As for that IDE software from Thesycon, today I've asked additional questions to them and I'm waiting for a response. The main reason for which I get interested in IDE is not about building additional PC software for WaveIO even if this can be done at some extent if I'll have what I need.
@ Pinnocchio and Rick: thank you very much for support but.. respectfully I have to refuse. Even if this new funding approach could sound tempting to me, I do not want to involve anyone else into this tech struggle because you already paid your share in all this WaveIO deal. It's not my way... but thank you for your support!
@ Walter: I'm confident that your advices are very good but, despite few minor issues, I can say that Thesycon drivers are the best I could find so far. It's some sort of "german machine". They answer quickly and offer great support (at least to me...)
Moreover, I do take decisions by placing quality above money (when I can afford that) and switching to a new driver developer just to gather some money will put me and anyone else who use/have a Wave card at risk. I'm thinking at how stable those drivers might be. If it was only me then I would do it...
I'll see what news I'll receive from Thesycon and take decisions based on their response.
Kind regards,
L
@ Pinnocchio and Rick: thank you very much for support but.. respectfully I have to refuse. Even if this new funding approach could sound tempting to me, I do not want to involve anyone else into this tech struggle because you already paid your share in all this WaveIO deal. It's not my way... but thank you for your support!
@ Walter: I'm confident that your advices are very good but, despite few minor issues, I can say that Thesycon drivers are the best I could find so far. It's some sort of "german machine". They answer quickly and offer great support (at least to me...)
Moreover, I do take decisions by placing quality above money (when I can afford that) and switching to a new driver developer just to gather some money will put me and anyone else who use/have a Wave card at risk. I'm thinking at how stable those drivers might be. If it was only me then I would do it...
I'll see what news I'll receive from Thesycon and take decisions based on their response.
Kind regards,
L
Last edited:
Ah sorry, my french, I wasn't clear enough in my description !
I believe it is not the Wave I/O ! I believed it was before and fried a Ian's I2StoPCM because playing with the plug of the isolated side and the embeded voltage pin on J6 ! (a plugg for it should be welcome
)But in fact this is the layout of my Synology NAS USB output! When I plug the Wave I/O on my W8.1 laptop : I have no huming anymore in both sides of the output of your board ! So this little NAS device is not quiet when its usb output is working with audio (which is strange as it was made for usb speakers !) ! There is a sort of ground loop with the smpsof the synology ant its usb output, because there is hum with AND without playing materials ! Odd , no ?
So no problems about the Wave I/O .... just to say despite the hum (hided at high volume) it sounds better with Linux that with W8.1 & the drivers at home !
Last edited:
Rick, I found the reference I was seeking. Audiophile Optimizer
Highend-AudioPC | AudiophileOptimizer
uses Windows 12 Server and strips it down and optimizes. Sounds like an interesting evolution for Windows.
Why?
If the data is the same and the isolator / FIFO buffer are working as planned the output should be the same. If a source has deviations outside the range of the fifo its possible for errors to get in but otherwise what mechanisms will cause the differences?
Lucian.
I would think if you incorporated something at someone's request they should share in the expense of what is required for the request to be fulfilled.
SO, if you do incorporate a phase switch I will send you the money whether you like it or not!!!!
It would be well worth one hundred dollars to me. It would cost me far more to get this to happen. More I think about it two hundred dollars would still be a bargain.
Do you think this could be done?
I would think if you incorporated something at someone's request they should share in the expense of what is required for the request to be fulfilled.
SO, if you do incorporate a phase switch I will send you the money whether you like it or not!!!!
It would be well worth one hundred dollars to me. It would cost me far more to get this to happen. More I think about it two hundred dollars would still be a bargain.
Do you think this could be done?
Maybe not all the plateforms because the phase noise of the XOs but at least all the soft, no ? (if a fifo + isolator)
The soft is just managing the numeric data and if the isolator solve the noise and the ground loops, and the fifo the time domain by reclocking the I2S (assuming all is bit perfect) , I don't see how you coul hear the difference between a W8, W server 12, etc !
This time if you add a better clock board à la Andrea Mori, IanCanada... the plateform has less importance this time. Which stay important is to keep the impedance matching between the boards for a better signal integrity and fine return path (between the isolator) ?
Am I wrong ? I'm going to keep Wave I/O but add it to IanCanada stuffs !
But always hesitate with the streaming plateform and the soft !
All I see is ONLY a bad Fifo and or isolator chip could allow to hear what is before ?
Does someone heard a difference between softs & usb &/or nano plateforms when a Fifo & isolator both of good qualities are involved ?
I'm talking about the Ian stuffs with the Lucian's ones (and not the Soekris DAC which Fifo seems not as good as the Ian's one !)
@ Rick: I'm still waiting for a reply from Thesycon! Now its up to them as, in my opinion, I did what I could to for this to happen. If they don't want to accept my proposal and force me to change the license agreement then it would be no gain on my side. Anyway, we are still discussing it so there's no rush in getting to concusions!
As for two of us, let's switch over PMs and speak about what you really want, okay? I'll send you a message in a couple of moments...
Warm wishes,
L
As for two of us, let's switch over PMs and speak about what you really want, okay? I'll send you a message in a couple of moments...
Warm wishes,
L
Drivers vs. WaveIO v.2
Lorien! I am one of the earliest adopter of WaveIO card. And I have been very satisfied. I appreciate the excellent and continued support. But, I think with respect to drivers, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am unsure what benefits the new and newest drivers are bringing. My card just works as good with the first driver as with the last one. Thus I think you are wasting you time on unjustified demands in relation to drivers. I am unsure if version a1 is working well with Windows 7 then why one would install version a2 and then complain. I have worked as windows server admin. and we usually do not install newer firmware/drivers until unless forced to do so (manufacturer pushes it, or some serious issue with server or programs).
I sincerely advise you to concentrate on WaveIO v.2. I believe you must have learnt enough to make it much better (e.g. clocks after isolators) than any improvements from newer driver versions.
Lorien! I am one of the earliest adopter of WaveIO card. And I have been very satisfied. I appreciate the excellent and continued support. But, I think with respect to drivers, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am unsure what benefits the new and newest drivers are bringing. My card just works as good with the first driver as with the last one. Thus I think you are wasting you time on unjustified demands in relation to drivers. I am unsure if version a1 is working well with Windows 7 then why one would install version a2 and then complain. I have worked as windows server admin. and we usually do not install newer firmware/drivers until unless forced to do so (manufacturer pushes it, or some serious issue with server or programs).
I sincerely advise you to concentrate on WaveIO v.2. I believe you must have learnt enough to make it much better (e.g. clocks after isolators) than any improvements from newer driver versions.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for that, it helps me move on! As I said previously, main goal for this SDK deal is not having new applications (that can run on Windows only) but other one. If that particular goal is not fulfilled then all this discussion will be over. As a side effect, I can find someone to do what Rick (for example) wants as long as i"ll have all what I need "in my hands".
As for driver updates, I share your opinion 100% with few minor differences: drivers can have bugs which can be solved later (by adding new bugs
... but that's other story). Anyway, there are new features that latest drivers will provide compared to the old ones (DSD, Win 8 compatibility and so on...). That's the main reason for which I want to keep up with latest offerings from Thesycon.Either way, in a couple of days I hope I get an answer from Thesycon and I'll let you know what path I'll choose!
@ Rick: I sent you few messages but now reply.. yet!
Kind regards,
L
vortex box to wave
My current setup is a vortex box appliance in my third floor office, to a squeezebox touch on the first floor, into a DEQX via s/pdif. I had been using a wifi connection to the touch, but it would rebuffer periodically (more problematic in the evening - interference from neighboring wifi?). Recently, i added a power link adaptor into the touch via ethernet cable. No problems since.
I'm considering a waveio unit instead of the touch, partly because the touch is out of production (if it fails at some point), partly because I can make things tidy. The waveio can fit in the deqx chassis and I have regulated 5v there too.
Questions:
How do I go from ethernet to the usb input on the waveio? I'm ignorant of the data transfer issues, and suspect that it's not as simple as a simple usb/ethernet plug adaptor.
Waveio suggests that the non-isolated s/pdif output should not be used, in favor of the isolated output. However, the deqx input is transformer isolated. I don't see any advantage to isolation at both ends. Any reason I should not just leave the isolation on the deqx side and use the non-isolated waveio output? I'm thinking a twisted pair from the waveio non-isolated output to the input header after the rca socket on the deqx.
Sheldon
My current setup is a vortex box appliance in my third floor office, to a squeezebox touch on the first floor, into a DEQX via s/pdif. I had been using a wifi connection to the touch, but it would rebuffer periodically (more problematic in the evening - interference from neighboring wifi?). Recently, i added a power link adaptor into the touch via ethernet cable. No problems since.
I'm considering a waveio unit instead of the touch, partly because the touch is out of production (if it fails at some point), partly because I can make things tidy. The waveio can fit in the deqx chassis and I have regulated 5v there too.
Questions:
How do I go from ethernet to the usb input on the waveio? I'm ignorant of the data transfer issues, and suspect that it's not as simple as a simple usb/ethernet plug adaptor.
Waveio suggests that the non-isolated s/pdif output should not be used, in favor of the isolated output. However, the deqx input is transformer isolated. I don't see any advantage to isolation at both ends. Any reason I should not just leave the isolation on the deqx side and use the non-isolated waveio output? I'm thinking a twisted pair from the waveio non-isolated output to the input header after the rca socket on the deqx.
Sheldon
Eldam's right. Been driving the isolator chip on my WaveIO with a 5-volt supply for three years now.
D