The third try, or Revenge of the PCM1704 - Page 4 - 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 4th December 2002, 02:22 PM   #31
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default have turned you into an abusive *****

Ah nothing like reasoned discourse from my esteemed college...... Yes you can an I2S interface with three cable interfaces and the resultant termation nd RFI issues. Or like I said..... you can do one well done SPDIF interface and have the flexibility of using different DACs and or transports interchangably as many developers, DIYers, and just about every one else in the industry does. There is also the potential to use readily available pulse transformers and analog diffential interfaces for reduction of RFI and common mode noise on the interface. Also advantages in decoupling noise from the transport from getting into the analog circuits through the DAC dgital inputs.

I guess it is easier to rant with hysterics about the SPDIF interface than to go do the work of improving it. My experience and that of a many well reguarded DAC designers is that this interface has plenty of potential and is not ready to be thrown out yet. The Audio Alchemy and Muse digital interfaces seem to have dissappeared. The I2S cable that I built for the AA stuff worked best in very short lengths(15") due to the lack of proper termination by the way.

http://www.diyvideo.com/forums/showt...0854#post90854


Fred

P.S. It is nice to know that the forum has such hands off moderators so I can be called an "abusive *****" for discussing technical issues that I have three years of professional experience in. Makes me really want to be a contributer here.

Post edited(word has been censored), as result of offender's(not user Fred Dieckmann) usage of it with malicious intent has been censored. Your complaint has been heard, and action has been taken as result. Please refer to SinBin for result. -CHRIS8
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2002, 05:21 PM   #32
diyAudio Member
 
Peter Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Send a message via AIM to Peter Daniel
Default Re: have turned you into an abusive prick

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann


P.S. It is nice to know that the forum has such hands off moderators so I can be called an "abusive prick" for discussing technical issues that I have three years of professional experience in. Makes me really want to be a contributer here.
In all that fascinating technical discussion, I didn't even noticed that. I thought your threshold for abuse was set up higher. In the light of recent events and the fact that moderators are under the fire, I will not even think about proposing anything like sin bin sentence.



jwb, you used unnaceptable language and offended a respected member of this forum. I think that apology is in order. BTW, do you still consider me to be harmless?
__________________
www.audiosector.com
Do something really well. See how much time it takes. It might be a product, a work of art, who knows? Then give it away cheaply, just because you feel that it should not cost so much, even if it took a lot of time and expensive materials to make it. - JC
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2002, 05:25 PM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
Peter Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Send a message via AIM to Peter Daniel
Unfortunately my post came a minute too late, jwb got sinbinned.
__________________
www.audiosector.com
Do something really well. See how much time it takes. It might be a product, a work of art, who knows? Then give it away cheaply, just because you feel that it should not cost so much, even if it took a lot of time and expensive materials to make it. - JC
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2002, 09:20 PM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Default I2S

I have found that I2S needs to be as tweaky as possible to get the best results. Most I2S cables and connectors suck. If you can, hardwire the cables at both ends and if you must buffer, try it at one end only. Of course, the wire and dialectric used will make a big difference. At one point I was using an Audio Magic I2S cable that was connected between a modified AA jitter/bit expander and a custom DAC. I had already hardwired the cable to the DAC pins but the other end was using the usual mini-din plug into the AA piece. Then I made my own I2S cable using 6 nines copper wire in air and thin teflon and hardwired it at both ends. Way, way better sound. So, there is no free lunch. Everything has to be done to the max to get the best sound.

Ric Schultz
  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
PCM1704 I/V response scobham Digital Source 5 11th September 2008 04:32 PM
non OS pcm1704 hugobors Digital Source 12 1st March 2006 09:07 PM
PCM1704 DIY DAC pictures mlihl Digital Source 2 2nd January 2005 11:19 PM
Where to buy PCM1704? m_buzzi Digital Source 3 11th November 2004 12:53 PM
Pcm1704 hacknet Digital Source 5 11th April 2004 09:25 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 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