Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review - Page 9

post #121 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by punk_guy182 View Post
also have an independent reviewer...
I agree, review units are in hands, professional reviews will be begin to be posted soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by punk_guy182 View Post
and he is connected in some way to Cryoparts.
He is a customer, nothing more, nothing less. Treat him the same, and charge him just as much as any other customer. Hell, if it really comes down to it, he is a competitor to me!

Peace,

Lee
post #122 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootermafia View Post
so check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Feeling your inner Ice Cube today? Ha!

Peace,

Lee
post #123 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootermafia View Post
Here, I'll help you with the parts list:

DALE VISHAY RESISTORS
ALPS VOLUME CONTROLLER
DUELUND SILVER FOIL RESISTORS
VCAP TEFLON CAPACITORS
VAMPIRE RCA JACKS
NEUTRIK HEADPHONE JACK
MUNDORF SILVER SIGNAL WIRING

There you go. Your questions answered**

**between 0 and all of these products are in the Diverter
Quote:
Originally Posted by komi View Post
DUELUND SILVER FOIL RESISTORS
Never hear about THIS kind of resistor, but - maybe is part of "SECRET" ...

Hum, i just wonder how VCAP fit in that small anclosure ...

Really ... All other components you mention is far from High End ! Its a everyday DIYers components ...
I tend to agree with komi. Also what ALPS volume pot does in USB/SPDIF converter, is there a volume control, didn't see it on the picture?
post #124 of 310
BTW, those parts were only a joke. Note that he said between 0 and 7 of these parts are used. He also fully disclosed that he cannot open the device, he does not have any more of a clue then we do whats inside the device.
post #125 of 310
Thread Starter 
So far the joke proves that some people reading this thread aren't all there. So many headfiers subscribe to the idea that if something is not for me, it's not for anyone. Whereas, I am saying this product
most benefits $2000+ systems. This thread is not for you.
post #126 of 310
I thought it was a great joke.

But that it was a joke should have been pretty obvious to anyone who read my prior comments about how I design my products. I use SMD parts almost exclusively and certainly preferentially, so there are none of the traditionally audiophile-approved parts (in the name-brand, boutique sense) in this or any of my other designs. It's not that I think they're inherently bad parts or have no use in certain applications, but in most cases they'd be completely inappropriate for how I execute my designs.

I take parts choice very seriously and spend enormous amounts of design time working on just that. I will always use the best part I can find for a given application. Note that "best" doesn't always mean "most expensive." For instance, I'm not going to design in a .05% resistor when a 1% version is perfectly adequate. But if I need the .05% resistor, I don't hesitate to use it.
post #127 of 310
Thread Starter 
Manaox, I'm pretty happy with my system right now. I bought one of the better headphone amps out there, the Phoenix, and the DAC8/Ref1 is meant to pair with it. Connected with current mode cables, many people feel that the system is a tremendous value. I'm in no hurry to upgrade, since I really don't see too many other attractive options. For the record, I read somewhere that the DAC8 had a pretty nice receiver, Kingwa didn't spare that many expenses on it. In fact:


2. Jitter : Use DIR9001 to take the demodulation, the DIR9001 fixed Jitter value is as low as 50PS, being the lowest Jitter demodulation chip at present, while CS8414/8412 Jitter value is as high as 200PS. As a whole, this is not good enough that we carried out many modifications, like increased the external connection phase locking circuit and so on, finally successful revised the electric circuit, used the non-model the DIR9001 circuitry, reduced the to 20PS which is even lower than any external phase locking circuit. tens of thousands Yuan tops imported DACs, Jitter are above 40PS.

Boom.
post #128 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootermafia View Post
Manaox, I'm pretty happy with my system right now. I bought one of the better headphone amps out there, the Phoenix, and the DAC8/Ref1 is meant to pair with it. Connected with current mode cables, many people feel that the system is a tremendous value. I'm in no hurry to upgrade, since I really don't see too many other attractive options. For the record, I read somewhere that the DAC8 had a pretty nice receiver, Kingwa didn't spare that many expenses on it. In fact:


2. Jitter : Use DIR9001 to take the demodulation, the DIR9001 fixed Jitter value is as low as 50PS, being the lowest Jitter demodulation chip at present, while CS8414/8412 Jitter value is as high as 200PS. As a whole, this is not good enough that we carried out many modifications, like increased the external connection phase locking circuit and so on, finally successful revised the electric circuit, used the non-model the DIR9001 circuitry, reduced the to 20PS which is even lower than any external phase locking circuit. tens of thousands Yuan tops imported DACs, Jitter are above 40PS.

Boom.
What is funny is that the 50ps you quote comes from "clock recovery" IE the signal being reclocked. So why do you need to worry about a $1000 adapter again when the "low jitter clock recovery system" is removing that what is probably most of that little benefit?

From the news release for that chip:
Quote:
Additionally, the DIR9001 integrates a high-performance phase-lock loop (PLL) to not only improve jitter performance but also remove the need for an external clock source when the sample frequency calculator is not used. Both features reduce the overall system cost by eliminating additional system components that competing digital audio interface receivers typically require.
Wonder what components they are talking about. I think they mean an external clock that controls jitter, what digital data comes in is buffered and then completely reclocked unless your somehow hooking into the diverter and feeding clock data to the DIR9001 chip. I have to wonder where that large difference you are hearing is coming from more now (maybe the ultra rugged BNC with its strict impedance requirements...). That chip costs $1.59, which isn't cheap for a part or in sound I'm sure, but it sounds like a much better way of handling the jitter then putting uber money into the converter which must be sent into a receiver.
post #129 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootermafia View Post
I've been curious about the fancy USB cables to the point that I've DIY'd my own. They do make a difference.
You more than likely built them out of spec, in which case what you're hearing is probably worse. If it sounds different and has a higher price tag, that doesn't mean it sounds better, which I think many people don't realize. Hell, if I were in the business and trying to make money off of digital cables or converters I'd just build them out of spec with crazy price tags because people will hear a difference and automatically tell themselves the difference is better since it cost so much.
post #130 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post
You more than likely built them out of spec, in which case what you're hearing is probably worse. If it sounds different and has a higher price tag, that doesn't mean it sounds better, which I think many people don't realize. Hell, if I were in the business and trying to make money off of digital cables or converters I'd just build them out of spec with crazy price tags because people will hear a difference and automatically tell themselves the difference is better since it cost so much.
That might fool some with no experience but it won't fool anyone that knows good from bad.

Peete.
post #131 of 310
Thread Starter 
I have the USB 2.0 spec sheet and I did the best I could, following their guidelines. It's hard to hand build to the same exact tolerances as a machine, but they are well shielded/isolated with good conductor materials and they sound good to me, far better than my printer's generic USB cable when I went back and forth a few times. While you're talking down to me, why don't you show off your USB cables.
post #132 of 310
The root problem here is that anyone with common sense is going to be skeptical of a device that is sealed, chips that are sanded, epoxied, or obfuscated in anyway. Without transparency in design, or application and a failure to technically explain the advances or advantages of the product you're failing to meet the most basic requirements of a forum such as this. I'm not saying you'll fail to find sales, but I'm not in the least surprised at the feedback this device is gaining. I wanted to think this would be a progression of sorts, but at least for this man the feedback from the designer and in general the smart ass comments from the resellers in this thread leave a lot to be desired.

In the mean time I'll continue to rock the DA11, which has a best in class usb controller as well as a best in class DAC, headphone amp with a multitude of professional and consumer-pro applications.
post #133 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisbenjamin View Post
In the mean time I'll continue to rock the DA11, which has a best in class usb controller ...
I'm interested in this. Can you justify this claim?
post #134 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisbenjamin View Post
Without transparency in design...
Out of curiosity, what exactly would constitute transparency in design?
post #135 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by some1x View Post
I'm interested in this. Can you justify this claim?
Way OT. I don't really want a match to see who has the best gear here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Sonicweld/Cryo-Parts Diverter 96/24 USB to SPDIF Review