LessLoss DAC - intiquing facts - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

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 13th September 2004, 10:20 AM   #1
ergo is offline ergo  Estonia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Default LessLoss DAC - intiquing facts

I stumbled on an interesting web page
http://www.lessloss.com/main.html

It's a hand made DAC. The approach is quite interesting, but I found some real funny arguments in the text.

They claim
http://www.lessloss.com/jitter.html
".....Because LessLoss is determined to minimize jitter to the lowest of possible levels, we go the extra step to re-clock (also known as quantizing) the digital data to near-perfect timing just a few millimeters before it enters the audio domain......."


OK but then if one goes to page
http://www.lessloss.com/information.html

They write
".....In essence all you need to do is desolder and remove the quartz resonator from the CD player, and where one of its legs were, solder on the end of the middle conductor of a coaxial cable (any old coaxial cable will do). The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"

This is a good example how a good presentation can be totally mocked by a few wrong sentences

********

How can one take seriously argument that few mm make a difference when on the next page they say that when feeding back the clock it does not need no care, any BS cable goes and so on.....

Ergo
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 10:38 AM   #2
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: LessLoss DAC - intiquing facts

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by ergo
How can one take seriously argument that few mm make a difference when on the next page they say that when feeding back the clock it does not need no care, any BS cable goes and so on.....
Well, the wording may be extreme, HOWEVER, as long as the DAC's receiver can sync on the signal from the transport the cable quality does NOT matter (nor does any jitter introduced anywhere prior to re-clocking) as it is all removed by the reclocker. At least in theory. In practice using too grotty a cable will result in occasional "unlocking" of the connection.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 10:56 AM   #3
ergo is offline ergo  Estonia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
I'm not so sure on that it is that straightforward. In theory yes, but in reality.

Kuei, as you know I'm working on improving the Behringer DCX2496 digital crossover. It has a CS8420 receiver ic in resampling/reclocking mode and at the moment I have a Tent XO2 clocking the data out of the CS8420. So theoretically the transport should not have any influence on the DAC. Still the latest test between my Sony CD with modded spdif out versus some older Technics player with stock spdif out gave a shocking result thet there was a very clear difference betwen these transports. And the difference was not subtle. Sony gave a much more relaxed and deeper soudstage....

I can not explain it yet, but I will try to somehow confirm it elsewhere with diffrent players and perhaps with measurements.

Ergo

PS. Sony player has a National LM6171 opamp as a unity gain buffer driving 75 ohm cable and using BNC connector. No connector is used on DCX end. Cable goes straight to transformer and terminated by 75ohm. For other transports RCA->BNC is used in transport end.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 01:42 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
hi ergo,

did you slave both the players?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 01:55 PM   #5
ergo is offline ergo  Estonia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
No I did not slave them.

CS8420 is an asyncronous sample rate converter, thus the output should be clocked out of the chip independent of the clock on spdif line. Theoretically it should also make the dac almost immune to transport variances. In reality transport still seems to make a difference.

I know I can not compare the situation with slave configuration system 1:1, but it is somewhat similar. I would not be too surprised if the proper implementation of feeding back the clock also makes a difference there.

Ergo
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 02:24 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
rwagter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Absolutely handbuild

Click the image to open in full size.

  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 02:37 PM   #7
ergo is offline ergo  Estonia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Yes for a kind of commercial offering it is not what people are used to I quess.

It is a fresh way of doing thing and I admire that they have done it like this and also published the photos. On the other hand if they would not publish the photos they might give a mild shock to some customers who happen to open the case I suppose

Anyway, in most part I really liked the website and the product, it's not something you see every day, but the few sentences I mentioned before managed to kill quite a bit of a good mood I had developed reading the text.

One should be precise and consistent to really do it all as good as possible if once taken that direction - at least that is how I feel.

Ergo
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 02:48 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
but Ergo.. I totally agree with Kuei Yang Wang: they are right, the slave-clock doesn't have to be low jitter or anything, that's why you can get away with long slave-cables.. ground rerturn isn't critical anymore etc etc.. all the critical things happen right next to (few mm ?) the master-low-jitter clock..

In my view you haven't quoted any wrong sentences from their website..
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 02:54 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lithuania
Hi, folks. Please notice that on the website under www.LessLoss.com/types.html the concept of asynchronous upsampling has been discussed, and this discussion doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LessLoss DAC is way over and beyond that worse solution. That solution is what the DAC-1 by Benchmark uses. I don't know what it is that keeps people thinking that asynchronous sampling is the same as slaving. Totally different solutions. And about the soldering on the picture: That's just how it has to look if you are serious about keeping all crutial signal paths as short as possible. Many people might not realize that the entire picture which is posted here is only a few millimeters across. Those parts are among the smallest in existence! Looks can be deceiving.

Sorry about my tone of voice. I thought EVERYTHING was covered in the website, but it appears that still these things have to be explained again, or perhaps in a better way on the site.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2004, 04:24 PM   #10
ergo is offline ergo  Estonia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
I'm not saying the LessLoss guys are wrong. I just am surprised that they are willing to forget good design practise at that point.

".....The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"

Lets assume a customer does it exactly like this and manages to find a ground line of motor drivers of the mechanism and stick the shield of the cable there. That ground point will fluctuate quite alot. Cable even carries some of the ground fluctuation back to DAC. It might also introduce lets say 1200ps of jitter in SPDIF going from transport to DAC. Even though the data is later reclocked I would still avoid such solution.

Might be my point of view in this matter is much stronger than you guys have. What I always shoot for is the best implementation even with smallest things. Sometimes this minor shortcoming may not be that minor on sound.

Ergo

PS. Or perhaps what they wanted to give is an impression that the slave configuration is easy to do and thus more people would be willing to try it.....
  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
LessLoss Power Cable (European SCHUKO 2 meters) fas948 Swap Meet 0 27th July 2009 01:03 PM
Facts about Fiberglass Qub Everything Else 5 5th February 2006 08:49 AM
Sub enclosure opinions/facts/help drfrink24 Subwoofers 1 17th January 2005 01:45 AM
CRT Burn-In: Need the Technical Facts. jkru Everything Else 0 10th March 2004 06:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01 AM.


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