Latest Thread Images

What a long, strange trip it's been -- (Robert Hunter)
Mar 9, 2017 at 5:30 PM Post #2,281 of 14,566
ableza said:
  Most Windows-based PCs do not include S/PDIF outputs and would require a sound card that offers that.  All PCs include USB output, which is one reason why that became a popular interface for audio.
Click to expand...


Many motherboards have internal SPDIF headers that can be connected to back panel RCA jacks. Caution is advised however, my  Gigabyte GA-990FXA SPDIF output had a 4 volt bias level. AC coupling to a transformer cured this illness.
 
Mar 9, 2017 at 5:47 PM Post #2,282 of 14,566
ableza said:
  Most Windows-based PCs do not include S/PDIF outputs and would require a sound card that offers that.  All PCs include USB output, which is one reason why that became a popular interface for audio.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification ! I havn't had to look at other computer specs for 10 years now, so I was out of the loop on that. As an aside, I assume all three inputs on the Schiit DACs are equal in quality as long as there is "perfect" output from a given server.
 
I personally like the optical connection over the usb but Wyrd brings it pretty darn close.
 
Mar 9, 2017 at 5:52 PM Post #2,283 of 14,566
Originally Posted by Ableza 
 
Most Windows-based PCs do not include S/PDIF outputs and would require a sound card that offers that.  All PCs include USB output, which is one reason why that became a popular interface for audio.
 
 
S/PDIF outputs on motherboards have become "hi-end" items. True most less expensive (say $120 and under) do not have S/PDIF but more expensive M/B's usually will have an optical built into the back of the M/b.
 
Mar 9, 2017 at 7:21 PM Post #2,284 of 14,566
musicman2006 said:
  I hope someone could clear up some confusion I have about s/pdif, usb and converters between them. I have a 2007 macbook pro with an SSD. I use toslink out to my bimby and also sometimes use usb with wryd. I thought most other computers have toslink too, so why use a usb/toslink or usb/whatever converter ? Is it because people using those converters just don't have an s/pdif output from their computer ?  I'm not aware of any deficiency my 07 MBP toslink output would have and why its usb would have an advantage even if using wyrd. 
Moreover, is it the actual input on the DAC side that some people prefer as opposed to whatever output method they choose from their computer ? 
Click to expand...

 
Computers parts (or as a whole) are designed with a low-margin / high sales volume in mind.
Every stones are turned, sometimes corners are cut, to design a product at the lowest cost possible.
 
Audio quality is never a concern for mainstream product (we wouldn't buy external DACs if it was).
Having features like optical or electrical S/PDIF outputs could be a marketing differentiation, but chances are high that the implementation will be on the cheap.
 
Given how polluted the power in a computer is, TOSLink sometimes yields better results than electrical transmission (like coax or USB), thanks to its inherent galva electrical isolation (no ground loops, no RF interference).
 
The problem with TOSLink resides in its low bandwidth (6MHz), which result in higher transport jitter, compared to coax S/PDIF or asynchronous USB.
 
Cheaper DACs usually implement S/PDIF with off-the-shelf receivers (DIR9001, WM8804, AKM4113, ...), which cannot eliminate all the transport's jitter (in addition to supplying their own phase jitter).
More complicated techniques can be implemented, to alleviate these limitations (FIFO + re-clocking is a typical example), but they add complexity to the DAC, which in turn drives the cost up.
 
Mar 9, 2017 at 8:19 PM Post #2,285 of 14,566
clemmaster said:
  Cheaper DACs usually implement S/PDIF with off-the-shelf receivers (DIR9001, WM8804, AKM4113, ...), which cannot eliminate all the transport's jitter (in addition to supplying their own phase jitter).
More complicated techniques can be implemented, to alleviate these limitations (FIFO + re-clocking is a typical example), but they add complexity to the DAC, which in turn drives the cost up.
Click to expand...

 
I din't realize my Yggdrasil was a "cheaper DAC". Mike, how could you have used the AKM4113??  
wink_face.gif

 
Mar 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM Post #2,286 of 14,566
Just bought the $6 optical cable for my iMac and I only wish I had done so sooner. It's clearly a better experience than USB.
 
Mar 10, 2017 at 12:59 AM Post #2,289 of 14,566
winders said:
I din't realize my Yggdrasil was a "cheaper DAC". Mike, how could you have used the AKM4113??  :wink_face:
Click to expand...

You really can't read, can you?
Or you're just trying to call me out on every occasion because you feel like it?

Read the second part of my post you quoted. Yggy falls in that category (so does Gumby).
 
Mar 10, 2017 at 1:03 AM Post #2,290 of 14,566
clemmaster said:
You really can't read, can you?
Or you're just trying to call me out on every occasion because you feel like it?

Read the second part of my post you quoted. Yggy falls in that category (so does Gumby).
Click to expand...


Does your computer not display emoticons? Or do I need to pepper a post with them for you get that it was a joke?
 
Mar 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM Post #2,291 of 14,566
bosiemoncrieff said:
Just bought the $6 optical cable for my iMac and I only wish I had done so sooner. It's clearly a better experience than USB.
Click to expand...


After futzing my Mac mini with USB input to my Yggy ending up with an AQ Vodka Ethernet cable feeding a microRendu with LPS-1, on a lark I tried the toslink (Lifatec glass) out of a modified AirPort Extreme to the Yggy's optical input. Even with the BBG light lit, SQ is much more enjoyable than by USB on my Yggy.

Given that Airplay is only 16/44.1, my Audirvana library is Redbook, and the Yggy sounds great with the above, I'm set for awhile. No USB for me.
 
Mar 10, 2017 at 5:52 PM Post #2,292 of 14,566
So I'm now at major paradigm shift at Schiit. If I go back to my very beginnings at modifying gear my mantra was to improve the audio I had to work with. This harmonized with the high-end minimalism of the time which was for example any extra circuitry in the playback chain not essential to proper playback was undesirable in the sense that it was more stuff in series in the playback chain. Since no audio hardware in the chain is perfect, the only effect of the unnecessary hardware is worse sound. Tone controls – we don't need no stinkin tone controls! Phucs up the sound.
 
On and on through the 70's, then 80's, 90's, and 21st century. This think still prevails today in high end circles. What comes out has to be as close to what came in; bit perfect. Yup – bigger versions of what came in. Up to now, that has been the model.
 
Comes the MP – oops. The musical content coming in is decidedly not what comes out. What?? How do I deal with this? Has my previous minimalist belief been faith based? I don't think so. The bits coming out are different than the bits that came in. The fact that it is defeatable is comforting and gives rise to a certainty of the MP's justification. A certain hetereodoxy has emerged; portions of the old orthodox practice remain, however. A new door open.
 
Hmmmm – are we in a brave (hopefully not cowardly) new world allowing for more fixes to the entire record/playback chain? Stay tuned.
 
Schiit Audio Stay updated on Schiit Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/Schiit/ http://www.schiit.com/
Mar 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM Post #2,293 of 14,566
Mike, are you getting existential on us? I like it!! 
 
Mar 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM Post #2,295 of 14,566
baldr said:
  So I'm now at major paradigm shift at Schiit. If I go back to my very beginnings at modifying gear my mantra was to improve the audio I had to work with. This harmonized with the high-end minimalism of the time which was for example any extra circuitry in the playback chain not essential to proper playback was undesirable in the sense that it was more stuff in series in the playback chain. Since no audio hardware in the chain is perfect, the only effect of the unnecessary hardware is worse sound. Tone controls – we don't need no stinkin tone controls! Phucs up the sound.
 
On and on through the 70's, then 80's, 90's, and 21st century. This think still prevails today in high end circles. What comes out has to be as close to what came in; bit perfect. Yup – bigger versions of what came in. Up to now, that has been the model.
 
Comes the MP – oops. The musical content coming in is decidedly not what comes out. What?? How do I deal with this? Has my previous minimalist belief been faith based? I don't think so. The bits coming out are different than the bits that came in. The fact that it is defeatable is comforting and gives rise to a certainty of the MP's justification. A certain hetereodoxy has emerged; portions of the old orthodox practice remain, however. A new door open.
 
Hmmmm – are we in a brave (hopefully not cowardly) new world allowing for more fixes to the entire record/playback chain? Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

You "deal with this" in the same way one would "deal with" an EQ or a reverb-based room simulator or any manner of DSP: it is an INTENTIONAL alteration to the sound.  The high-end mantra of "less circuitry = better" was and is about UNINTENTIONAL alterations, with the (often mistaken) theory that more elements = more opportunity for alteration.  With MP you are intentionally creating something new.  It is like a print maker brightening an image, or an art historian "restoring" an old master: they know they are altering the original, so they do so with intent.  It then is up to the end user to decide if the new creation floats their boat, or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top