I Just Got Flamed In The AudioAsylum!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#81
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Just Got Flamed In The AudioAsylum!

andy_c said:
The E-MU 0404 USB is one example.
Click to expand...
Does the EMU use custom drivers, or the built-in Windows USB Audio drivers? I'm pretty sure there was a discussion somewhere and EMU uses custom drivers, and I think it was Gordon from Wavelength Audio that showed they use USB bulk transfer mode, not USB Audio asynchronous isochronous. Of course, the bulk transfer would be immune to interface jitter as well, and it has the advantage of supporting error correction (the USB Audio standard does NOT use error correction and thus cables, system load, etc. could potentially make a difference if one ends up with high USB error rates).

I haven't done a proper test for error rates on my implementation of asynch USB Audio on a Cypress USB chip, but if it's a problem then it definitely makes sense to add bulk transfer mode, even if that doesn't have guaranteed latency.
 
#82
taylornate said:


Also, no sane consumer will say "I wonder if this $550 cable will improve my system" and then buy the cable just to find out.
Click to expand...


Not too sure about this particular cable but most major cable distributors in the US have a 30 day money back guarantee - probably the best feature of life in the US as far as i am concerned 🙂
 
#83
b-square said:


See page 15 of the data sheet:

"For both USB function and audio function, the PCM2704/5/6/7 requires a 12-MHz (±500 ppm) clock, which can
be generated by the built-in oscillator using a 12-MHz crystal resonator."

It is also shown in the diagram on page 9.
Click to expand...


So, you are quite confident that a good 12MHz clock will solve the USB jitter problems and make cables inaudible, right? And what exactly does this clock achieve?
 
#86
-ecdesigns- said:
Achieving High-End computer-based playback is basically no different from CD-based High-End playback.

This is required:
...
...
...

...
IF digital interface cables DO make a difference in sound quality,
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you could define "High-End ... playback", computer-based or otherwise?

And I need know exactly how we know a difference in sound quality is achieved. Or does it lie in a world beyond measurement?

I’m running optical ADAT on one machine, coax SPDIF on another and the master (DAW) runs Fire Wire (Tascam FW-1884) Until recently a hum problem prevented me from using these in the media room and I have compared them on my modest Event studio monitors which are in an untenable imaging position. Among these digital interfaces my ear has no preference and as I have no USB my interests here are more epistemological/aesthetic than technical.

In any case I thank you for any clarifications/explications you might provide.

eStatic
 
#89
janneman said:

Sure, it's their money. But do you think it is in their best interest to recommend a 500$ cable for their 1000$ equipment setup? Do you really believe it "makes a difference'?

Jan Didden
Click to expand...

Hi Jan, I'm more into the analog side where I believe good cable is a must in a good system. What I will recommend is to experiment with cables and decide for yourself if it is worth their money. Surely there are overpriced cables.

b-square said:

You have misunderstood, it seems. The arguments I, and others, have made is not that the cables don't matter. On the contrary, I agree they can make a difference. If cables do make a difference in this application, then there is a problem in the DAC. I also believe the same thing about SPDIF interfaces. Cables can make a big difference if the transmit or receive implementation is poor. In good implementations, the cable makes little difference.

If people prefer to spend the money on cables instead of properly implemented components, that is absolutely their business. Interesting that those same folks seem to be awfully sensitive about questions people raise about their decisions, though. I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...

I'm not into USB sound, still believe in my CDP 😀 but talking about SPDIF, I've used quite high-end components and have experienced big improvements in sound quality with some cables. As you say, perhaps the problem lies with the equipment but there is nothing that the consumer can do about that.

I'm not trying to promote cables, all I'm suggesting is that people try it before deciding that it can't make a difference.

André
 
#90
Budgie said:
I am looking for a teflon insulated, silver conductor sata cable, for the hard drive my wav files are stored on.

Anybody know were to buy one?

(Hmmmm, wonder if it should be cryo'ed too?)
Click to expand...
dOOd!!!!

If you don't replace the headers on the mother board, it won't do you any good, don't you know?

While you are at it, I have heard that directly soldering your CPU vs using the ziff socket gives better results--noticeably better than when I switched my speaker cable stands from teflon to Guadalupan mahogany, and that was like night and day!!!

For some reason I still can't measure either effect, but my ears hear it, I SWEAR!!!!
 
#91
Andre Visser said:


I'm not into USB sound, still believe in my CDP 😀
Click to expand...


This was my position less than 6 months ago. It's probably due to my questionable cd transport ( Teac P700 with add-on clock) but my usb dac is currently a lot more listenable.

The turning point came after getting J River to use kernel streaming and the usb dac to use an ASRC with a good crystal. Nothing can make me go back to messing with cds.

I just wish someone will publish the eeprom contents for a TAS1020B bulk transfer mode. Any owner of a nice usb dac could 🙂
 
#92
More listenable, heh?

I just developed a new CD transport that is more listenable than my vinyl rig which sits there unused all last year 😉
 

Attachments

  • cdp.jpg
    cdp.jpg
    99.6 KB · Views: 373
#99
dfdye said:
For some reason I still can't measure either effect, but my ears hear it, I SWEAR!!!! [/B]
Click to expand...

Just because one cannot quantify a dimension/aspect claimed for a sound doesn't mean it doesn’t exist or is not significant. One has to look too double blind testing to separate the wheat from the chaff. For, unhappily, one can hardly underestimate the power of the mind to deceive itself.

On the other hand when it comes to things like a small rock placed in a room improving the quality of sound, one would surely be justified in asserting "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
 
#100
eStatic said:
Just because one cannot quantify a dimension/aspect claimed for a sound doesn't mean it doesn’t exist or is not significant. One has to look too double blind testing to separate the wheat from the chaff. For, unhappily, one can hardly underestimate the power of the mind to deceive itself.
Click to expand...
🙂 The mind is indeed a powerful thing, but so is physics.

[soapbox]Obviously we are splitting hairs here, but if there is a difference in the sound, there MUST be a difference in the vibrations hitting your eardrums. Whether you can ACCURATELY measure those changes is always a point of contention, but if something sounds different, it MUST make a change that is, by definition, measurable and quantifiable. The sensitivity of the measurement is all that can be contested. [/soapbox]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom