Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace - Page 34  

post #496 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooka View Post
I said it 5 or 6 posts ago, it's the Teralink X2. Still some bugs with Mac but already ok with Xp and I guess even Vista.
is it asychrous?
post #497 of 1712
Michael's photos - Windows Live

This is the windows live site for Michael who designes the Teralink X and other products. You can message him through this service.

He wrote to me just before and said that he is waiting on the cases to arrive, before he can sell it. He wrote that it uses a different USB reciever but otherwise mostly the same as the Teralink X (mk1).
post #498 of 1712
erin do you know who sells I2S cables?
post #499 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
Slim, thanks for the link and all your hard work, its been an interesting read.

Are you sure that the 14 bit resolution refers to the CM108 driver, it seemed to only be for the CMI 8738 driver, which seems to be different.

After looking at the link you gave: Homebrew CMI 8738 drivers - Hydrogenaudio Forums

I read something about a dogbert driver for these CMI 8738 ICs.
I tried to install it but it seems that these drivers don't work with the CM108 which makes me think that the 14 bits test only referred to the other driver for the older C-media IC...

I use i2s output from the Teralink, do you think this is affected as well as the SPDIF? the C-media driver i use 5.12.8.1803 allows me to turn off the SPDIF, I find that this gives better sound quality when using the i2s.

Funny thing is that i have heard a 14 bit NOS dac and it did sound dynamically limited and like the sound was changed, but my 16 bit dac does not sound like this is happening when i use the teralink. But i have noted your meaurements about the SN ratio of the CM108 driver. Perplexing....
You are right, the 14 bits is about a slightly different c-media driver. However, they all seem to loose resolution in comparison to the generic windows drivers.
I tried different configurations with the c-media v.5.12.8.2119 driver, and I would estimate roughly its resolution to 15 bits (from the diffrent measurements done with RMAA). The generic windows, which seems to be bit perfect, achieves 16 bit resolution.
The c-media might sound "good" with some NOS dacs, but as far as I could tell, it messes with the data and reduces resolution in my system.
NOS DACs (such as the valab) have higher noise and distortion that probably mask what I heard using my DAC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebathingape View Post
The Cambridge Dacmagic also uses the cm-108 driver, and i have used the windows 7 default driver for a while and it has worked great. I briefly tried the driver which CA recommends and i think it sounded very muddy for some reason in comparison to the default windows 7 driver. It also installs alot of software which I don't need + enables volume control in windows if i remember correctly.

The CA cm-108 recommended driver is here: Customer Care System (which I don't recommend on win7)

The windows 7 default driver version is much newer from July this year and is driver version 6.1.7600.16385.

So we have observed the similar things in sound signature differences I believe.

I have a Musiland 01 USD coming soon so I will compare with that too
Well, your findings with Windows 7+ Cambridge mirror mine with Windows XP + Teralink

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
is it asychrous?
If the Teralink x2 uses the same TE7022L USB streaming controller as the upcoming TeraDak's Chameleon Dac, it should be isochronous.
I found out the data sheet of the TE7022L here : http://www.gfec.com.tw/word_file/TE7022PB-v14.pdf

My guess is that is that the Teralink X2 will come very close to the Hiface ... However, there is no way to know before trying
post #500 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosgr63 View Post
erin do you know who sells I2S cables?
Hi Roger,

I have seen some for sale, but each manufacturer seems to use a different pin out. i2s is a data transmission standard designed for short track runs, so if you want to use i2s you really need to keep the cable as short as possible. I suggest less than 20cm for acceptable results. It seems common place for manufacturers to use the RJ45 connector for the i2s output so I suggest getting an ethernet cable and cutting the cable to length, and then soldering the appropriate strands to your PCB i2s input. Using shielded ethernet cable and grounding one end is advisable.
post #501 of 1712
Thanks erin,
What I am after is a RJ45 to RJ45 I2S cable 20cm would be fine but of excellent quality.
I have been looking all over for suppliers but have not been able to locate one.
Do you know if DAC makers adhere to the same standard?
I mean do they all use the same Pin layout?
post #502 of 1712
post #503 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosgr63 View Post
Thanks erin,
What I am after is a RJ45 to RJ45 I2S cable 20cm would be fine but of excellent quality.
I have been looking all over for suppliers but have not been able to locate one.
Do you know if DAC makers adhere to the same standard?
I mean do they all use the same Pin layout?
Hi Roger, unfortunalty there is no standard for i2s, so the pin layout is unlikely to match - you would have to check this yourself.

An RJ45 crimp tool should cost you $20-$35 so you could make up your own cables, then you could experiment with different types of cable.
CAT 5 cable is designed for fast digital data so any shielded CAT 5 should be OK. If you do this then you can tell us if twisted pair or straight is better for i2s. That would be interesting.
post #504 of 1712
See the attached photo for an inside view comparison of the Teralink X vs. Poppulse.
Seems like virtually the same circuit, but with a different orientation and some minor differences.

How do i get the photos bigger????
LL
post #505 of 1712
Yes, I own one. Works fine. Not as good as my Audio-gd Reference 3 when used with the Reference 1, but that's to be expected. Solid piece of kit though.
post #506 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
How do i get the photos bigger????
Here
diykits
post #507 of 1712
no one knows, no one test, we all just assume these usb devices are superior. seems to be the flow lately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
How do these USB transports compare sonically to a typical PCI Card like the EMU series ?
post #508 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
no one knows, no one test, we all just assume these usb devices are superior. seems to be the flow lately.
Seems like Patu liked it much better than ESI Juli@
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/6201221-post225.html
post #509 of 1712
wonder how the Nuforce Udac will fair as a usb transport. Problem with that is, it's probably better then half the dac's these other transports are feeding lol. for only 99$
post #510 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
wonder how the Nuforce Udac will fair as a usb transport. Problem with that is, it's probably better then half the dac's these other transports are feeding lol. for only 99$
Mike,
are you making a joke?
Surely you're not serious.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace