OK, strike developer, replace it with originator.
I'm not trying to stop people freely experimenting, I'VE got some idea as to my own limitations. I'm trying to stop you encouraging other people to spend money in the process of making their systems worse.
For pity's sake, stop and THINK for a moment.
w
Waki, your pleas are now tempered & more measured, which I find a lot more palatable - so for my part I'm also more measured in my response, let's try & continue like this, eh?
I don't see any harm in people spending a couple of bob on an experiment as long as it has no potential to do any damage. If they find it an improvement who am I to deny them this. If I thought for a moment that it wasn't worthwhile in most cases I would desist.
As I said at the beginning of the thread & again & again - this thread was meant as an experimental platform for trying out these devices & working out IF they are of benefit & how. What it perhaps required was a question mark at the end of it's Title line. It has morphed into many different things since then but I still hold that objective.
It may be that their sound is worse, it may be that the decreased SPDIF signal is of benefit to some DAC receivers but a higher signal is of benefit to others, it may be that there are other un-investigated effects at play here, who knows? Only some experimentation will tease this out. This will only come about if people try the attenuators & find they have a beneficial effect to the sonics of their system.
I don't see any harm in people spending a couple of bob on an experiment as long as it has no potential to do any damage. If they find it an improvement who am I to deny them this. If I thought for a moment that it wasn't worthwhile in most cases I would desist.
As I said at the beginning of the thread & again & again - this thread was meant as an experimental platform for trying out these devices & working out IF they are of benefit & how. What it perhaps required was a question mark at the end of it's Title line. It has morphed into many different things since then but I still hold that objective.
It may be that their sound is worse, it may be that the decreased SPDIF signal is of benefit to some DAC receivers but a higher signal is of benefit to others, it may be that there are other un-investigated effects at play here, who knows? Only some experimentation will tease this out. This will only come about if people try the attenuators & find they have a beneficial effect to the sonics of their system.
Hi,
Did you see just how broad the 1KHz "line" is? Care to suggest just what can be hidden under there?
Your test shows a severe ground/earth loop somewhere. All that skirt around the 1KHz line is spaced at 60Hz, if you look closely enough.
It will be very difficult to measure anything meaningful in this setup.
Ciao T
Did you see just how broad the 1KHz "line" is? Care to suggest just what can be hidden under there?
Your test shows a severe ground/earth loop somewhere. All that skirt around the 1KHz line is spaced at 60Hz, if you look closely enough.
It will be very difficult to measure anything meaningful in this setup.
Ciao T
What's the apodization (window)? I won't pretend that I can determine linewidth from a casual examination of a low resolution jpg. 😀
This is how it goes.
You come on here and presumably as many other hi-fi forums as you can discover and make an unguarded claim like the one in your first post.
An individual or individuals elsewhere with limited knowledge of electronics and who own cards with standard SPDIF outputs read your post, and note the huge number of responses it is attracting. They don’t read far enough to discover that this modification actually applies only to the HiFace and is anyway completely unproven.
They go out and buy attenuators, and load up their connections with as much attenuation as they will stand without falling over. They listen to their systems, hear a difference due to increased jitter, and in the absence of any controlled listening test or instrumented test, they make numerous posts thanking you for the suggestion. These are seen by other people who take up the cause.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a couple more individuals, we’ll call them JK2 and TL, with access to some expensive equipment, a modicum of intelligence and education in electronics, an unrestrained desire to show off, a convenient ability to ignore the probable damage being caused by your initial misleading statement and the fact that the HiFace represents less than perhaps 0.001% of the interfaces on the market, AND NO MORE COMMONSENSE BETWEEN THEM THAN A FLATIRON, start to lend you moral support.
The number of posts grows exponentially.
You take the moral support and endorsements at face value, defend your position the more vigorously and proselytize the more fervently.
Another Internet myth is born.
w
You come on here and presumably as many other hi-fi forums as you can discover and make an unguarded claim like the one in your first post.
An individual or individuals elsewhere with limited knowledge of electronics and who own cards with standard SPDIF outputs read your post, and note the huge number of responses it is attracting. They don’t read far enough to discover that this modification actually applies only to the HiFace and is anyway completely unproven.
They go out and buy attenuators, and load up their connections with as much attenuation as they will stand without falling over. They listen to their systems, hear a difference due to increased jitter, and in the absence of any controlled listening test or instrumented test, they make numerous posts thanking you for the suggestion. These are seen by other people who take up the cause.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a couple more individuals, we’ll call them JK2 and TL, with access to some expensive equipment, a modicum of intelligence and education in electronics, an unrestrained desire to show off, a convenient ability to ignore the probable damage being caused by your initial misleading statement and the fact that the HiFace represents less than perhaps 0.001% of the interfaces on the market, AND NO MORE COMMONSENSE BETWEEN THEM THAN A FLATIRON, start to lend you moral support.
The number of posts grows exponentially.
You take the moral support and endorsements at face value, defend your position the more vigorously and proselytize the more fervently.
Another Internet myth is born.
w
Correct! All that was fixed when I put a 75:100 ohm transformer in the spdif line. It even sounded better. 🙂
Ground loops are killer.
Waki,
I understand your reasoning - and I see where you're coming from. I have often observed the FOTM* phenomenon particularly evident over at head-fi...... somewhere I rarely frequent now (seems to have turned all mean or something), although still a good source of info.
In fact, however sensible this reasoning is, it is pretty dismissive of those who have actually tried the attenuators and find them an improvement (not just a difference).
The other thing that I would say to you is that you seem (whether this is right or not) to be continually mixing up 2 different things:
1. jkenys mods that he does to the hiface
2. Use of RF attenuator
As I understand, the only reason that both are mentioned here together is that jkeny decided to send both in the package to Sy - probably would have been simpler to keep it separate.
FWIW, I am using these RF attenuators with both a squeezebox 3 and a duet (one into a Peter Daniels DAC and the other into a Pass D1). Both are specc'd as having "standard" spdif outputs. The other place I'm using them is from a shigaclone - but that has ttl level output. What I must try soon is to use the shigaclone TTL output into the AES input of the D1. I haven't tried that ever yet.
In each case, using these sources and dacs, I had the same impressions as the post jkeny quoted above. In particular, I would say that resolution improved, bass became tighter and treble cleaner.
I'm sure I haven't given enough details. No, I haven't measured anything. Its just a fella sitting on a couch going back and forth trying different songs with them in and then out of the system.
Hey - you should give 'em a try 🙂 what kind of system do you have anyway?
Fran
*flavour of the month
trying to fit in with the new moderate posting around here. I'll try to stop the messin' - honest.
I understand your reasoning - and I see where you're coming from. I have often observed the FOTM* phenomenon particularly evident over at head-fi...... somewhere I rarely frequent now (seems to have turned all mean or something), although still a good source of info.
In fact, however sensible this reasoning is, it is pretty dismissive of those who have actually tried the attenuators and find them an improvement (not just a difference).
The other thing that I would say to you is that you seem (whether this is right or not) to be continually mixing up 2 different things:
1. jkenys mods that he does to the hiface
2. Use of RF attenuator
As I understand, the only reason that both are mentioned here together is that jkeny decided to send both in the package to Sy - probably would have been simpler to keep it separate.
FWIW, I am using these RF attenuators with both a squeezebox 3 and a duet (one into a Peter Daniels DAC and the other into a Pass D1). Both are specc'd as having "standard" spdif outputs. The other place I'm using them is from a shigaclone - but that has ttl level output. What I must try soon is to use the shigaclone TTL output into the AES input of the D1. I haven't tried that ever yet.
In each case, using these sources and dacs, I had the same impressions as the post jkeny quoted above. In particular, I would say that resolution improved, bass became tighter and treble cleaner.
I'm sure I haven't given enough details. No, I haven't measured anything. Its just a fella sitting on a couch going back and forth trying different songs with them in and then out of the system.
Hey - you should give 'em a try 🙂 what kind of system do you have anyway?
Fran
*flavour of the month
trying to fit in with the new moderate posting around here. I'll try to stop the messin' - honest.
I'm not unaware of that.
Hi, Fran.
My principal objection has always been to the general application of attenuators to ALL SPDIF connections. That's not to say I'm convinced about the rest, but the conflation of the attenuators and the HiFace mod was not my doing.
In here I have a computer with an M-Audio 2496, some laptops, a Behringer mixer and USB codec, a Samson USB mic, a range of other conventional dynamic and condenser mics and a Yamaha keyboard with Midi out that goes into the 2496 and thence to Cubase. Some Shure in-ear phones and Behringer studio phones. There's an HD satellite receiver, projector and Bluray player and they all feed thru a Cambridge Audio amp into a pair of ancient Wharfedale Dalesmans. There are 4 instrument amps, 1 SS and 1 valve with a nice Jensen speaker and spring reverb that I built and a Marshall and another noname (V-amp).
Next door a SKY satellite receiver and a Sony DVD/DTV receiver feed thru the TV into a Sonic Impact TA2024 amp and thence to 8" ANs in a BIB. There's a Mordant-Short sub that I'm fixing.
I'm not really a hi-fi guy, I'm a musician, programmer and RF designer, now in enforced retirement following some serious illnesses.
This is what I'm working on at the moment:
...it's a 0-63dB independent-channel microprocessor-controlled relay-switched constant-impedance attenuator and source selector with provision for source and load matching. I'm thinking about giving it remote control and local capacitive touch-sensitive switches and an illuminated front panel to go with the 7-segment displays. It's not that I've got anything against pots, I just can't keep from working on something.
w
Hi,
Yup. So actually your measurement does not show jitter. Actually, it could not really show jitter, as it does not use a signal that makes jitter "visible"
So, remind me, what was your point?
Mine was that:
A) Sy's measurement setup is insufficient to show anything with greater confidence than appx. 13 Bit Equivalence, so anything but the grossest problems will not be measurable
B) Sy is not measuring jitter, is not attempting to measure jitter, does not want to measure jitter (in the analogue output) and refuses to measure jitter. Yet the only difference between the units USB to SPDIF converters, if they offer a bit-perfect output, would be jitter.
I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to how to interpret this approach by Sy to the problem at hand.
Will you attempt to use a measurement system that will be illustrated as being capable to measure things that CAN be measured?
Will you use the correct method to do the measurements?
Do you need me to spell out for you exactly how these measurements should be performed to be meaningful?
Ciao T
Yup. So actually your measurement does not show jitter. Actually, it could not really show jitter, as it does not use a signal that makes jitter "visible"
So, remind me, what was your point?
Mine was that:
A) Sy's measurement setup is insufficient to show anything with greater confidence than appx. 13 Bit Equivalence, so anything but the grossest problems will not be measurable
B) Sy is not measuring jitter, is not attempting to measure jitter, does not want to measure jitter (in the analogue output) and refuses to measure jitter. Yet the only difference between the units USB to SPDIF converters, if they offer a bit-perfect output, would be jitter.
I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to how to interpret this approach by Sy to the problem at hand.
Will you attempt to use a measurement system that will be illustrated as being capable to measure things that CAN be measured?
Will you use the correct method to do the measurements?
Do you need me to spell out for you exactly how these measurements should be performed to be meaningful?
Ciao T
Thorsten I agree with you, but in Sy's defense have you ever seen a CD recording with more than 13 bit dynamic range?
The issue I see thats missing is phae distortion plots. unless I missed that post that is a description of the analog waveform that has been forgotten here.
Hi,
Yes, they actually exist. Note that the "room sound" is part of the recording and performance and if this included you need more than 13 Bits.
So far Sy showed Spdif Waveforms on the 'scope for two devices and a very low resolution FFT of THD/N which tells me that unless I am trying to avoid measuring differences I should not employ said setup to measure anything.
Ciao T
Yes, they actually exist. Note that the "room sound" is part of the recording and performance and if this included you need more than 13 Bits.
So far Sy showed Spdif Waveforms on the 'scope for two devices and a very low resolution FFT of THD/N which tells me that unless I am trying to avoid measuring differences I should not employ said setup to measure anything.
Ciao T
I use the same Audiotester 3.0 program, with an emu soundcard, in no way have I ever even considered measuring transport differences with such a cheap limited measurement setup. Its so poorly coded that you have to run it in XP, it chokes on Windows 7 Wasapi or even ASIO.
Last edited:
Actually, AudioTester works quite well under Vista (and I am NOT a fan of Vista). As I previously mentioned, I haven't found any differences in my results using ARTA, HOLM, or Soundeasy. Never tried your EMU card, but the M-Audio 192 gives me an excellent noise floor and frequency resolution as the "blank" runs I posted demonstrate.
If transport differences lie below the capability of a decent sound card like the M-Audio, it's a stretch to claim that they're likely to be audible.
If transport differences lie below the capability of a decent sound card like the M-Audio, it's a stretch to claim that they're likely to be audible.
Indeed, I have asked SY all along to show an analogue out plot of a known low jitter device using his equipment - this bypasses all the hiding behind technical specs & bluster. A request that has constantly been refused. He has resorted to answering me with a number 5 🙂
I first realised what he was about when he showed a SPDIF waveform of the attenuators where he had made sure that there were no reflections - the whole point of the attenuators was to show their efficacy in reducing reflections. Again he organised a test that couldn't answer the question at hand.
As Thorsten said, I'll leave it to others to draw their conclusions.
I'll also leave it to others to also draw their conclusions about his wish to no longer help my commercial enterprise & his continued referral to the $30 device being equivalent to my $500 device.
I first realised what he was about when he showed a SPDIF waveform of the attenuators where he had made sure that there were no reflections - the whole point of the attenuators was to show their efficacy in reducing reflections. Again he organised a test that couldn't answer the question at hand.
As Thorsten said, I'll leave it to others to draw their conclusions.
I'll also leave it to others to also draw their conclusions about his wish to no longer help my commercial enterprise & his continued referral to the $30 device being equivalent to my $500 device.
You didn't actually think that one through, did you?😀
The $30 device won't do 192k, so the Hiface is better in that respect.
Since Thorsten declared the output waveforms of the modified Hiface to be terrible, I'll let you two fight that out among yourselves.
@Waki,
Just to conclude the line of posting - here's what this poor deluded guy over on Audiocircle just posted - he is of course under my spell & all that he is hearing is Boogaboo
Just to conclude the line of posting - here's what this poor deluded guy over on Audiocircle just posted - he is of course under my spell & all that he is hearing is Boogaboo
Jeez, your knowledge of digital is even more sparse then you admitted a year ago here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-789.html#post1991291
Now you think low jitter is for 192KHz only? Sy, admit that you are out of your depth & quit while you have some credibility left.
Last edited:
Shows what happens when you try to be nice and point out the one differentiator for the $500 gadget.
Try reading a little better, John, even though it may be bad for business.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.