I own a Buffalo 32 DAC by myself.
Don't underestimate the weakness of that SPDIF interface. Avoid overestimating the overall jitter rejection capabilities of the DAC respectively its implementation. This can be done better. Much better IMO.
I can just recommend to get all the tweaks done first and then compare.
digital SPDIF to V-DAC or analog
I revised my opinion about the benefits of V-DAC vs analog.
After replacing the Toslink connection to my V-DAC by SPDIF coax, I noticed a perceptible improvement in definition, even if my SPDIF cable is truly suboptimal (0,5m with gold plated connectors for 12€): the sound is more defined, attacks are sharper, treble is clearer and less metallic compared to analog out... all in one make a subtle but significant improvement in SQ... looks promising!
But I get a little borried by all these tries 'n errors preventing true music listening. I think once I will have found a reasonably cheap and good SPDIF cable, I will stop there at a point that IMO is good enough for my personal taste.
Final setup for my audio chain is:
Sbooster BOT2W -> SBT with Soundcheck's SW mods -> SPDIF -> V-DAC supplied by linear PSU -> NAD C315 -> my good old PEL AT-1 speakers
Refering to the discussion about SPDIF, I am wondering what matters really for the choice of a good SPDIF cable. Is attenuation still a decisive criteria? given higher attenuation cable would also attenuate reflected signal, a pure silver core could be worse than oxygen free copper isn't it? - I don't have the money to try it
- if true, why then buying very expensive cables? Is additional cable shielding/isolation also a must?
I would guess correct impedance adaptation avoiding reflections matters much more than the type of cable itself. Any suggestion of how to achieve that? Probably something for a RF expert.
I revised my opinion about the benefits of V-DAC vs analog.
After replacing the Toslink connection to my V-DAC by SPDIF coax, I noticed a perceptible improvement in definition, even if my SPDIF cable is truly suboptimal (0,5m with gold plated connectors for 12€): the sound is more defined, attacks are sharper, treble is clearer and less metallic compared to analog out... all in one make a subtle but significant improvement in SQ... looks promising!
But I get a little borried by all these tries 'n errors preventing true music listening. I think once I will have found a reasonably cheap and good SPDIF cable, I will stop there at a point that IMO is good enough for my personal taste.
Final setup for my audio chain is:
Sbooster BOT2W -> SBT with Soundcheck's SW mods -> SPDIF -> V-DAC supplied by linear PSU -> NAD C315 -> my good old PEL AT-1 speakers
Refering to the discussion about SPDIF, I am wondering what matters really for the choice of a good SPDIF cable. Is attenuation still a decisive criteria? given higher attenuation cable would also attenuate reflected signal, a pure silver core could be worse than oxygen free copper isn't it? - I don't have the money to try it
- if true, why then buying very expensive cables? Is additional cable shielding/isolation also a must?I would guess correct impedance adaptation avoiding reflections matters much more than the type of cable itself. Any suggestion of how to achieve that? Probably something for a RF expert.
I revised my opinion about the benefits of V-DAC vs analog.
After replacing the Toslink connection to my V-DAC by SPDIF coax, I noticed a perceptible improvement in definition, even if my SPDIF cable is truly suboptimal (0,5m with gold plated connectors for 12€): the sound is more defined, attacks are sharper, treble is clearer and less metallic compared to analog out... all in one make a subtle but significant improvement in SQ... looks promising!
But I get a little borried by all these tries 'n errors preventing true music listening. I think once I will have found a reasonably cheap and good SPDIF cable, I will stop there at a point that IMO is good enough for my personal taste.
Final setup for my audio chain is:
Sbooster BOT2W -> SBT with Soundcheck's SW mods -> SPDIF -> V-DAC supplied by linear PSU -> NAD C315 -> my good old PEL AT-1 speakers
Refering to the discussion about SPDIF, I am wondering what matters really for the choice of a good SPDIF cable. Is attenuation still a decisive criteria? given higher attenuation cable would also attenuate reflected signal, a pure silver core could be worse than oxygen free copper isn't it? - I don't have the money to try it
I would guess correct impedance adaptation avoiding reflections matters much more than the type of cable itself. Any suggestion of how to achieve that? Probably something for a RF expert.
Hi.
I have a chapter about SPDIF on the blog. I can tell you that the cable should not be the first thing to address, assuming that you got a 75R compliant cable in place.
A decent el cheapo true 75R Canare/Belden with connectors at 15$ performs quite well.
The gain you'll achieve with "high-end" cables in comparison to what can be achieved by getting the endpoints right I consider neglectable.
Even if you put a 500$ cable in, it won't solve your issues on the endpoints ( with reference to (matching) terminations, better PS, better parts, better decoupling, jitter rejection, etc.)
And then there is the question about cable length. You might spend a day doing internet research. I can tell you, you - at least I didn't suceeded - won't find an answer which will finally turn out to be satisfactory. Meanwhile I even think there is no answer to it.
Though I found one that makes sense:
If your endpoints/terminations are well matched -- cable length doesn't really matter anymore. (A close to perfect match -- is not that easy to accomplish though)
Cheers
Last edited:
Hi Klaus!
I'am back again. Today I tested the difference between 1m DRAKA network cable with shield and without as you did. I also hear that there is something different. Without shield there is a bit more dynamic (its a bit wilder, more but not so dry bass) but the stage and music instruments becomes even more fuzzy than before. But te difference is not big. The MeiCord cables have much more definition and the stage becomes more realistic. You can "see" the instruments somehow. But sometimes its close to analytic sound. Nevertheless I prefer them. Thats what I found.
As there is the topic of the DAC: has anyone heard one of Lukas Fikus's. I like his sites and his humour. In the meantime he also modifies the Buffalo-Board.....
Thanks, Stefan
I'am back again. Today I tested the difference between 1m DRAKA network cable with shield and without as you did. I also hear that there is something different. Without shield there is a bit more dynamic (its a bit wilder, more but not so dry bass) but the stage and music instruments becomes even more fuzzy than before. But te difference is not big. The MeiCord cables have much more definition and the stage becomes more realistic. You can "see" the instruments somehow. But sometimes its close to analytic sound. Nevertheless I prefer them. Thats what I found.
As there is the topic of the DAC: has anyone heard one of Lukas Fikus's. I like his sites and his humour. In the meantime he also modifies the Buffalo-Board.....
Thanks, Stefan
Why not. Just send it over. Drop me a mail.
BTW do you have those Hirose TM31 connectors on your Draka cable? Those have the 4 wires in the center slightly lifted up.
How to explain improvements in digital out quality?
Its absolutely great that Soundcheck and others have done so much work trying to maximize the performance of these really cool players (and linux too).
Coming from an IT background, after reading the whole thread, I have some questions. My intention is to find the basis for the improvements people have seen, not to troll... I don't have a Touch, and while I'm interested in playing with it, the 400 USD x2 (experiment and control) it costs in Europe is a bit high. I have a Xtreamer connected via TOSLINK to a audio-gd fun DAC (Wolfson WM8741). I expect that the questions I have pertain to all digital players.
There are two ways to use the Touch, with its own analog out and with the s/pdif out. There are a number of claims of improved sound. I completely understand that the analog out could be improved on a device like this with mods like a better power supply and caps. This usage doesn't interest me though.
With the device digital out, I don't see how people can make claims like "the bass is better" or "there is better imaging". Digital is exact. There is no question of degrees (I'll get to s/pdif timing in a minute). So the only thing that happens to digital signals is they get corrupted, incorrectly processed - they can only get worse and will get worse in seemingly random ways. If the signal is processed correctly, you can't get "better", its 100% what it should be.
So if things like altering buffers or disabling services helps improve sound when using digital out, the only reason I can imagine is that the device implementation doesn't have the processing power to handle the application its intended for or there are other implementation issues.
As I understand, the weak link is the s/pdif link, which doesn't have timing or error correction information. So the only thing that I can imagine can go wrong in the signal processing is that the source isn't getting the data to the DAC with proper timing (jitter), which will manifest it in numerous ways, and fixing this could be perceived as being tighter bass, wider soundstage, etc., but in fact is likely a much more complex improvement than that.
I can attest to making improvements in this, with the Xtreamer with firmware 2.4 beta I would hear a lot of high pitched clicking on test tones or long sustained notes like choral pieces, and I found listening to music was tiring. The upgrade to 2.5.4 made a huge difference, the sound is now the same as from my linux based media center. The total quality of the sound improved, to try to isolate and describe the improvements would be misguided at best. There is nothing in the Xtreamer Changelog, but it seems that it must have cured timing issues that were causing a lot of problems with jitter. (anyone have any insight into this?)
For the sqeezebox touch with digital out, how can the sound quality (a digital stream) be improved, unless the stock implementation is flawed?
Has anyone done a blind test of digital out, for example with a linux real time media player and the stock and a modded squeezebox? Or against other media players?
Which DACs are people using who have seen improvements, and are there any modders with DACs who didn't see improvement?
In closing, it seems that the only "improvements" that could be made to any digital media player without serious implementation flaws are more stable output timing, better sending / receiving optics, or better coax shielding.
Or is there something that I've missed?
Its absolutely great that Soundcheck and others have done so much work trying to maximize the performance of these really cool players (and linux too).
Coming from an IT background, after reading the whole thread, I have some questions. My intention is to find the basis for the improvements people have seen, not to troll... I don't have a Touch, and while I'm interested in playing with it, the 400 USD x2 (experiment and control) it costs in Europe is a bit high. I have a Xtreamer connected via TOSLINK to a audio-gd fun DAC (Wolfson WM8741). I expect that the questions I have pertain to all digital players.
There are two ways to use the Touch, with its own analog out and with the s/pdif out. There are a number of claims of improved sound. I completely understand that the analog out could be improved on a device like this with mods like a better power supply and caps. This usage doesn't interest me though.
With the device digital out, I don't see how people can make claims like "the bass is better" or "there is better imaging". Digital is exact. There is no question of degrees (I'll get to s/pdif timing in a minute). So the only thing that happens to digital signals is they get corrupted, incorrectly processed - they can only get worse and will get worse in seemingly random ways. If the signal is processed correctly, you can't get "better", its 100% what it should be.
So if things like altering buffers or disabling services helps improve sound when using digital out, the only reason I can imagine is that the device implementation doesn't have the processing power to handle the application its intended for or there are other implementation issues.
As I understand, the weak link is the s/pdif link, which doesn't have timing or error correction information. So the only thing that I can imagine can go wrong in the signal processing is that the source isn't getting the data to the DAC with proper timing (jitter), which will manifest it in numerous ways, and fixing this could be perceived as being tighter bass, wider soundstage, etc., but in fact is likely a much more complex improvement than that.
I can attest to making improvements in this, with the Xtreamer with firmware 2.4 beta I would hear a lot of high pitched clicking on test tones or long sustained notes like choral pieces, and I found listening to music was tiring. The upgrade to 2.5.4 made a huge difference, the sound is now the same as from my linux based media center. The total quality of the sound improved, to try to isolate and describe the improvements would be misguided at best. There is nothing in the Xtreamer Changelog, but it seems that it must have cured timing issues that were causing a lot of problems with jitter. (anyone have any insight into this?)
For the sqeezebox touch with digital out, how can the sound quality (a digital stream) be improved, unless the stock implementation is flawed?
Has anyone done a blind test of digital out, for example with a linux real time media player and the stock and a modded squeezebox? Or against other media players?
Which DACs are people using who have seen improvements, and are there any modders with DACs who didn't see improvement?
In closing, it seems that the only "improvements" that could be made to any digital media player without serious implementation flaws are more stable output timing, better sending / receiving optics, or better coax shielding.
Or is there something that I've missed?
Last edited:
Yup you are missing something
I don't think many of us are using the analog outputs. I am an engineer, and I don't understand all of the ins and outs of digital music. It is a very poorly implemented media with many areas that can cause problems. If you read Klaus' first page I think you will see what he is trying to do. Essentially lowering the processor load in the squeezebox in order to decrease jitter. Jitter & the Digital Interface | Stereophile.com
I don't think many of us are using the analog outputs. I am an engineer, and I don't understand all of the ins and outs of digital music. It is a very poorly implemented media with many areas that can cause problems. If you read Klaus' first page I think you will see what he is trying to do. Essentially lowering the processor load in the squeezebox in order to decrease jitter. Jitter & the Digital Interface | Stereophile.com
I forgot to say which DACs I have been using, and found a difference with. I used to have a Wadia decoding computer and I now have an extremely modified music hall dac 25.2. Both of these units reclock, but they both showed differences.
Also my squeezebox 3 gets eaten alive by the modded touch.
Also my squeezebox 3 gets eaten alive by the modded touch.
Was tired and hit the update button. 
Now have version 7.5.3 which Klaus does not support. Had to reinstall mods 2.0.
I can't get the buffer mod to work again (all others are fine). The script runs and says buffer is installed but ttstat reveals the new buffer command has not changed the default.
Anyone have the same experience?
Now have version 7.5.3 which Klaus does not support. Had to reinstall mods 2.0.I can't get the buffer mod to work again (all others are fine). The script runs and says buffer is installed but ttstat reveals the new buffer command has not changed the default.
Anyone have the same experience?
My Touch has firmware 7.6.0 r9298 and squeezeboxserver 7.5.1 on my Synology NAS DS111 and Soundchecks toolbox 2.0 and the 100% volume mod are both working like a charm!
But i have the earlier mentioned chipmunk voices on some FM stations when i have the buffermode on 3600 uS value.
After disabling buffermod the chipmunk voices went away, so i have to do some testing with other buffer settings to see if this a cure for this small problem.
After disabling the buffermod the soundstage didn't change but the bass became a little bit softer.
I'am very happy that soundcheck is sharing the mods wit us as music lovers and DIY enthousiasts.
Keep up the good work Soudcheck! Thank You
But i have the earlier mentioned chipmunk voices on some FM stations when i have the buffermode on 3600 uS value.
After disabling buffermod the chipmunk voices went away, so i have to do some testing with other buffer settings to see if this a cure for this small problem.
After disabling the buffermod the soundstage didn't change but the bass became a little bit softer.
I'am very happy that soundcheck is sharing the mods wit us as music lovers and DIY enthousiasts.
Keep up the good work Soudcheck! Thank You
Thanks, Greg. That worked. No problem with 7.5.3 and 2.0 mods.
It was indeed in TFM.