Buffalo II - Page 72 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Manufacturers > Twisted Pear

Twisted Pear Superior quality electronic kits

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th August 2010, 10:12 PM   #711
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Davis,CA
Thanks Brian !!!

I am going to assume that the long leads on the bipolar cap are to be connected to the + mark?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2010, 11:51 PM   #712
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default BII, I2S, reclocking, and jitter

With the Squeezebox Touch I would definately recommend you try a properly configured Pace Car via I2S, and get Steve's advice on I2S cabling and termination.
The ESS 9018 uses an onboard ASRC to resample and reclock the incoming data. While most measurements show that hardware based ASRC does reduce jitter (often to very low levels) most listeners have found that DACs using ASRCs are still sensitive to incoming jitter, and sound better when fed a low jitter data stream. If one reads all the responses on the buffalo threads, one will find that most users who experiment find that the Buffalo DACs also sound better when fed from a low jitter source. Personally I have yet to try the BII (on order though), but I expect it will respond well to being fed from a low jitter source, and sound even better when fed I2S. My experience with other ASRC solutions (like the TI 4192) has shown that although ASRC does reduce measured jitter, the DAC still sounds better every time one reduces the jitter level at the input to the ASRC. Some digital engineers have tried to explain why this is, saying that the ASRC reduces (actually they say "filters") the incoming jitter, but really just chages the jitter to other artifacts that demodulate to noise in the output of the DAC. I do not fully understand the process, but my listening experience suggests that it is always wise to feed a DAC (reclocking or not) the lowest jitter data stream possible, and that DAC claims like: "immune to jitter" are generally not true.
Please post your findings; I would love to know if the Touch-Pace Car-I2S-BII improves on the sound of Touch-SPDIF-BII.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2010, 11:59 PM   #713
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrows View Post
With the Squeezebox Touch I would definately recommend you try a properly configured Pace Car via I2S, and get Steve's advice on I2S cabling and termination.
The ESS 9018 uses an onboard ASRC to resample and reclock the incoming data. While most measurements show that hardware based ASRC does reduce jitter (often to very low levels) most listeners have found that DACs using ASRCs are still sensitive to incoming jitter, and sound better when fed a low jitter data stream. If one reads all the responses on the buffalo threads, one will find that most users who experiment find that the Buffalo DACs also sound better when fed from a low jitter source. Personally I have yet to try the BII (on order though), but I expect it will respond well to being fed from a low jitter source, and sound even better when fed I2S. My experience with other ASRC solutions (like the TI 4192) has shown that although ASRC does reduce measured jitter, the DAC still sounds better every time one reduces the jitter level at the input to the ASRC. Some digital engineers have tried to explain why this is, saying that the ASRC reduces (actually they say "filters") the incoming jitter, but really just chages the jitter to other artifacts that demodulate to noise in the output of the DAC. I do not fully understand the process, but my listening experience suggests that it is always wise to feed a DAC (reclocking or not) the lowest jitter data stream possible, and that DAC claims like: "immune to jitter" are generally not true.
Please post your findings; I would love to know if the Touch-Pace Car-I2S-BII improves on the sound of Touch-SPDIF-BII.
Wow! Thanks for the insight. I'm in agreement with you at least theoretically. It's just that the whole report of 'immune to jitter' has been repeated many times over by digital engineers. There is probably more going on here than just jitter.

I have a feeling that I2S is the better way to go and for that reason alone, I am planning on getting a Touch->Pace Car II. As long as the Buffalo II (dual mono) accepts a single ended I2S signal, we are game.

Anand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 12:49 AM   #714
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default Ahhh...

you must be posting over at CA as well! The B-II accepts a single ended I2S signal.
It is too bad that products like the Hiface Evo do not offer a differential I2S output, as this is a superior way to send I2S signals. If more folks used differential I2S, it would be more likely to be accepted as a better digital interface between components. Sorry for the OT rant...
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 01:55 AM   #715
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrows View Post
you must be posting over at CA as well! The B-II accepts a single ended I2S signal.
It is too bad that products like the Hiface Evo do not offer a differential I2S output, as this is a superior way to send I2S signals. If more folks used differential I2S, it would be more likely to be accepted as a better digital interface between components. Sorry for the OT rant...
You mean AC.

Well originally, I wanted to see if the Pacecar II outputs a differential I2S signal. It doesn't . Or else I would go with the RAKK dac Mk III (which only accepts differential I2S - yes a superior method). So I was off to plan B...sorry for the OT post.

Anand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 12:54 PM   #716
diyAudio Member
 
Russ White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Send a message via Yahoo to Russ White
Regarding Legato.

The parts with Xs are parts that would be omitted if you don't wish to use the output buffer.

There are 4 transistors with lines next to two pads. Those pad need to be jumpered together if you wish to omit the buffer.

The output impedance is very low even without the buffer. So unless you have a load < 4K or so You could omit the buffer. The circuit generates less heat because it uses less current without it.

I will get the manual done tonight. I just need to add some pictures etc.

Cheers!
Russ
__________________
Less pulp more juice Twisted Pear Audio.

Last edited by BrianDonegan; 11th August 2010 at 01:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 02:42 PM   #717
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ White View Post
Regarding Legato.

I will get the manual done tonight. I just need to add some pictures etc.

Cheers!
Russ
Make sure you add info about how to configure the dual mono Buffalo II with the Legato or Legatos!

Thanks,
Anand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 03:22 PM   #718
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Davis,CA
Thanks Russ
Looking forward to the Legato manual.

Best

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 03:53 PM   #719
diyAudio Member
 
regiregi22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrows View Post
With the Squeezebox Touch I would definately recommend you try a properly configured Pace Car via I2S, and get Steve's advice on I2S cabling and termination.
The ESS 9018 uses an onboard ASRC to resample and reclock the incoming data. While most measurements show that hardware based ASRC does reduce jitter (often to very low levels) most listeners have found that DACs using ASRCs are still sensitive to incoming jitter, and sound better when fed a low jitter data stream. If one reads all the responses on the buffalo threads, one will find that most users who experiment find that the Buffalo DACs also sound better when fed from a low jitter source. Personally I have yet to try the BII (on order though), but I expect it will respond well to being fed from a low jitter source, and sound even better when fed I2S. My experience with other ASRC solutions (like the TI 4192) has shown that although ASRC does reduce measured jitter, the DAC still sounds better every time one reduces the jitter level at the input to the ASRC. Some digital engineers have tried to explain why this is, saying that the ASRC reduces (actually they say "filters") the incoming jitter, but really just chages the jitter to other artifacts that demodulate to noise in the output of the DAC. I do not fully understand the process, but my listening experience suggests that it is always wise to feed a DAC (reclocking or not) the lowest jitter data stream possible, and that DAC claims like: "immune to jitter" are generally not true.
Please post your findings; I would love to know if the Touch-Pace Car-I2S-BII improves on the sound of Touch-SPDIF-BII.
Hey hey, just wondering...
OK, let's assume that an asynchronous connection is inmune to jitter (Ethernet is in fact inmune to jitter. Otherwise it wouldn't be as reliable as it is). Brian clearly states in this quote that Buffalo II works asynchronous.
So one of both you is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDonegan View Post
Not sure what benefit you hope to get from the reclocker, as the buffalo a) is asynchronous and b) reclocks the signal you send it

And then I think to my self...why audiophile world has that jitter social drama? I mean, in telecommunications world digital links are widespread and nobody has corrupt transfer or detectable problems with them.
They are more complex protocols, but what makes it "jitter-resistant" is a very simple error correction protocol. I mean, if ethernet devices are cheap and easy to develop, why not develop a tenfold times simpler protocol for audio?
When I use a pendrive to transfer a file I have no doubt that it will remain intact, bitperfect (this word sounds funny in this area, because bitperfectness is asumed). Are "audio bits" different from picture bits or ascii bits?

Regards,
Regi
__________________
diyAudio, doing it as big as you can, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN!
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2010, 04:29 PM   #720
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default regi...

I think you may need to do a little researching into jitter in audio. A pen drive can indeed transfer all your data without bit errors, as does any reasonable digital audio interface. Jitter in audio has nothing to do with bit errors, it is the timing of the data at the converter. Jitter is a non issue for data transfers, as they are not time sensitive. A serial audio data stream is entirely time sensitive at the converter though.
There is no such thing as "jitter free" digital to analog conversion. One can only attempt to achieve the lowest possible level of jitter. I have been involved in listening tests where different audio interfaces were tested with the same DAC; the only differences were the level of jitter in the interface. Everytime a lower jitter interface is used, sonics improve. If one is attempting to achieve the best possible sonics in a digital to analog converter, jitter is an important issue, and it will pay sonic dividends to do everything possible to achieve the lowest jitter.
If one only wants to achieve "acceptable" performance, then one may choose to ignore jitter.
Assuming asynchronous transfer is jitter free is in error, as is stating a DAC is "immune" to jitter.
  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
Buffalo Tweaking jkeny Digital Line Level 316 10th March 2010 09:14 PM
Hello from Buffalo NY chris emo Introductions 1 13th July 2007 04:24 AM
Buffalo brains macmeech Introductions 1 15th June 2004 06:03 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 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