[rb2013]

Another good set of information here:

1. Wow that is very impressive to hear that a modified (or was this pre-modification?) Burl B2 was able to beat out an RN3 + Mutec MC-3+ Chain, but the less connections the better, so I am not surprised one bit by this outcome. 
2. Would the Burl B2 still require an SMPS to LPS (or dual, separate LPS) if you used it (un-modded) in conjunction with an upgraded power cable and a PS Audio P3 or a similar regeneration product? Or is it truly how the power is delivered / transported once inside of the B2 that makes a difference?
3. During my research on the Burl B2 I have discovered that it has absolutely zero capacitors or transformers. So, that does not leave many easy "critical parts" to upgrade. I would assume that you upgraded the fuse, but what other parts are lacking within the B2?
4. I find it very interesting that you think the B2 sounds better (or very close to the same) without the use of an "upgraded" external WCLK. That is another very significant cost savings versus a RedNet / Mutec chain.

Thanks again for your very insightful comments!

- InsanityOne 

Ok - well to your questions:

1) The stock BURL power supply - just like the Rednet and Mutec boxes - is a SMPS (Switching Mode Power Supply). These when well designed can be quite good - but due to the switching - create high frequency noise. A well designed LPS (linear power supply) would produce orders of magnitude less noise - both in the system and back into the AC line. Someone recently did some measurements and posted them here on the noise levels of a very inexpensive Chinese LPS vs the stock SMPS. The BURL with it's stock PS is very good (read the stellar reviews - and the reviews were before the DANTE version became available), but is really at a whole new level with a decent LPS. Remember this cleaner power is feeding the BURL digital section, analog section and the Dante BK2 card. So three birds killed with one LPS - I have not yet had a chance to try it with a really fine LPS like the Paul Hynes SR3 or Uptone JS-2. I hope to in the near future.

2) Although AC line filtering is important (I use a two stage chain - an Audience R1p and a Art Audio PB 4X4Pro), it will not change a SMPS into a LPS at the device level. If you have SMPS's in your system - you would be well advised to isolate them from your DAC.

3)You are correct in the analog section of the BURL they use discrete opamps without coupling capacitors or transformers - a very direct signal path. But that is only in the analog section - there are many components that benefit from upgrading. I won't go into any detail here - but just take my word the benefits are cumulative and substantial.

4)Yes the DAC, Dante board and digital section all have sensitive femto clocks - these are highly sensitive to SMPS noise. Reducing the DC power and ground plane noise to negligible levels is a huge benefit.

Our goal is to take the BURL to world class levels of performance - at real world costs. Remember against almost all DACs it has a huge advantage -a board level- AOIP Dante as it's computer interface. This is a far superior audio protocol over USB and UpNP/DLNA - and without the limitations and jitter of a AES/SPDIF conversion/delivery of AOIP to the DAC.

This project has far exceeded my expectations for SQ. But this is only the beginning - much trial and error to go.

Exciting times for audio.

Cheers

 

[mourip]

Ok - well to your questions:

1) The stock BURL power supply - just like the Rednet and Mutec boxes - is a SMPS (Switching Mode Power Supply). These when well designed can be quite good - but due to the switching - create high frequency noise. A well designed LPS (linear power supply) would produce orders of magnitude less noise - both in the system and back into the AC line. Someone recently did some measurements and posted them here on the noise levels of a very inexpensive Chinese LPS vs the stock SMPS. The BURL with it's stock PS is very good (read the stellar reviews - and the reviews were before the DANTE version became available), but is really at a whole new level with a decent LPS. Remember this cleaner power is feeding the BURL digital section, analog section and the Dante BK2 card. So three birds killed with one LPS - I have not yet had a chance to try it with a really fine LPS like the Paul Hynes SR3 or Uptone JS-2. I hope to in the near future.

2) Although AC line filtering is important (I use a two stage chain - an Audience R1p and a Art Audio PB 4X4Pro), it will not change a SMPS into a LPS at the device level. If you have SMPS's in your system - you would be well advised to isolate them from your DAC.

3)You are correct in the analog section of the BURL they use discrete opamps without coupling capacitors or transformers - a very direct signal path. But that is only in the analog section - there are many components that benefit from upgrading. I won't go into any detail here - but just take my word the benefits are cumulative and substantial.

4)Yes the DAC, Dante board and digital section all have sensitive femto clocks - these are highly sensitive to SMPS noise. Reducing the DC power and ground plane noise to negligible levels is a huge benefit.

Our goal is to take the BURL to world class levels of performance - at real world costs. Remember against almost all DACs it has a huge advantage -a board level- AOIP Dante as it's computer interface. This is a far superior audio protocol over USB and UpNP/DLNA - and without the limitations and jitter of a AES/SPDIF conversion/delivery of AOIP to the DAC.

This project has far exceeded my expectations for SQ. But this is only the beginning - much trial and error to go.

Exciting times for audio.

Cheers

Thanks for catching us up. I think that you will find those of us who still follow this thread to be eager and supportive.

I read CA these days and find folks going around and around about the same old topics. Not a lot of true innovation there right now and way too much contention.

 

[rb2013]

Thanks for catching us up. I think that you will find those of us who still follow this thread to be eager and supportive.

I read CA these days and find folks going around and around about the same old topics. Not a lot of true innovation there right now and way too much contention.

I wonder when the Chinese manufacturers will get on board the Dante express?

 

[Clemmaster]

I suggested to Schiit to make a AES-67 expansion card for the Jotunheim. Hope they go that route!

 

[InsanityOne]

  I suggested to Schiit to make a AES-67 expansion card for the Jotunheim. Hope they go that route!

I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
 
Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
 
- InsanityOne 

 

[rb2013]

  I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
 
Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
 
- InsanityOne 

Or at least put the slot on the board - so folks could add the Dante card immediately or down the road.  Like what BURL has done.
 
One other note of interest on the BURL DAC is has the option of not only an ext Wclock - but has the option of taking the clock from the Dante board.
 
We are looking at the possibility of upgrading that clock to a better one that the DAC could also use.

 

[InsanityOne]

 
Or at least put the slot on the board - so folks could add the Dante card immediately or down the road.  Like what BURL has done.
 
One other note of interest on the BURL DAC is has the option of not only an ext Wclock - but has the option of taking the clock from the Dante board.
 
We are looking at the possibility of upgrading that clock to a better one that the DAC could also use.

 
Hey now that is a cool idea. Speaking of all these modifications to the Burl, is there any chance at all that someone like me (who has never soldered in their life) could perhaps pay someone to do all of these mods to a Burl B2 when everything is all tested and "standardized"?
 
- InsanityOne 

 

 

[Clemmaster]

  I don't mean to be a damper, but while this may sound like a good idea in theory it most likely will not be possible because the Dante expansion card would take up the slot of the DAC expansion card, and there is no point in putting a Dante input on an amplifier. Plus, Schiit is trying to cut down on the price of the Jotunheim so that it is more appealing to the lower-end buyers, so adding in an expensive Dante card would push the Jotunheim far beyond what Schiit wants to charge for it.
 
Ideally, Schiit would just place a "true" hard-wired Dante input (Brooklyn 2 Card) on their higher end DACs like the Gungnir MB and the Yggdrasil and have that Dante card take the place of the USB inpuit card so the price delta would not be too high. The Dante card could even be an optional upgrade just like the USB card is now.
 
- InsanityOne 

I'm not talking about Dante, but AES-67.
If it's widely adopted you can be sure people like X-MOS will have a dedicated chip for it that doesn't take so much space...

 

[rb2013]

   
Hey now that is a cool idea. Speaking of all these modifications to the Burl, is there any chance at all that someone like me (who has never soldered in their life) could perhaps pay someone to do all of these mods to a Burl B2 when everything is all tested and "standardized"?
 
- InsanityOne 

 

Well I'm hoping that would be the case - I have someone who is very skilled in electronics - and I have done some modding myself.
 
Of course we could wake up one morning and see a turnkey $800 Chinese DAC with AOIP built in.

 

[gldgate]

  I'm not talking about Dante, but AES-67.
If it's widely adopted you can be sure people like X-MOS will have a dedicated chip for it that doesn't take so much space...

 
One thing I'm not sure about (not many data points) is how generic AES-67 implementation compares to Dante. How much of the sq benefit is AOIP in general vs something unique to Dante? I'm following the thread by Torq (he's comparing a boat load of DAC's vs the Yggy) and he was not exactly bowled over by the nearly $10K NADAC. 

 

[InsanityOne]

 
Well I'm hoping that would be the case - I have someone who is very skilled in electronics - and I have done some modding myself.
 
Of course we could wake up one morning and see a turnkey $800 Chinese DAC with AOIP built in.

 
I am glad that you hope to offer a "modding service" so to speak. But, being an American there is just something about the "made in the USA" factor of the Burl that makes me want to buy it. Plus the B2 has already proven itself several times over in the professional world, unless someone could prove that this Chinese DAC could stomp the B2 in terms of sound quality, I would stick with the B2 personally!
 
- InsanityOne 

 

[rb2013]

   
One thing I'm not sure about (not many data points) is how generic AES-67 implementation compares to Dante. How much of the sq benefit is AOIP in general vs something unique to Dante? I'm following the thread by Torq (he's comparing a boat load of DAC's vs the Yggy) and he was not exactly bowled over by the nearly $10K NADAC. 

Good point - there is no stand alone reasonably priced Ravenna (the AOIP version of AES67 in the NADAC).  So it's difficult to compare Ravenna to Dante in a audiophile application using one's own DAC.   The upcoming Mivera Audio Superstream Pro (will implement Ravenna AOIP) should allow that comparison.
 
There is no 'generic' AES67 implementation per se.  Remember AES67 is a compatibility standard - much  like AES - so that devices can work together on a LAN in a studio, or at a concert for example.  Both Ravenna and Dante far exceed AES67's current min SR std of 96k.  I guess Audinate's Optimo might be considered a bare bones version of Dante that meets this min std.  Have not heard anyone comment on the Rednet AM2 - this device uses the Dante Optimo chip version versus Audinates Dante Brooklyn I or II cards.
 
The NADAC is ridiculously overpriced - and unfortunately uses those ESS Sabre DAC chips.

 
 
Talk about not much there - here are some NADAC board shots.  Could not find a clock crystal?  Just uses a PLL from the FPGA?
 
SMPS power supply as well.  Looks like the just took a Horus card and ran some cables to the ext socket on the case - then added in a DAC board with what looks like ES9008's
 
Not impressive to me.

 

 

 

 

[cursto]

Okay... the madness continues!
I have had a Rednet 3 for awhile now (love the sound quality). The posts here about external clocking piqued my interests, so today the UPS lady brought my latest box to add to my growing list of "audio devices". 

 My name is cursto, and I am an addict. 

 I am now running a Rosendahl Nanosyncs master clock into an Antelope Audio Isocrone DA (removes jitter and reclocks word clock signal and distributes it to other digital boxes) via BNC 75ohm cable. The Antelope is going into my Rednet 3 and a separate cable carries the identical word clock signal from the Antelope into my DAC via word clock in connector. 
Yes, folks,,,  I have completely gone off the deep end! Bonkers, nut job, wacko audiophile crazy.
 
BUT... the sound I am getting from my computer!!!    When I got everything hooked up and turned my system on this afternoon, HOLY SHEET. 
I have heard for years that one does not need an external master clock for digital, it will only degrade the sound quality, better off clocking internally from your converters, it is only a perceived improvement yada yada yada. So I was skeptical, but took the plunge. If anyone tells you that external clocking does not make your system sound better, well they have not witnessed the sounds emanating from my laptop.
 
What struck me immediately was the solidity and placement of images. The combination of clocking I got going on digs DEEP into the recording and brings forth stuff I did not know was there. Cymbals are exquisite!  Not painful to listen to like early digital. The reverb trails blow my mind. And the bass. I did not know my monitors were capable of producing that tight satisfying low frequency. I'll stop here before I start to sound like one of those writers for audio publications that tell you $50,000 turntables and $12,000 speaker cables are necessary for audio nirvana.
 
But, trust me on this. I have been playing around with stereo components for over 30 years and I dare not speak a dollar figure that I have spent chasing the proverbial "you are there" audio presentation in your listening room. I have NEVER heard audio this incredible coming from a pair of stereo monitors.

  Gobsmacked!

 

[johnjen]

Yeah it kinda gets you right in the head, don't it?
 
JJ

 

[enginedr]

Welcome to the extreme clocking club . to make you feel better you are not alone . I have a RN-3 , Mutec MC + USB and a Antelope Live clock 
As you can say I got my clock cleaned . My Metrum Octave DAC sounds great , Clarity, detail , dynamics  and smooth all in one