[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

10 different types? Ugh, and here I was hoping to understand all of this sometime this century...

Over 10 types IIRC,  It has been awhile since I studied these topics, look up periodic Jitter, that is usually the one people are most concerned with when speaking on the subject of digital audio.
Here is a good, simple explanation, have a look here:-> Jitter
 

 

[Phos]

This DAC has asynchronous USB, it can't receive jitter from the host.  

 

[dzonylan]

Strange, what is your setup?
What connection type, player software, output plugin?
 

I use foobar 2k ofcourse. I tried using the latest default E1 drivers, than foobar 2k asio plugin and even asio4all drivers and the result is still the same unfortunately - "cracks" on high tones.
Regarding the connectio type, as i alredy wrote the E1 is connected directly to pc through audioquest carbon usb cable.

And just to sum up the discussion over the cables I will tell you that I can hear the difference in sound using that cable. Hovewer even changing the cable do not change my problem with cracks.

Today a friend will come visit me with a laptop so I will try using a different
source and see if it changes a thing.

But still if you have any ideas what might cause me this trouble I will be grateful. Maybe some windows issues (I use windows 7 by the way [with the latest patches ofc])?

 

[Wage]

dzonylan,

Just in case your friend's laptop doesn't yield any different results, I would try removing all components one by one until the problem is isolated. Example:
 
Still cracking on laptop? Change headphones.

Still cracking with different headphones? Take E1 out of the loop.

Still cracking without E1? Try different source files entirely.

Still cracking after all that? No idea, sorry 

 

[AhhHoNG]

Quote:

Since ST/STX are using quality DAC, capacitors,swappable opamps. Is it right to say that the extra quality sound that comes out from the essence one are mostly because of the power supply, circuit board and dual mono dacs?

Anybody? I would like to seek enlightenment and learn new knowledge lol. Pretty curious how much a circuit board and dual mono dac can affect sound quality so much

 

[hellenic vanagon]

Quote:

Anybody? I would like to seek enlightenment and learn new knowledge lol. Pretty curious how much a circuit board and dual mono dac can affect sound quality so much

Sir, the extra quality counts for ST as you can see clearly here:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/542563/asus-essence-one-headphone-amp-dac-cebit-2011/645
 
This is the power consumption of ST/STX:
 

 
Give it the power it needs and you 'll take it's top performance.
 
And here is why ST betters STX:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/542563/asus-essence-one-headphone-amp-dac-cebit-2011/660
 
Now, if you do not believe in measurements you can believe that ONE betters ST, O.k.
 
Remember that it is much easier to take low jitter from PCI connection than through USB or, even worse, through SPIDF. 
 
Even if the dac is the best, the connection cable may destroy easily it's performance.
 
Additionally, when you have dual dacs, there is the danger of unequal performance:
 

 
 
 
Is that right mr. Robscix?
 
 

 

 

[Wage]

lol hellenic, everytime you post I have absolutely nothing to say. Unlike video panels and high end displays, this audio stuff just seems like learning Chinese to me. Video? More like Spanish (see: a helluva lot easier, and makes a helluva lot more sense)...

 

[hellenic vanagon]

Quote:

lol hellenic, everytime you post I have absolutely nothing to say. Unlike video panels and high end displays, this audio stuff just seems like learning Chinese to me. Video? More like Spanish (see: a helluva lot easier, and makes a helluva lot more sense)...

Hello my friend!
 
Can you be more specific what you do not understand?
 
I 'll try to explain it for you, although I am not a specialist! (Just a student.).
 
Simply giving to some "details" the cherish they need...
 
Using "fuzzy logic", since the distance from reality, sometimes, is very difficult to be overcomed.
 
 

 
 

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

This DAC has asynchronous USB, it can't receive jitter from the host.  

Yes, I already mentioned that point but we were talking about USB cables and jitter in general.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

I use foobar 2k ofcourse. I tried using the latest default E1 drivers, than foobar 2k asio plugin and even asio4all drivers and the result is still the same unfortunately - "cracks" on high tones.
Regarding the connectio type, as i alredy wrote the E1 is connected directly to pc through audioquest carbon usb cable.
And just to sum up the discussion over the cables I will tell you that I can hear the difference in sound using that cable. Hovewer even changing the cable do not change my problem with cracks.
Today a friend will come visit me with a laptop so I will try using a different
source and see if it changes a thing.
But still if you have any ideas what might cause me this trouble I will be grateful. Maybe some windows issues (I use windows 7 by the way [with the latest patches ofc])?

Try it on another system and if it still has the issue, then it needs to be returned.
I was asking about your system, to make sure you weren't using some strange output plugin.
Can you use a S/Pdif source and not the USB just to see if that helps?
I have a feeling there might be something wrong with your E1 but we won;t know for sure until you try it on another system.
Keep us posted.
 
Wait, are you using a USB 3.0 port on your system?
 
 
 
 
Quote:

Anybody? I would like to seek enlightenment and learn new knowledge lol. Pretty curious how much a circuit board and dual mono dac can affect sound quality so much

Circuit board design can help in that certain section are designed in specific ways like keeping the power sections away from the sensitive output sections  If you are talking about the circuit design as in the components then that is a bit different, higher quality Caps(filters), opamps and other components all work together to give you a pleasing overall signature.
 
The dual Mono DAC, uses a separate chip for each channel, so the idea is to lower distortion, crosstalk..etc.  If you read the specification sheets of almost any high end audio DAC chip, they will always perform better in mono mode then stereo.  We seem to notice a similar thing with opamps also in that a pair of single channel opamps on an adapter will sound better then a dual channel opamp from the same family. 
 
High end audio design seems to be as much of an art as it is as science.  If you have any more questions, I will do what I can to answer them.
 
 

 

[hellenic vanagon]

Quote:

This DAC has asynchronous USB, it can't receive jitter from the host.  

 

[size=9pt]Jitter Management - Debunking the Asynchronous Myth[/size]   [size=9pt]Some manufacturers may lead you to believe that Asynchronous USB transfers are superior to Adaptive USB transfers. This no more true than saying that you "must" hold the fork in your left hand. If you know what you are doing, you will feed yourself with either hand.[/size]

[size=8.5pt] [/size]

[size=9pt]The USB argument comes down to jitter management and goes as follows: In Asynchronous mode the device is the clock master. In Adaptive mode, the computer is the clock master. Either way works fine, if correct design principles are followed. Here is the tricky part that often gets omitted: No matter which side is the source of the clock (PC or DAC), the two devices are still connected by the USB cable and the digital data on that USB cable is always irregular because the computer is involved. Computers do many things at once and end up sending data over USB in irregular intervals, no matter who is the clock master on the bus. This irregularity causes jitter. So, there is no jitter-free solution, just like there is no dust-free house. Irregularity always creeps in and needs to be actively managed.[/size]

[size=8.5pt] [/size]

[size=9pt]Here is where the Asynchronous vs. Adaptive argument breaks down: In either of the two clocking schemes, jitter is present during transmission. It's inevitable and also ok, if it is properly cleaned up prior to the D/A conversion, where it matters most. Neither clocking scheme is superior and both are capable of performing well if you know how to reassemble the bits prior to the DAC. Now, how do you actually do that? There are many ways, the oldest and simplest of which is buffering. Irregular data comes in, regular data goes out. The most important part is to make sure that samples leaving the buffer on the way to the DAC are clocked accurately. DACport employs JitterGuard™, a proprietary two-stage clock management system that does just that - cleans up the jitter on the USB bus so that samples are virtually jitter-free at the D/A conversion point. [/size] http://centrance.com/products/dacport/ (click design philosophy)   Again discussed here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/493152/low-jitter-usb-dan-lavry-michael-goodman-adaptive-asynchronous     So no guarantee that ONE has low jitter!    Is there any measurement?

 

 

[stv014]

Well, the adaptive method does have an additional source of low frequency jitter through having to dynamically adjust the clock frequency to synchronize with the average frequency of the (irregularly timed) data sent from the PC. This is not solved by buffering alone, it needs well designed PLL circuits to generate a stable clock. So, it is not true that the two approaches are equal. Although it can probably be made "low enough" in practice. The asynchronous mode is simpler, and only needs a good static clock frequency; it is more like internal sound cards.
 

 

[hellenic vanagon]

Quote:

Well, the adaptive method does have an additional source of low frequency jitter through having to dynamically adjust the clock frequency to synchronize with the average frequency of the (irregularly timed) data sent from the PC. This is not solved by buffering alone, it needs well designed PLL circuits to generate a stable clock. So, it is not true that the two approaches are equal. Although it can probably be made "low enough" in practice. The asynchronous mode is simpler, and only needs a good static clock frequency; it is more like internal sound cards.
 

The good question is which is ONE's jitter, whatever system employs.
 
 
 

 

[ROBSCIX]

 
Quote:

Well, the adaptive method does have an additional source of low frequency jitter through having to dynamically adjust the clock frequency to synchronize with the average frequency of the (irregularly timed) data sent from the PC. This is not solved by buffering alone, it needs well designed PLL circuits to generate a stable clock. So, it is not true that the two approaches are equal. Although it can probably be made "low enough" in practice. The asynchronous mode is simpler, and only needs a good static clock frequency; it is more like internal sound cards.
 

All the information I have read on the subject would state that asynchronous is the better of the two.  It used to be that actual DAC's with asynchronous USB transfer were few and very expensive and out of the two methods, async is actually the newer method for transfer timing.
Now that this CM6631 chip is here, I think you will see many more async based receiver DAC's without crazy price tags.
I think it also says something that most of the flag ship DAC's from the higher end companies are all usually Async USB input.

 

[vrln]

Slightly off topic, but relevant to the E1: Windows 8 Customer Preview does NOT support USB Audio 2.0 devices out of the box, custom drivers still needed. We should organize a petition, if they don´t change this it will be the only major OS shipping without support. Luckily the W7 E1 drivers work nicely if installed in W7 compatibility mode.