Re: FIFO/DDS solution for a CD transport
This is all rubish, Rubish, RUBISH, RUBISH. Evary CD-player has already a FIFO. The only important thing is to use a low jitter clock to move the data from this FIFO.
irgendjemand said:
This is all rubish, Rubish, RUBISH, RUBISH. Evary CD-player has already a FIFO. The only important thing is to use a low jitter clock to move the data from this FIFO.
Don`t you think it is better to have the clock inside the DAC ?
My own steps towards a better DAC was
Hand selected DAC chips
No Oversampling
Passive I/V
No active output stage
Passive brickwall reconstruction filter with rolloff compensation*
At the moment Kwak clock inside transport
TVC as preamp
* There is no correct reconstruction of the signal without getting rid of most of the hf which means a minimum of 60dB / oct filtering.
My own steps towards a better DAC was
Hand selected DAC chips
No Oversampling
Passive I/V
No active output stage
Passive brickwall reconstruction filter with rolloff compensation*
At the moment Kwak clock inside transport
TVC as preamp
* There is no correct reconstruction of the signal without getting rid of most of the hf which means a minimum of 60dB / oct filtering.
Bernhard said:
Sure, but there is one little problem: most transports could distroy themself if powered on without clock-signal, so you should always be sure to keep the transport connected to the clock from the DAC (which in turn should be powered on first).
I totally disagree with the other points. Philips introduced oversampling from the first beginning to avoid alias-signals in the output. Without oversampling it is hardly possible to build an analog filter which could filter them out, and if so the phase performance of such a filter is that bad that it sounds awful. For me this is no discussion: USE OVERSAMPLING. I NEVER heared a NOS-DAC which sounds really good.
BTW.: the Kwak-clock is the most bad clock I ever measured. I am a clock-expert as you could know from my web site....
For the IV-convertor: look at the thread IV-covertor with op amps....
PA0SU said:
You realy did not understand a word of Larvy's article.
Lavry is most definitely not talking about a FIFO inside the PLL:
Finney: 1
Herb: 0
Kwak-Clock measurements
Guido Tent measured the jitter of a KWAK-CLOCK version with REF02s as low noise supplies. It was not bad at all!
http://diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=447&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
Why don't you post your clock circuit so that we can try it?
PA0SU said:
Guido Tent measured the jitter of a KWAK-CLOCK version with REF02s as low noise supplies. It was not bad at all!
http://diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=447&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
Why don't you post your clock circuit so that we can try it?
Hmmmm
Gentlemen,
Let’s see what we do have until now
Guido Tent
is for slaving the Transport to the DAC, best by sending the clock signal from the DAC back to the Transport.
Herb
is for bypassing any VCXO and PLL in the DAC; therefore sending the clock signal direct to the DF, then re-clocking. BTW he prefers active I/V, etc.
Bernhard
is against over-sampling, for passive I/V (and anyhow is not a great PCM63 fan, but this is OK...).
Paul
is trying to build a good and new system into the D1V3, which by itself seemed to miss an adequate re-clocking-system, for reasons that Finney knows and explains.
Finney
says that with a good Transport, the DIR9001 in the D1V3 should be good enough for receiving a jitter free signal, as relocking is no good. Use big enough FIFOs between to SPDIF stations, etc.
Pass's
original PLL for the D1 seemed to be out of date anyhow, or not an adequate jitter filtering system for the D1V3, with or without reclocking.
Lavri's
documents are written in a mystery language, where only non-engineers like myself can truly and heartily understand.
Regel
suggests using a 74ct9046A PLL- VXCO to SRC before the SM5842, which for Guido is a disaster.
Kwak
just came back to the forum after he has been banned at least twice...
ALL THIS INFO IS BEING TAKEN FROM PAGES 19 & 20 (last 12 hours!)
Shortly ago, I promised my AVM DAC 1.2 some news… It sits now quite nicely and safe on the shelf, looking at me, smiling and asking for updates
.
I’d better keep silent here… this is not the place for such a dry humour. I agree.
How about taking one device that everybody has, like the D1V3, and trying ALL different ideas on it and only on it? Then put the schematics on the table and THEN discuss.
Yours, quite perplexed,
IJ.
Gentlemen,
Let’s see what we do have until now
Guido Tent
is for slaving the Transport to the DAC, best by sending the clock signal from the DAC back to the Transport.
Herb
is for bypassing any VCXO and PLL in the DAC; therefore sending the clock signal direct to the DF, then re-clocking. BTW he prefers active I/V, etc.
Bernhard
is against over-sampling, for passive I/V (and anyhow is not a great PCM63 fan, but this is OK...).
Paul
is trying to build a good and new system into the D1V3, which by itself seemed to miss an adequate re-clocking-system, for reasons that Finney knows and explains.
Finney
says that with a good Transport, the DIR9001 in the D1V3 should be good enough for receiving a jitter free signal, as relocking is no good. Use big enough FIFOs between to SPDIF stations, etc.
Pass's
original PLL for the D1 seemed to be out of date anyhow, or not an adequate jitter filtering system for the D1V3, with or without reclocking.
Lavri's
documents are written in a mystery language, where only non-engineers like myself can truly and heartily understand.
Regel
suggests using a 74ct9046A PLL- VXCO to SRC before the SM5842, which for Guido is a disaster.
Kwak
just came back to the forum after he has been banned at least twice...
ALL THIS INFO IS BEING TAKEN FROM PAGES 19 & 20 (last 12 hours!)
Shortly ago, I promised my AVM DAC 1.2 some news… It sits now quite nicely and safe on the shelf, looking at me, smiling and asking for updates
.I’d better keep silent here… this is not the place for such a dry humour. I agree.
How about taking one device that everybody has, like the D1V3, and trying ALL different ideas on it and only on it? Then put the schematics on the table and THEN discuss.
Yours, quite perplexed,
IJ.
Re: Kwak-Clock measurements
I cannot find any posting of Guido Tent there. I'm NOT interrested in what other people say about Guido. I see him weekly......
About my clock: SEE MY WEB SITE.
QSerraTico_Tico said:
I cannot find any posting of Guido Tent there. I'm NOT interrested in what other people say about Guido. I see him weekly......
About my clock: SEE MY WEB SITE.
spzzzzkt said:
Yes he does. This piece you quoted is only an introduction to why a VCXO+PLL should be used.
Re: Hmmmm
Dear I.......,
I like your humour!
I never will start from a D1V3 because this beginning is already bad....
It is so simple (if one knows what are the critical points). My just published 'DACprincipe4.pdf' is so simple. Of course one could put the clock in the DAC instead of the transport on penalty of a destroyed transport when switching it on without clock signal. You know already about this.
You ugly comedian, you don't want a solution, you only want that the arena goes on an on! He laughs best who laughs last, and you are the last.... you hope....
irgendjemand said:Gentlemen,
Shortly ago, I promised my AVM DAC 1.2 some news… It sits now quite nicely and safe on the shelf, looking at me, smiling and asking for updates
I’d better keep silent here… this is not the place for such a dry humour. I agree.
How about taking one device that everybody has, like the D1V3, and trying ALL different ideas on it and only on it? Then put the schematics on the table and THEN discuss.
Yours, quite perplexed,
IJ.
Dear I.......,
I like your humour!
I never will start from a D1V3 because this beginning is already bad....
It is so simple (if one knows what are the critical points). My just published 'DACprincipe4.pdf' is so simple. Of course one could put the clock in the DAC instead of the transport on penalty of a destroyed transport when switching it on without clock signal. You know already about this.
You ugly comedian, you don't want a solution, you only want that the arena goes on an on! He laughs best who laughs last, and you are the last.... you hope....
Re: Re: Kwak-Clock measurements
I can't find it there 🙁
Which article number??
😕
I see a sealed unit called rutger S' Clock Oscillator but I cannot find the schematic.
PA0SU said:
I can't find it there 🙁
Which article number??
😕
I see a sealed unit called rutger S' Clock Oscillator but I cannot find the schematic.
Re: Re: Re: Kwak-Clock measurements
14. Reproducible Low noise oscillators
QSerraTico_Tico said:
14. Reproducible Low noise oscillators
Re: Re: Hmmmm
Not exactly, Herb, but I LOVE that what you write here, and yes, the arena is much more exciting then the Olympics!!!
But think for a moment about the 80 musicians in an orchestra, each of them is very knowledgeable person, studied music for years, play a fantastic instrument and has at least an big ago as everybody here, or even more!
THESE PEOPLE WORKS TOGETHER! They HAVE to SHARE, they HAVE to LISTEN to EACH OTHER otherwise it will NOT WORK!
The accords have to come together. The musicians have to sit in quite a distance from each other (PHASE), each of them has to read the Conductor Pulls and react to it in milliseconds of different time: The Contrabass might need to push the air BEFORE the piccolo does it, so that that the Jitter in the FI will not be there by the ALL-OUT. The flow MUST be correct, so that the sound will reach out our ears together, with homogeny, etc. etc.
We as musicians MUST work together otherwise there is NO orchestral playing.
That is the point that this thread didn’t get to, yet!
You know me by now; please don’t say that I am not having respect to the mammoth work of each of you does here
And I am sure that you know, that the clown is never the happiest person in the circus, and he is surely the very last to get the flowers.
My Poor AVM!
Greetings,
IJ.
PA0SU said:
Not exactly, Herb, but I LOVE that what you write here, and yes, the arena is much more exciting then the Olympics!!!
But think for a moment about the 80 musicians in an orchestra, each of them is very knowledgeable person, studied music for years, play a fantastic instrument and has at least an big ago as everybody here, or even more!
THESE PEOPLE WORKS TOGETHER! They HAVE to SHARE, they HAVE to LISTEN to EACH OTHER otherwise it will NOT WORK!
The accords have to come together. The musicians have to sit in quite a distance from each other (PHASE), each of them has to read the Conductor Pulls and react to it in milliseconds of different time: The Contrabass might need to push the air BEFORE the piccolo does it, so that that the Jitter in the FI will not be there by the ALL-OUT. The flow MUST be correct, so that the sound will reach out our ears together, with homogeny, etc. etc.
We as musicians MUST work together otherwise there is NO orchestral playing.
That is the point that this thread didn’t get to, yet!
You know me by now; please don’t say that I am not having respect to the mammoth work of each of you does here
And I am sure that you know, that the clown is never the happiest person in the circus, and he is surely the very last to get the flowers.
My Poor AVM!
Greetings,
IJ.
then there is..:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spd_reclock_e.html
and
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf1_e.html
Arne K
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spd_reclock_e.html
and
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf1_e.html
Arne K
PA0SU said:
But if you have the clock inside the transport and feed it to the DAC, you add cable jitter & interface jitter.
PA0SU said:
You are right.
It is very hard to design such a filter in therory and even more in the real world, it took me very long to get there.
Even a tiny error in source impedance will mess up the frequency response which is very noticeable as a change in tonal balance.
All old CD players with LC filters that I listened to, had a bad frequency response and sounded too dark or too bright in the upper midrange. Plus missing highs because of uncompensated rolloff.
All those schematics of nonos DACs with a first or second order filter are nonsense.
I do not hear any phase problems with my DAC.
But I can hear what a digital filter does...
PA0SU said:
I have no reason for that.
PCM56 is very happy with a resistor.
I`m afraid PCM63 is not.
Cobra2 said:
In the first article the writer thinks that jitter on the SPDIF harms. IT DOES NOT as long as the data is not corrupted.
The second article contains a lot of right statements but does not give any solution.
Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm
Yes: ....didn't get to, yet! I'm afraid they never will....
If you are awaiting for flowers.... you will never get them here. The clown is per definition not the happiest person of the circus, isn't he?.
irgendjemand said:
THESE PEOPLE WORKS TOGETHER! They HAVE to SHARE, they HAVE to LISTEN to EACH OTHER otherwise it will NOT WORK!
We as musicians MUST work together otherwise there is NO orchestral playing.
That is the point that this thread didn’t get to, yet!
And I am sure that you know, that the clown is never the happiest person in the circus, and he is surely the very last to get the flowers.
My Poor AVM!
Greetings,
IJ.
Yes: ....didn't get to, yet! I'm afraid they never will....
If you are awaiting for flowers.... you will never get them here. The clown is per definition not the happiest person of the circus, isn't he?.
Bernhard said:
I never heard of 'cable jitter' or 'interface jitter' in science. This is one of the audio-religious convictions....
Bernhard said:
But I can hear what a digital filter does...
I have no reason for that. [AN OP AMP IV]
PCM56 is very happy with a resistor.
I`m afraid PCM63 is not.
The digital filter, oh yes, but you also need it in a NONOS-system! The subject of digital filters is very interresting. Henk ten Pierick (my best friend) c.s. are experimenting with a DDS-processor with their own algoritms......
Both, the PCM56 as the PCM63 do have a current output [of some 4 mA] and do not accept a voltage larger than a few mV at their outputs for linear operation. This means that the resistance at their outputs should be smaller than a few ohms.
This means that noise comes in sight when you do not use a special amp (like an LT1028) so why should you not use a very linear low noise op amp IV with zero ohm (< 1 ohm) input resistance? Try the OPA134.............
- Status
- Not open for further replies.