And then one hopes that the opto receiver box is "better" than the box feeding the opto sending box (PC?) or one is just back to square one...
//
Are we still claiming that the jitter is the main factor influencing the “sound” of the transport?
I have no idea, I would not bet on that. I have experimented with a lot of hardware and software to get my transport where I wanted it to be. And I cant explain why stuff sounds so different.It is simply the case.
Softwarewise I ended up with MPD (MPDpup). Rasperry is OK, but not the highest grade and I tried anything incl. allo signature usbridge, Ian'S nattery supply and FIFO etcetc. IN the end my old Alix 1D with Sotm Usb-card outperforms them still.
I have as well the Pulsar-Clocks...made not such a big difference to be honest...
Softwarewise I ended up with MPD (MPDpup). Rasperry is OK, but not the highest grade and I tried anything incl. allo signature usbridge, Ian'S nattery supply and FIFO etcetc. IN the end my old Alix 1D with Sotm Usb-card outperforms them still.
I have as well the Pulsar-Clocks...made not such a big difference to be honest...
No, I wrote that it is a combination of things. Low jitter is an important one but so are the other items. Don't underestimate the 2x conversion/muxing/demuxing of data lines and clock signal in SPDIF. The test is simple. Recently I hear opinions of people stating that lower jitter means colder sound
Well real instruments do not know jitter do they?Most convenient is to keep the 2 box way of working and to couple several sources to an external DAC but simple tests can reveal the limitations.
Last edited:
So what do you mean by this? Can you give us some real life examples of “a known good low jitter source”? Because it’s certainly sounds here like jitter is the only thing to be concerned with.
Sorry but I think we misunderstand?!?! The whole audio branch is about winning customers for dedicated audio computers/media players it seems. Aurender, Auralic, Cambridge, Lumin, Bluesound, NAD, Melco, Sonos, Sony, Audiolab, NAIM, Cocktail Audio, Pioneer to name a few that produce these devices. Some of these devices were designed with a lot of care for clocks, separated clean power supply sections, shielding, reducing CM noise etc. Some members choose RPI with HATs for a DIY solution with all bells and whistles with the same goal. There is a lot more to choose from than choosing between a pc and a CD player.
Again, it is NOT solely about low jitter but I see you think jitter is irrelevant? Well high jitter also is not the way to go Also a relatively easy test to do.
Again, it is NOT solely about low jitter but I see you think jitter is irrelevant? Well high jitter also is not the way to go
Also a relatively easy test to do.
Last edited:
I think, I got misunderstood too. A few years back, with a different DAC and different system, I also thought that computer was better that my CD Transports. It’s only now, when my system became much more revealing and with all the mods on DAC, I’m coming to conclusion that I much more enjoy old school playback. So my main point was not really about advantage of one source over the other, but the praise of the DAC that it became so good.
To make sure I’m not imagining things, I did a quick google search on ‘transport vs streaming’ on whatsbest forum and this thread came up: Are Transports Obsolete? | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet!
To make sure I’m not imagining things, I did a quick google search on ‘transport vs streaming’ on whatsbest forum and this thread came up: Are Transports Obsolete? | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet!
Hi I think we are miscommunicating. Maybe we should both reread our own posts
BTW in my experience local storage (not always possible) is often better than streaming. Old fashioned as I am I only use the network for filling/controlling devices as they unfortunately lack displays.
BTW in my experience local storage (not always possible) is often better than streaming. Old fashioned as I am I only use the network for filling/controlling devices as they unfortunately lack displays.
Last edited:
Who has good experiences with DSD on the DAM1941?
When I send in native DSD over I2S to my DAM1941 it does not lock on the stream and no sound can be heard.
Wen I send in DSD over PCM (DoP) then I occasionally see the DAM recognizing a DSD64 stream for example, but audio remains silent. Other times it also does not lock on the incoming stream.
I yet need to test over USB, this is tested over the additional I2S input.
Input device is a IanCanada FifoPi that can be configured to output either DoP or Native DSD. I can see that it processes DSD by a blue led lighting up.
Any experiences with the DAM1941?
When I send in native DSD over I2S to my DAM1941 it does not lock on the stream and no sound can be heard.
Wen I send in DSD over PCM (DoP) then I occasionally see the DAM recognizing a DSD64 stream for example, but audio remains silent. Other times it also does not lock on the incoming stream.
I yet need to test over USB, this is tested over the additional I2S input.
Input device is a IanCanada FifoPi that can be configured to output either DoP or Native DSD. I can see that it processes DSD by a blue led lighting up.
Any experiences with the DAM1941?
I have a LDOVR mezzanine board as the power supply to my pi and the hifiberry digi plus pro on top. You can choose what voltages you want and how many of them to supply power to different HATS or external things. It also splits the power supply from the pi and the HATS for obvious reasons.
Question
Is there a place on the DAM1941 where I can tap 3.3 bts from for a LVDS HDMI i2s adapter? It just feels silly to have a separate power supply for that thing alone. I might get away with a small LDO board. But I'd rather just tap it from somewhere close. Maybe the XMOS chip has 3.3 somewhere?