Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st March 2013, 10:49 AM   #2511
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
well its not that far off at 4.17µVrms 100khz bandwidth and whether the trident maintains that same performance at 200mA in reality would be interesting. so I think your scoffing at the idea of an IC being a discrete regulator is a bit unfounded. also 2.9µVrms is hardly world beating as discrete regs go though.

its a nice small discrete reg, but ICs are catching up, certainly its got wider capability in voltage and current

Last edited by qusp; 1st March 2013 at 11:08 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 12:32 PM   #2512
diyAudio Member
 
andrea_mori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by makumba1966 View Post
Even with TPA, it seems to me, that XO dual board had a little better timbre.
Not a big surprise for me.
Subjective impressions remain subjective, while technical specs are objective.
Please, compare the phase noise from their datasheet between the CCHD-957 (not more than a standard XO from the shelf) and the Si570. In these datasheets you can find the explanation of your impression.
Typically (not from me, but in most literature from the guru in this matter), higher phase noise decreases the dynamic range, and so our ears feel the sound less natural, mostly in the midrange frequency.
Low Q oscillators with PLL usually perform worst than oscillator with higher Q without any PLL in digital to analog conversion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 12:49 PM   #2513
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Gdansk
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea_mori View Post
Not a big surprise for me.
Subjective impressions remain subjective, while technical specs are objective.
Please, compare the phase noise from their datasheet between the CCHD-957 (not more than a standard XO from the shelf) and the Si570. In these datasheets you can find the explanation of your impression.
Typically (not from me, but in most literature from the guru in this matter), higher phase noise decreases the dynamic range, and so our ears feel the sound less natural, mostly in the midrange frequency.
Low Q oscillators with PLL usually perform worst than oscillator with higher Q without any PLL in digital to analog conversion.
I'm not sure if this is the main reason. IMO Si board need several hours more break-in to perform a meaningful comparison. With TPA board it sounds very nice to me, and I do not have any preasure back to CCHD
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 12:58 PM   #2514
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
andrea loves to beat incessantly on the si570. believes he can distinguish differences in jitter down into the femto seconds
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 02:09 PM   #2515
diyAudio Member
 
andrea_mori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Italy
jeremy loves to beat incessantly on subjective impression forgetting technical specs
we have different point of view, the technical point of view with objective measurement (the old thought school) and the subjective point of view without any demonstration (the new and creative thought school)
Hint of the day: there are thousands of documents on the internet explaining how phase noise, or if you prefere jitter, affects the sound in digital to analog conversion

There is not femto seconds difference from the 2 oscillators: from the Si5770 datasheet -112dBc@100Hz is a BAD performance, also if was measured at 120MHz frequency. Theorically you can subtract 6dB for each division by 2, pratically the phase noise remains the same (you can understand the reason in the thousands of documents on the internet, just read a bit)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 05:49 PM   #2516
Can you say Audio?
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Greenwood Village, Colorado
subjectively, this has been very interesting. I switched from the Dual Clock board (Isolator, S11 powering DAC & clock board, with TPA inline for dual clock board). to the Si570, TPA powered. Initial impression was slightly less timbre, but more smoothness/analog sounding (something I attributed to the higher clock speeds). Listened for a day and it sounded good; better as the day went on. Switched back this morning to the dual block board (CCHD-957's by the way), and a slight increase in Timbre (missed), but... I think overall the Si570 might be the winner. More listening to come....

Ian - a heartfelt thanks for your time/effort that allows us audio/diy geeks to play on this level. You've allowed me to entertain the absurd pursuit of the minutia. :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 05:49 PM   #2517
glt is offline glt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by roender View Post
This is not a surprise given the noise of trident regulator: 2.9uVrms, 100Kh bandwidth
The output impedance is almost the same as TPS7A4700 regulator.
I suppose no one imagine an integrated regulator will beat a well designed and implemented discrete regulator :-)
Is that value a measurement or simulation?
__________________
www.hifiduino.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2013, 04:45 AM   #2518
diyAudio Member
 
iancanada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterRogers View Post
subjectively, this has been very interesting. I switched from the Dual Clock board (Isolator, S11 powering DAC & clock board, with TPA inline for dual clock board). to the Si570, TPA powered. Initial impression was slightly less timbre, but more smoothness/analog sounding (something I attributed to the higher clock speeds). Listened for a day and it sounded good; better as the day went on. Switched back this morning to the dual block board (CCHD-957's by the way), and a slight increase in Timbre (missed), but... I think overall the Si570 might be the winner. More listening to come....

Ian - a heartfelt thanks for your time/effort that allows us audio/diy geeks to play on this level. You've allowed me to entertain the absurd pursuit of the minutia. :-)
You welcome MisterRogers. Mine is similar to you.

I have a couple of reg boards for my Si570, even same board with different capacitors, as well as 3.2V battery cell. I always can't decide which one is I want . That's why I designed a socket for external reg board. Every small change could be heard a this level.

Have a nice weekend.

Ian
__________________
Ian GBV - I2S to PCM converter board & FIFO KIT
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group...ml#post3662743
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:32 AM   #2519
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Gdansk
After several hours of listening i decided that Si board with TPA trident sounds too "technical" to me and back to TPS. I'll wait some days now for burn-in before comparing with dual xo and other regs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:58 AM   #2520
regal is offline regal  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by iancanada View Post
You welcome MisterRogers. Mine is similar to you.

I have a couple of reg boards for my Si570, even same board with different capacitors, as well as 3.2V battery cell. I always can't decide which one is I want . That's why I designed a socket for external reg board. Every small change could be heard a this level.

Have a nice weekend.

Ian
Quote:
Originally Posted by makumba1966 View Post
After several hours of listening i decided that Si board with TPA trident sounds too "technical" to me and back to TPS. I'll wait some days now for burn-in before comparing with dual xo and other regs.
either permutation is so superior to anything our ears have ever heard with regard to jitter performance it just amazes me that you are hearing differences. I mean at this level, jitter should be completely out of the question. Very odd. Makes me think oscillation/intererfance or some other rf phenomenom is occuring.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
XMOS-based Asynchronous USB to I2S interface Lorien Digital Source 2043 17th April 2014 03:31 PM
exaU2I - Multi-Channel Asynchronous USB to I2S Interface exa065 exaDevices 1357 3rd March 2014 08:51 PM
DAC chip selection + I2S jitter questions drwho9437 Digital Line Level 2 26th July 2010 12:50 PM
Simple FIFO to I2S CPLD, for MCU players / reclocking KOON3876 Digital Line Level 21 19th September 2008 04:00 PM
asynchronous reclocking and low jitter clocks ash_dac Digital Source 3 8th February 2005 09:22 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:02 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2