[ac500]

Quote:

One example of digital not quite being black and white is evident on a cpu wafer. A wafer might have room for a dozen or so chips, but the ones near the middle are the best, and the ones at the edges are worse, typically. What you get is two of the same processor, but one is capable of more than the other. Digital should be digital though right? Not quite, one is literally *better* and digital will happen there at higher speeds, endure higher temperatures, and consequently be given a different model no. clocked up and sold for like $1,000. The rejects will go in a separate bin, clocked down, and sold for less money. Sometimes you'll hear about a CPU that is a great overclocker, thats probably because it's off a wafer for a higher end CPU but wasn't up to spec enough to go in the top bin. 

How is that in any way related to digital not being digital? All digital circuits run on real-world electronics, obviously, and there are some very complex high frequency electronics/physics involved. That still doesn't change the nature of what it means to be digital. Digital is by definition "black and white". The fact that production inconsistencies result in varying tolerances to clocking a chip faster doesn't take away from that, it's just a simple observation that all digital chips aren't "magic" and are in fact built with electronic components. A properly functioning digital system does not lose data ultimately. Yes, there is a lot of technology in storage media and error detection to make this happen, but trust me, computers do this incredibly well. 
 
Computers crash and get errors all the time, but I'm not sure people realize this has nothing to do with the computer's hardware unless something is actually a faulty component. Crashes, errors, etc. are caused by programmer error, something that is pretty much impossible to get rid of completely.
 
In any case... let me put it this way. If you put a group of head-fi'ers together who are all professional computer or electrical engineers, I'd guarantee you not one of them would be so silly to believe that changing digital cables have an effect on audio at all (aside from bitrate modes of course I mentioned above). I actually said this on the sound science thread a while back about USB cables, and the response I got was this: "I don't trust scientists and engineers. They don't know what they're talking about." People here literally don't trust the people who literally designed and built the thing they're blindly quibbling about.
 
> USB is best avoided unless you know the receiving DAC handles it well.  Some setups are happiest with Toslink as it electrically isolates the computer from the DAC.  This is not an issue with better designs. 
 
Maybe I overestimate the quality of DACs sometimes. It is certainly possible for noise to make it from anywhere into the sound signal (I mean, any stupid design is possible), but I'm surprised that any "audiophile" DAC wouldn't be designed to completely eliminate this.

 

[Wapiti]

Quote:

> Some setups are happiest with Toslink as it electrically isolates the computer from the DAC.  This is not an issue with better designs. 
 
Maybe I overestimate the quality of DACs sometimes. It is certainly possible for noise to make it from anywhere into the sound signal (I mean, any stupid design is possible), but I'm surprised that any "audiophile" DAC wouldn't be designed to completely eliminate this.

It is less and less of an issue.  It likely has something to do with the design of the sending computer as well as the DAC.  I have never had any issue with connecting a DAW to a DAC with either AES/EBU or S/PDIF but know some do.  Thus if you get noise or have trouble with signal locking, try Toslink.

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

It is less and less of an issue.  It likely has something to do with the design of the sending computer as well as the DAC.  I have never had any issue with connecting a DAW to a DAC with either AES/EBU or S/PDIF but know some do.  Thus if you get noise or have trouble with signal locking, try Toslink.

I'd always recommend toslink if you can. Usb straight to dac is convenient but you will most always only be hearing 16 bit (not that that is bad) and jitter etc. All dacs are going to benefit from a direct SPDIF signal.
 
Just while the subject of digital is hanging on; the 650's were designed for mp3's in mind don't forget, to "smooooth" over the harshness of low bit music files. Just so happens that a lot of us really like that smoothed over sound. I also own some RS1's and its taken me a long time to find a set up to "smoooth" over the bright top end....  
 
I think I'll just say "smoooooth" one more time.   

 

[Satellite_6]

Always hearing jitter? Reeeeeally?
 
I think I'll just say "reeeeeeeeeeeally" one more time.

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

Always hearing jitter? Reeeeeally?
 
I think I'll just say "reeeeeeeeeeeally" one more time.

 
 
fraid so... if you are using computer as a source and spewing the data direct to a dac via usb. Jitter city! (but only experienced ears can pick it up)
 
 
Smoooooooooooth. Also "forgiving" thats what the 650's are with digital files. Not many other quality headphones are.

 

[Satellite_6]

Quote:

 
 
fraid so... if you are using computer as a source and spewing the data direct to a dac via usb. Jitter city! (but only experienced ears can pick it up)
 
 
Smoooooooooooth. Also "forgiving" thats what the 650's are with digital files. Not many other quality headphones are.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. audible jitter isn't common. 
 
My DAC happens to be asynchronous but I've never heard any jitter, asynchronous or otherwise. 
 
 

 

[LugBug1]

 
Quote:

I'm sorry but that's just not true. audible jitter isn't common. 
 
My DAC happens to be asynchronous but I've never heard any jitter, asynchronous or otherwise. 
 
 

It's true for me. Is there other kinds of jitter?? if so how can you detect it... wif your eyes? or fingers?   As I said, experienced ears can pick it up. Smoooooooooth.  Like milk chocolate. Thats the 650's, and even smoooother with toslink connection.  
 
(oh and before the science mob put me right, I'm talking about jitter from usb to dac. Not jitter in any electrical signal)

 
 

 

[Satellite_6]

Quote:

 


It's true for me. Is there other kinds of jitter?? if so how can you detect it... wif your eyes? or fingers?   As I said, experienced ears can pick it up. Smoooooooooth.  Like milk chocolate. Thats the 650's, and even smoooother with toslink connection.  
 
(oh and before the science mob put me right, I'm talking about jitter from usb to dac. Not jitter in any electrical signal)

 
 

Something some people never seem to understand - there is a threshold of perception for everything. 
 
 

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

Something some people never seem to understand - there is a threshold of perception for everything. 
 
 

haha that would hold true and have some weight if this wasn't a headphone forum and we were not talking about headphones. Get a life and argue on twitter.
 
Or even better, read Kant.   

 

[Wapiti]

Quote:

I'm sorry but that's just not true. audible jitter isn't common. 

True, especially within a CD player, etc.  However USB transmission of audio data is exceedingly poor.  Some DACs do not handle this well. This is audible.  On an HD 650.

 
One example is the Grace M902, a professional DAC.  It is a glorious DAC and headphone amp/preamp.  Unfortunately if the data is sent via USB, the M902 does not perform nearly as well.  One can easily hear this listening to a full resolution file (I have no use for eMPty3s).
 
Thus, coax S/PDIF or AES/EBU as first choice for this DAC, followed by Toslink S/PDIF.  I do not know how the new Grace M903 performs.  I bet they solved it.

 

[jtaylor991]

Does using a USB to S/PDIF converter fix most of these problems being argued about?

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

Does using a USB to S/PDIF converter fix most of these problems being argued about?

Yes. Plus they can can convert the signal up to 24/192 if your dac is up to it. 24 bit HD recordings sound how they should.
 
Theres always going to be the argument of 16/44 of cd quality, however IMO oversampling of mp3 and flac files sound more "alive" and "real" when oversampled.    

 

[jtaylor991]

Well I just ordered the PS Audio Digital Link III DAC which oversamples everything, no choice, so hopefully I'll like it. I only have FLAC downloads from Bandcamp which are probably CD quality (never really checked, I highly doubt they are anything but that) and FLAC/WMAL (Zune) rips of the 10 or so CDs I have, so the extra bitrates etc. in S/PDIF aren't necessary for me.
 
If there was a static or electrical problem like we've been talking about in the USB, couldn't it go through the converter as well?
 
Quote:

Yes. Plus they can can convert the signal up to 24/192 if your dac is up to it. 24 bit HD recordings sound how they should.
 
Theres always going to be the argument of 16/44 of cd quality, however IMO oversampling of mp3 and flac files sound more "alive" and "real" when oversampled.    

 

 

[cheapskateaudio]

 
Quote:

How is that in any way related to digital not being digital? All digital circuits run on real-world electronics, obviously, and there are some very complex high frequency electronics/physics involved. That still doesn't change the nature of what it means to be digital. Digital is by definition "black and white". The fact that production inconsistencies result in varying tolerances to clocking a chip faster doesn't take away from that, it's just a simple observation that all digital chips aren't "magic" and are in fact built with electronic components. A properly functioning digital system does not lose data ultimately. Yes, there is a lot of technology in storage media and error detection to make this happen, but trust me, computers do this incredibly well. 
 
Computers crash and get errors all the time, but I'm not sure people realize this has nothing to do with the computer's hardware unless something is actually a faulty component. Crashes, errors, etc. are caused by programmer error, something that is pretty much impossible to get rid of completely.
 
In any case... let me put it this way. If you put a group of head-fi'ers together who are all professional computer or electrical engineers, I'd guarantee you not one of them would be so silly to believe that changing digital cables have an effect on audio at all (aside from bitrate modes of course I mentioned above). I actually said this on the sound science thread a while back about USB cables, and the response I got was this: "I don't trust scientists and engineers. They don't know what they're talking about." People here literally don't trust the people who literally designed and built the thing they're blindly quibbling about.
 
> USB is best avoided unless you know the receiving DAC handles it well.  Some setups are happiest with Toslink as it electrically isolates the computer from the DAC.  This is not an issue with better designs. 
 
Maybe I overestimate the quality of DACs sometimes. It is certainly possible for noise to make it from anywhere into the sound signal (I mean, any stupid design is possible), but I'm surprised that any "audiophile" DAC wouldn't be designed to completely eliminate this.

Two chips, exactly the same design, different performance capabilities, because digital is digital, in an analog world. My point really in a nutshell.
 
 
 

 

[ac500]

Yeah it's like saying arithmetic is arithmetic, in a human world. 1+1=2, even though people may perform addition using different parts of the brain, and at different speeds. But no matter what, it still doesn't change the result. 1+1 will always be 2. Always. No matter how fast or slow or strange you solve the problem, as long as it is done mathematically (=logically), the results are always the same. The only difference is computers don't make unnoticed mistakes like humans do.