "steps" - I did not make the changes "at once": Between the changings of the input receiver and the capacitors was about 2 weeks; receiver was changed first.
I am almost too “lazy” now to start all process again… It has been such a “tough” time; I am probably not done with it, and your remarks help me a lot – I should go the extra mile and try an appropriate reckloing system..... S---t.
At this moment I have no idea how to solve this problem, neither Audiotuning think I should look for a different solution.
Where shell I start looking for solving the “first minute noise” problem?
What is the wired & strange of all: The sound is obviously splendid: I am listening to my own studio recordings (there are 25 CDs and about 40 other radio recordings; many of them on “CD-Master”). Who can tell where is the limit for good sound? Will it sound even better once more “appropriately” reclocked? Probabely!
Is the actual reclocking really miserable, or may be not… ??
I will be happy to hear comments from all of you, diyaudio friends! What’s the hell is going on in the very first minute here?
Regards, IY.
Hi Paul & everybody here,
Before going to the problematic - I read the several threads in the archives (about SPDIF and SPDIF reclocking), only after which I had several talks to the Audiotuning people - exactly for the reasons you Paul mentioned here. Our conclusion at the time was - it might works or not, just “give it a try...”
Now comes the more interesting story and I have very good reason to agree with you about the highest priority of the implementation. Just read the following:
In my AVM DAC 1.2, the device (Audiotuning CS8414 Adaptor) needs about 1 min (!) until it stabilized (!). First it shows 32 KHz, then, few seconds later - a terrible noise is coming; and then it "Pendle" for 48 Khz +32 Khz (both LEDs lights together...) and all the noise completely disappears!
Another 30 seconds or so - and it shows 44 Khz. Finished! All works perfectly.
Something is of course wrong; I should have mentioned this before. However, once the "lock" process is completed, one can really enjoy great music.
The first minute of operation it obviously very wired... Audiotuning's people were surprised to hear all this from me, but for a quite different reason: They thought that the LED on my DAC will not at all light. According to them, one can see the LED now as a "cosmetics" only. A by-product.
Well, as I said, after 1 min. of "searching", both LEDs and SOUND are working OK.
Musically talking, the combination of my DAC's existing spdif circuit and Audiotuning CS8414's spdif inputs plays very well together, and since I changed to OsCons capacitors in the DAC, it is even better. It is very impressive, high-quality sounding, no doubts.
Note: I am much aware to the differences between te "steps" - I did not make the changes "at once": Between the changings of the input receiver and the capacitors was about 2 weeks; receiver was changed first.
I am almost too “lazy” now to start all process again… It has been such a “tough” time; I am probably not done with it, and your remarks help me a lot – I should go the extra mile and try an appropriate reckloing system..... S---t.
At this moment I have no idea how to solve this problem, neither Audiotuning think I should look for a different solution.
Where shell I start looking for solving the “first minute noise” problem?
What is the wired & strange of all: The sound is obviously splendid: I am listening to my own studio recordings (there are 25 CDs and about 40 other radio recordings; many of them on “CD-Master”). Who can tell where is the limit for good sound? Will it sound even better once more “appropriately” reclocked? Probabely!
Is the actual reclocking really miserable, or may be not… ??
I will be happy to hear comments from all of you, diyaudio friends! What’s the hell is going on in the very first minute here?
Regards, IY.
IY,
my guess would be that the loop filter is set to a very low frequency to improve jitter attenuation. This means jitter above the cutoff frequency is reduced but also there is only small adjustment signal available to the CS8412's VCO. The result is that it takes some time for the pll to pull the vco into lock with the input frequency.
So it's not a bug or problem, just the (slightly inconvenient) side effect of the loop filter values audiotuning have selected. If the cutoff frequency of pll was raised the time to lock would decrease, potentially at the expense of reduced jitter attenuation.
try googling for "wildmonkeysects cs8414" without the quotes for some posts on the ins and outs of selecting loop filter component values.
cheers
Paul
my guess would be that the loop filter is set to a very low frequency to improve jitter attenuation. This means jitter above the cutoff frequency is reduced but also there is only small adjustment signal available to the CS8412's VCO. The result is that it takes some time for the pll to pull the vco into lock with the input frequency.
So it's not a bug or problem, just the (slightly inconvenient) side effect of the loop filter values audiotuning have selected. If the cutoff frequency of pll was raised the time to lock would decrease, potentially at the expense of reduced jitter attenuation.
try googling for "wildmonkeysects cs8414" without the quotes for some posts on the ins and outs of selecting loop filter component values.
cheers
Paul
Great Info!
Paul,
This is exactly this kind of solution which I should go for; I didn't now about it, it is really fantastic! Once again - many thank for your great support, and once again you are hitting the right spot!
I love this remark there of the guy who wrote: “There is more air, separation and depth to the soundstage. Plus, things like bongo drums are much more realistic”. Especially this “Air” in the sound: Everyone who once experienced this, will know the difference.
The YM-3623b had for me a "tick" more of this (but was missing someother quality of clearness).
I will call Audiotuning and ask for their experience with different Loop-Filters. They might know the better values, or I will have to experiment. No big deal here!
By the way, how do you feel about the other suggestion there, "to place the master clock right at the DACs [fed by it's own regulated power supply] registering/reclocking the DACs and "slaving" the transport to that master clock, guaranteeing synchronicity [of the clocking type, not the cosmic type] and eliminating dependence on the pll/vco" ?
Somehow I like this already “old” idea of Tent’s “Link Mode”: Guido Tent wrote once, that “(in case) the frequencies may differ. The goal is to swap XO and VCXO (so a VCXO will find its' place in the CD drive and the XO as a master will come in the DAC), but to remain the frequencies as they were initially…”.
This means that CD Transport and DAC who has different frequencies will perfactly communicate once “linked”. However it is very expansive and might not enable my DAT to take part in the celebration.
All in all, I will surely go at first to the loop-filter idea. Thanks once again!
Regards, IY.
Paul,
This is exactly this kind of solution which I should go for; I didn't now about it, it is really fantastic! Once again - many thank for your great support, and once again you are hitting the right spot!
I love this remark there of the guy who wrote: “There is more air, separation and depth to the soundstage. Plus, things like bongo drums are much more realistic”. Especially this “Air” in the sound: Everyone who once experienced this, will know the difference.
The YM-3623b had for me a "tick" more of this (but was missing someother quality of clearness).
I will call Audiotuning and ask for their experience with different Loop-Filters. They might know the better values, or I will have to experiment. No big deal here!
By the way, how do you feel about the other suggestion there, "to place the master clock right at the DACs [fed by it's own regulated power supply] registering/reclocking the DACs and "slaving" the transport to that master clock, guaranteeing synchronicity [of the clocking type, not the cosmic type] and eliminating dependence on the pll/vco" ?
Somehow I like this already “old” idea of Tent’s “Link Mode”: Guido Tent wrote once, that “(in case) the frequencies may differ. The goal is to swap XO and VCXO (so a VCXO will find its' place in the CD drive and the XO as a master will come in the DAC), but to remain the frequencies as they were initially…”.
This means that CD Transport and DAC who has different frequencies will perfactly communicate once “linked”. However it is very expansive and might not enable my DAT to take part in the celebration.
All in all, I will surely go at first to the loop-filter idea. Thanks once again!
Regards, IY.
Was just off investigating the fake pcm63 "y" thread. The ones shown are the same as the ones I have.
I really don't like all the scammy dealing going on with these "rare" chips. I was going to make new boards for the PCM63 with some changes I wanted to try but in light of this I don't think it's worth the effort. I'll look at doing a variant using PCM1704 instead as that is still in production and available through reliable suppliers. Same with SM5847 filter chip.
I think the Tent XO-DAC sounds like the direction you are wanting to go. That will give you VCXO and option for Tent-linking...
cheers
Paul
I really don't like all the scammy dealing going on with these "rare" chips. I was going to make new boards for the PCM63 with some changes I wanted to try but in light of this I don't think it's worth the effort. I'll look at doing a variant using PCM1704 instead as that is still in production and available through reliable suppliers. Same with SM5847 filter chip.
I think the Tent XO-DAC sounds like the direction you are wanting to go. That will give you VCXO and option for Tent-linking...
cheers
Paul
End-Station
Paul,
I trust our ears concerning the "Y" sound, and Spencer himself newly suggests using the Y (KY) in the D1V3. If someone can't hear the differences, well... I also feel somehow odd about the NASA advertise, for example; some people will try to make money on this topic now, as always.
Good luck with the PCM1704: I heard it originally with the Hoerwege Dac-Up (Upsampling DAC) and as an adaptor replacement for the PCM63. It is of course a very good chip!!
In comparison to the 63K, it might be the better one. Can it beat the 63Y? I didn’t think so; the main difference for me is the “non-digital” and deep round sound of the Y.
I will patiently wait to hear your developments with the 1704. No rush.
What more? Yes, Tent Labs is only 260 KM from my home (West); Audiotuning is 360 KM (East). I should not complain. You are in Melbourne, so say once hallo to the good people im Burson..
Have a great weekend.
IY.
Paul,
I trust our ears concerning the "Y" sound, and Spencer himself newly suggests using the Y (KY) in the D1V3. If someone can't hear the differences, well... I also feel somehow odd about the NASA advertise, for example; some people will try to make money on this topic now, as always.
Good luck with the PCM1704: I heard it originally with the Hoerwege Dac-Up (Upsampling DAC) and as an adaptor replacement for the PCM63. It is of course a very good chip!!
In comparison to the 63K, it might be the better one. Can it beat the 63Y? I didn’t think so; the main difference for me is the “non-digital” and deep round sound of the Y.
I will patiently wait to hear your developments with the 1704. No rush.
What more? Yes, Tent Labs is only 260 KM from my home (West); Audiotuning is 360 KM (East). I should not complain. You are in Melbourne, so say once hallo to the good people im Burson..
Have a great weekend.
IY.
IY,
I agree that the Y's I have sound fine - the odd Date Code makes you wonder what exactly is going on however.
I'm quite happy with how the D1V3 sounds at the moment and don't want to do too much damage to the board by repeated solder/unsolder cycles. Any further development/experimentation I do will avoid relying chips that are being now obviously being forged.
Burson is a bit pricy for my tastes
I'm a diyer so my favorite audiophile resource is http://www.rockby.com.au
cheers
Paul
I agree that the Y's I have sound fine - the odd Date Code makes you wonder what exactly is going on however.
I'm quite happy with how the D1V3 sounds at the moment and don't want to do too much damage to the board by repeated solder/unsolder cycles. Any further development/experimentation I do will avoid relying chips that are being now obviously being forged.
Burson is a bit pricy for my tastes
I'm a diyer so my favorite audiophile resource is http://www.rockby.com.au cheers
Paul
For the record
This thread is in actual fact discontinued and the discussions resumed on a different thread: "Real or Fake PCM63?"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121552
For the records: There have been indeed genuine BB PCM63P-Y Chips, and some of them can be found in Yamaha ProAudio gears. Also to be found in a Yamaha ProAudio gears is a different BB PCM63P chip, with the extension “KY”. It is a similar sounding chip, though not exactly the same.
According to BB, all PCM63 productions must have been discontinued latest around 2002. BTW, I personally didn't find any genuine "Y" chip dated later then let's say 1993.
The “Y” chips which are dated later then 2002 might have been produced under licence or have been somehow faked (we didn’t figure this out; see the other thread).
Here is a picture of a genuine BB PCM63P-Y chip, for the records of this thread.
IJ.
This thread is in actual fact discontinued and the discussions resumed on a different thread: "Real or Fake PCM63?"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121552
For the records: There have been indeed genuine BB PCM63P-Y Chips, and some of them can be found in Yamaha ProAudio gears. Also to be found in a Yamaha ProAudio gears is a different BB PCM63P chip, with the extension “KY”. It is a similar sounding chip, though not exactly the same.
According to BB, all PCM63 productions must have been discontinued latest around 2002. BTW, I personally didn't find any genuine "Y" chip dated later then let's say 1993.
The “Y” chips which are dated later then 2002 might have been produced under licence or have been somehow faked (we didn’t figure this out; see the other thread).
Here is a picture of a genuine BB PCM63P-Y chip, for the records of this thread.
IJ.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.