Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, 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 11th April 2003, 12:53 PM   #1
Norbert is offline Norbert  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Norbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Default Sonic Impact of SRCs

Finishing the prototype of my DAC5 project (soon to be published on "http://www.diyaudio.de/html/projects.html") I made an interesting experience comparing two different modules for this DAC:

Module #1: DIR1703 - AD1896 - PCM1730
Module #2: DIR1703 - PCM1730

Master clock is provided by a 45,1584 MHz crystal oscillator provided by Guido Tent divided by a chain of 74AC161s, auxiliary clock for the SRC is provided by an ordinary canned 30,0 MHz crystal oscillator. IV-conversion is done using four homemade discrete CFB-opamps in a non-NFB configuration feeding a pair of Lundahl LL1582 transformers.

The unexpected result of my sonic comparison is that module #2 (without SRC) sounds distinctly better! Differences are:

- Soundstage more detailed, accurate, wide and deep
- More low-level details and dynamics
- Greater palpability

The results might be depending on the transport used (I'm using a Teac VRDS-25X).
My conclusion is that the DIR1703 already does an excellent job reducing incoming jitter and that the AD1896 isn't able to improve anything here and therefore negative artefacts of the upsampling process are becoming obvious.
Anybody of you guys made a similar experience?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2003, 02:33 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London UK
Default Re: Sonic Impact of SRCs

The unexpected result of my sonic comparison is that module #2 (without SRC) sounds distinctly better! Differences are:

----------------------------------------------------
This is the conclusion I eventually reached with the Assemblage D-2-D and other CS8420 based SRCs. The twin pll dejitterer actually works better without SRC. SRCs can give the impression of improvement but are far inferior to say the dCS972 and Purcell.
These truly show the benefits of upsampling and a 972/954 duo at 24/276.4 ot 24/192 truly impoves 16/44.1 to the point of complete acceptability for nearly all CDs. Most of the SACD/DVD-A discs are no match musically to many well recorded and upsampled CDs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2003, 03:47 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: As far from the NOSsers as possible
One of my famous audio designer friends (who will have to remained anonymous so that no one will flood his e-mail with questions) told me:

"Yeah, I've tried SRCs. I felt that I got the same amount of improvement by putting series resistors in all the data lines. A lot of work, and money, for little improvement."

His words, not mine. I suspect he might be close to the truth, though. I have never tried them, and see no reason yet to. I could be wrong..........

Jocko
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2003, 07:30 PM   #4
A 8 is offline A 8  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gothenburg
Jocko,
If you like os you should try a src, apply the same or a more careful clock design and I think you'll find something you like.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2003, 08:59 PM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: As far from the NOSsers as possible
Default If I make the clock any more careful.......

I might win a Nobel prize.

Well, no, not likely. I still have tricks up my sleeve before I resort to SRCs.

Jocko
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2003, 09:46 AM   #6
A 8 is offline A 8  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gothenburg
The clock that feeds my 8420 has a high impact on the final result.
I started the design only prioritizing the DA chip clock but ended up giving the 8420 clock the same care. The improvement was way beyond my expectations.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
FS: Sonic Impact T-Amp oldman1 Swap Meet 2 6th December 2007 07:53 PM
Sonic Impact for MI amp mashaffer Class D 1 21st February 2007 09:25 PM
WTB: Sonic Impact T-Amp Saurav Swap Meet 0 10th October 2006 08:04 PM
sonic impact t-amp in car? ractis Class D 13 25th February 2006 05:44 PM
bi-amping with sonic impact t amp/using sonic impact amp for headphones jon_m Class D 3 16th February 2006 11:16 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Page generated in 0.08302 seconds (76.25% PHP - 23.75% MySQL) with 10 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio