I stumbled on an interesting web page
http://www.lessloss.com/main.html
It's a hand made DAC. The approach is quite interesting, but I found some real funny arguments in the text.
They claim
http://www.lessloss.com/jitter.html
".....Because LessLoss is determined to minimize jitter to the lowest of possible levels, we go the extra step to re-clock (also known as quantizing) the digital data to near-perfect timing just a few millimeters before it enters the audio domain......."
OK but then if one goes to page
http://www.lessloss.com/information.html
They write
".....In essence all you need to do is desolder and remove the quartz resonator from the CD player, and where one of its legs were, solder on the end of the middle conductor of a coaxial cable (any old coaxial cable will do). The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"
This is a good example how a good presentation can be totally mocked by a few wrong sentences
********
How can one take seriously argument that few mm make a difference when on the next page they say that when feeding back the clock it does not need no care, any BS cable goes and so on.....
Ergo
http://www.lessloss.com/main.html
It's a hand made DAC. The approach is quite interesting, but I found some real funny arguments in the text.
They claim
http://www.lessloss.com/jitter.html
".....Because LessLoss is determined to minimize jitter to the lowest of possible levels, we go the extra step to re-clock (also known as quantizing) the digital data to near-perfect timing just a few millimeters before it enters the audio domain......."
OK but then if one goes to page
http://www.lessloss.com/information.html
They write
".....In essence all you need to do is desolder and remove the quartz resonator from the CD player, and where one of its legs were, solder on the end of the middle conductor of a coaxial cable (any old coaxial cable will do). The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"
This is a good example how a good presentation can be totally mocked by a few wrong sentences
********
How can one take seriously argument that few mm make a difference when on the next page they say that when feeding back the clock it does not need no care, any BS cable goes and so on.....
Ergo
Konnichiwa,
Well, the wording may be extreme, HOWEVER, as long as the DAC's receiver can sync on the signal from the transport the cable quality does NOT matter (nor does any jitter introduced anywhere prior to re-clocking) as it is all removed by the reclocker. At least in theory. In practice using too grotty a cable will result in occasional "unlocking" of the connection.
Sayonara
ergo said:
Well, the wording may be extreme, HOWEVER, as long as the DAC's receiver can sync on the signal from the transport the cable quality does NOT matter (nor does any jitter introduced anywhere prior to re-clocking) as it is all removed by the reclocker. At least in theory. In practice using too grotty a cable will result in occasional "unlocking" of the connection.
Sayonara
I'm not so sure on that it is that straightforward. In theory yes, but in reality.
Kuei, as you know I'm working on improving the Behringer DCX2496 digital crossover. It has a CS8420 receiver ic in resampling/reclocking mode and at the moment I have a Tent XO2 clocking the data out of the CS8420. So theoretically the transport should not have any influence on the DAC. Still the latest test between my Sony CD with modded spdif out versus some older Technics player with stock spdif out gave a shocking result thet there was a very clear difference betwen these transports. And the difference was not subtle. Sony gave a much more relaxed and deeper soudstage....
I can not explain it yet, but I will try to somehow confirm it elsewhere with diffrent players and perhaps with measurements.
Ergo
PS. Sony player has a National LM6171 opamp as a unity gain buffer driving 75 ohm cable and using BNC connector. No connector is used on DCX end. Cable goes straight to transformer and terminated by 75ohm. For other transports RCA->BNC is used in transport end.
Kuei, as you know I'm working on improving the Behringer DCX2496 digital crossover. It has a CS8420 receiver ic in resampling/reclocking mode and at the moment I have a Tent XO2 clocking the data out of the CS8420. So theoretically the transport should not have any influence on the DAC. Still the latest test between my Sony CD with modded spdif out versus some older Technics player with stock spdif out gave a shocking result thet there was a very clear difference betwen these transports. And the difference was not subtle. Sony gave a much more relaxed and deeper soudstage....
I can not explain it yet, but I will try to somehow confirm it elsewhere with diffrent players and perhaps with measurements.
Ergo
PS. Sony player has a National LM6171 opamp as a unity gain buffer driving 75 ohm cable and using BNC connector. No connector is used on DCX end. Cable goes straight to transformer and terminated by 75ohm. For other transports RCA->BNC is used in transport end.
No I did not slave them.
CS8420 is an asyncronous sample rate converter, thus the output should be clocked out of the chip independent of the clock on spdif line. Theoretically it should also make the dac almost immune to transport variances. In reality transport still seems to make a difference.
I know I can not compare the situation with slave configuration system 1:1, but it is somewhat similar. I would not be too surprised if the proper implementation of feeding back the clock also makes a difference there.
Ergo
CS8420 is an asyncronous sample rate converter, thus the output should be clocked out of the chip independent of the clock on spdif line. Theoretically it should also make the dac almost immune to transport variances. In reality transport still seems to make a difference.
I know I can not compare the situation with slave configuration system 1:1, but it is somewhat similar. I would not be too surprised if the proper implementation of feeding back the clock also makes a difference there.
Ergo
Absolutely handbuild
🙁
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
🙁
Yes for a kind of commercial offering it is not what people are used to I quess.
It is a fresh way of doing thing and I admire that they have done it like this and also published the photos. On the other hand if they would not publish the photos they might give a mild shock to some customers who happen to open the case I suppose 🙂
Anyway, in most part I really liked the website and the product, it's not something you see every day, but the few sentences I mentioned before managed to kill quite a bit of a good mood I had developed reading the text.
One should be precise and consistent to really do it all as good as possible if once taken that direction - at least that is how I feel.
Ergo
It is a fresh way of doing thing and I admire that they have done it like this and also published the photos. On the other hand if they would not publish the photos they might give a mild shock to some customers who happen to open the case I suppose 🙂
Anyway, in most part I really liked the website and the product, it's not something you see every day, but the few sentences I mentioned before managed to kill quite a bit of a good mood I had developed reading the text.
One should be precise and consistent to really do it all as good as possible if once taken that direction - at least that is how I feel.
Ergo
but Ergo.. I totally agree with Kuei Yang Wang: they are right, the slave-clock doesn't have to be low jitter or anything, that's why you can get away with long slave-cables.. ground rerturn isn't critical anymore etc etc.. all the critical things happen right next to (few mm ?) the master-low-jitter clock..
In my view you haven't quoted any wrong sentences from their website..
In my view you haven't quoted any wrong sentences from their website..
Hi, folks. Please notice that on the website under www.LessLoss.com/types.html the concept of asynchronous upsampling has been discussed, and this discussion doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LessLoss DAC is way over and beyond that worse solution. That solution is what the DAC-1 by Benchmark uses. I don't know what it is that keeps people thinking that asynchronous sampling is the same as slaving. Totally different solutions. And about the soldering on the picture: That's just how it has to look if you are serious about keeping all crutial signal paths as short as possible. Many people might not realize that the entire picture which is posted here is only a few millimeters across. Those parts are among the smallest in existence! Looks can be deceiving.
Sorry about my tone of voice. I thought EVERYTHING was covered in the website, but it appears that still these things have to be explained again, or perhaps in a better way on the site.
Sorry about my tone of voice. I thought EVERYTHING was covered in the website, but it appears that still these things have to be explained again, or perhaps in a better way on the site.
I'm not saying the LessLoss guys are wrong. I just am surprised that they are willing to forget good design practise at that point.
".....The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"
Lets assume a customer does it exactly like this and manages to find a ground line of motor drivers of the mechanism and stick the shield of the cable there. That ground point will fluctuate quite alot. Cable even carries some of the ground fluctuation back to DAC. It might also introduce lets say 1200ps of jitter in SPDIF going from transport to DAC. Even though the data is later reclocked I would still avoid such solution.
Might be my point of view in this matter is much stronger than you guys have. What I always shoot for is the best implementation even with smallest things. Sometimes this minor shortcoming may not be that minor on sound.
Ergo
PS. Or perhaps what they wanted to give is an impression that the slave configuration is easy to do and thus more people would be willing to try it.....
".....The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"
Lets assume a customer does it exactly like this and manages to find a ground line of motor drivers of the mechanism and stick the shield of the cable there. That ground point will fluctuate quite alot. Cable even carries some of the ground fluctuation back to DAC. It might also introduce lets say 1200ps of jitter in SPDIF going from transport to DAC. Even though the data is later reclocked I would still avoid such solution.
Might be my point of view in this matter is much stronger than you guys have. What I always shoot for is the best implementation even with smallest things. Sometimes this minor shortcoming may not be that minor on sound.
Ergo
PS. Or perhaps what they wanted to give is an impression that the slave configuration is easy to do and thus more people would be willing to try it.....
You're right about trash going through the shield (ground) of the CD player to the DAC. Actually its not so much Jitter, as a bunch of high frequency noise in that contaminated CD ground. Maybe it's safe to call it Jitter, I don't know exactly what effect it has.
It's important to know how to connect the digital cables. 'Special' cables are required for the best possible sound. You need to put another shield over the coax cable. The 'real' shield, the one in the cable, should be connected to both the DAC and the player. The extra shield(s) should only be connected to the CD Player ground. At the DAC they should be left floating. I use plural for shields because the more shields you put over the cable, the better the sound. In fact, you don't even need a coax. You can use any shielded two-conductor cable and just keep adding shields on the outside until you can't hear any improvement. So far I've tried two shields of my own over two twisted coaxes and I'll keep doings experiments to see what the very best version is.
It's important to know how to connect the digital cables. 'Special' cables are required for the best possible sound. You need to put another shield over the coax cable. The 'real' shield, the one in the cable, should be connected to both the DAC and the player. The extra shield(s) should only be connected to the CD Player ground. At the DAC they should be left floating. I use plural for shields because the more shields you put over the cable, the better the sound. In fact, you don't even need a coax. You can use any shielded two-conductor cable and just keep adding shields on the outside until you can't hear any improvement. So far I've tried two shields of my own over two twisted coaxes and I'll keep doings experiments to see what the very best version is.
Konnichiwa,
IN REALITY, in systems where slaving was possible neither digital cable (clock uplink, datadownlink) made differences significant enough to be audible.
Both theoretically and practically the X-Port should have drastical effect on the DAC, as the ASRC cannot remove any jitter ahead of it, it can only encode it UNREMOVABLY in the Data. The use of ASRC is a rather nasty thing to do.
Please make sure to clock link the DCX and X-Port and to bypass the ASRC mode of the CS8420.
Sayonara
ergo said:
IN REALITY, in systems where slaving was possible neither digital cable (clock uplink, datadownlink) made differences significant enough to be audible.
ergo said:
Both theoretically and practically the X-Port should have drastical effect on the DAC, as the ASRC cannot remove any jitter ahead of it, it can only encode it UNREMOVABLY in the Data. The use of ASRC is a rather nasty thing to do.
Please make sure to clock link the DCX and X-Port and to bypass the ASRC mode of the CS8420.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Hello Thorsten, all,
The ASRC itself doesnt add any jitter does it ? Its still a matter of getting the signal as clean as possible to it. (i can see that you wouldnt want to use this in a recording chain as it can create permanent damage)
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I might be able to figure this bypassing out from the datasheets but
what do you mean by clock link. (i dont have the tent clock)
I have also read somewhere ading a small cap to ground on the input of the CS8412 would help with jitter. Would that be the case with the CS8420 as well?
Thanks,
Coolin
LL Dac
I have this dac. I have slaved a Sony 605. Its the best cd sound I have heard all digital harshness is gone.
I have this dac. I have slaved a Sony 605. Its the best cd sound I have heard all digital harshness is gone.
I stumbled on an interesting web page
http://www.lessloss.com/main.html
It's a hand made DAC. The approach is quite interesting, but I found some real funny arguments in the text.
They claim
http://www.lessloss.com/jitter.html
".....Because LessLoss is determined to minimize jitter to the lowest of possible levels, we go the extra step to re-clock (also known as quantizing) the digital data to near-perfect timing just a few millimeters before it enters the audio domain......."
please let me know the currently URLs - all mentioned links are death in the meantime.
OK but then if one goes to page
http://www.lessloss.com/information.html
They write
".....In essence all you need to do is desolder and remove the quartz resonator from the CD player, and where one of its legs were, solder on the end of the middle conductor of a coaxial cable (any old coaxial cable will do). The shield of the cable should be soldered to any ground in the CD player you can find......"
This is a good example how a good presentation can be totally mocked by a few wrong sentences
********
How can one take seriously argument that few mm make a difference when on the next page they say that when feeding back the clock it does not need no care, any BS cable goes and so on.....
Ergo
Please let me know the currently links - the mentioned ones are death in the meantime.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.