[118900]

Galvanic isolation is to prevent current flow between devices with different ground planes. It can enter a device on any ground linked connection. Like RCA or coaxial.

The noise that travels from USB is noise along the power rails from e.g. a laptop or PC. The simple solution to effectively almost completely curing that noise is the Audioquest Jitterbug. Some don't like the Jitterbug or believe it works, but it makes USB sound like optical. Optical being reference. If you search Head-Fi, you will find Rob Watts take on the Jitterbug. He effectively endorsed it.

I noticed the effect of the Jitterbug with the Chord Mojo, which doesn't have a noise filtered USB input. It was immediate.

The Hugo 2, Qutest, and TT2 have incorporated that sort of USB noise filtration. I don't know about DAVE.

EDIT: I think this is the right explanation. (99% sure.) However do your own reading on it, if you want to be sure.

Rob Watts’ own post on the subject of the jitterbug.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-dave.766517/post-12681548

 

[Jawed]

The noise that travels from USB is noise along the power rails from e.g. a laptop or PC. The simple solution to effectively almost completely curing that noise is the Audioquest Jitterbug.

Jitterbug works, but its effect is minor compared with the isolation provided by optical. I've done the comparisons, years ago, with DAVE

The amount of noise produced by different models of laptop or PC will vary, so for some people the difference made by optical or a Jitterbug might end up being small, while for others its quite large. Rob Watts reported that a new laptop was significantly worse than an older laptop. So if you find there is little or no difference when using a Jitterbug, then you're lucky.

20 clip on ferrites around the USB cable at the DAVE end will be more effective than a Jitterbug and far cheaper. The sound quality of optical is the guide in determining whether you need to improve the noise control capabilities of a USB connection.

 

[edwardsean]

No DAC, including Dave, has perfect galvanic isolation on USB, which is why so many of us use various strategies to deal with noise. There are many discussions of the problem and solutions on this thread.

Also, as mentioned, optical is not the simple best answer. I'm sure the Chord receiver is excellent, but there is noise along the conversion path regardless, along with bandwidth limitations.

My newest find in dealing with all these issues is this optical USB cable from Fibbr paired with an Uptone USPCB+LPS 1.2.

https://www.amazon.com/FIBBR-Female...=1&keywords=fibbr+cable&qid=1612541337&sr=8-3

https://uptoneaudio.com/products/uspcb-a-b-adapter
https://uptoneaudio.com/products/ultracap-lps-1-2

Corning had a version of this design, then the Monoprice Slimrun gained some popularity. I assumed, along with others, that the Fibbr and Monoprice cables were identical. I thought Fibbr produced them and Monoprice sold them without the badge under their own name. I replaced my Monoprice with the Fibbr and was surprised to find it sounded significantly better. I contacted Fibbr and they told me that though they look the same, Fibbr does not source Monoprice and their design is proprietary. So, they only share the same outer casing. The tech inside and quality of optical fiber is unique to Fibbr and the results are pretty fantastic.

The problem is that this Fibbr cable still has a copper wire that runs through the cable for 5V power. The LPS 1.2 works beautifully, but the best would be to eliminate that galvanic connection completely. Fibbr has an audio cable that does this and relocates the power on the receiver side. However, it's not available in the U.S., though I'm still trying to obtain one.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/blogs/fibbr-alpha-usb-audio-cable-review/

Daniel Mance over at Audiowise released his optical kit configured to USB, which also solves the problem. I think it's worth checking out. It's pricey but may very well justify his claim that it outperforms any USB solutions, that would include exotic $3K cables.

https://audiowise-canada.myshopify....tical-signal-isolation?variant=31850397106236

The guys over at AS are working with a Startech+Finisar combo for optical ethernet.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...-server/page/72/?tab=comments#comment-1107076

If you explore any of these routes, please report back here.

 

[edwardsean]

Also, a quick PSA. Please be careful with ferrites. All ferrites have a frequency and, without an oscilloscope, you are working somewhat blind. You're filtering out noise, to be sure, but also healthy frequencies as well.

Don't just listen for the reduction in noise. Listen for loss of upper frequencies that may also be attenuated.

 

[Jawed]

Don't just listen for the reduction in noise. Listen for loss of upper frequencies that may also be attenuated.

This is categorically incorrect when applied to digital and power supply cables

 

[edwardsean]

This is categorically incorrect when applied to digital and power supply cables

Interesting. Are you speaking from an engineering standpoint or from listening experience or both?

In my experiments with EMI/noise suppression materials, I've found them to have a broad dampening effect wherever I put them. I wish they just surgically filtered unwanted noise.

I've found a pattern in my own use where I get excited about the noise reduction at first, and then I detect missing energy. It's more than just a loss of artificial excitation/distortion from noise. So I've relied less and less on noise suppression and more on removing/isolating noise generating components.

I respect your statement. At the same time, I would continue to counsel users to listen critically for what they lose as well as gain with any noise filtering material. I don't think indiscriminately applying ferrites even on digital or power supply cables will provide a cheap and easy solution. If only.

 

[Jawed]

Interesting. Are you speaking from an engineering standpoint or from listening experience or both?

In my experiments with EMI/noise suppression materials, I've found them to have a broad dampening effect wherever I put them. I wish they just surgically filtered unwanted noise.

I've found a pattern in my own use where I get excited about the noise reduction at first, and then I detect missing energy. It's more than just a loss of artificial excitation/distortion from noise. So I've relied less and less on noise suppression and more on removing/isolating noise generating components.

I respect your statement. At the same time, I would continue to counsel users to listen critically for what they lose as well as gain with any noise filtering material. I don't think indiscriminately applying ferrites even on digital or power supply cables will provide a cheap and easy solution. If only.

I'll draw a car analogy: your black car when covered in snow is still a black car. Cleaning the snow off the car doesn't change the car's colour.

So, for example, adding ferrites to a digital cable to reduce RF noise cannot filter the high frequencies in music. The ferrites can't change the digital data at all. They can't effect a transformation on the bits such that only high frequencies "suffer attenuation". Similarly with a power cable, the signal is either a pure sine wave or a steady voltage. In neither case is the presence of noise of any kind required for the functioning of the cable. That's the engineering answer.

For an experiential answer: your perception of the music is being snowed-on by RF noise which upsets analogue circuits. The noise makes the music sound brittle, confused and simplistic with the following problems:

• bass loses its power, timing and texture - the timing of transients (which is to do with the timing, speed and refinement of the treble) is essential to your perception of bass.
• rhythms become subtly confused - some instruments or notes in a rhythm get unexpectedly emphasised. In general rhythms become simplistic or mechanical.
• harshness (often heard in voices, electric guitars, trumpets) - naturally these can have a "strained" feeling in their sound, e.g. the singer "shouts", but RF noise will exaggerate the effect. There's an overall feeling that the system is playing as loud as it can go or too loudly. The volume knob has a really obvious limit, beyond which the cringe effect is too much.
• confused vocals - smeared treble causes natural sibilants to be exaggerated and sometimes even painful. Dialogue in TV or films becomes confused and unintelligible. Lyrics become mysterious.
• exaggerated treble - finesse and refinement in the treble are ruined by the presence of noise and instruments will sound like their register is shifted upwards, with dynamics that become "plinky plonky".
• soundstage compression - the soundstage squashes up, so that instruments and singers far back are brought forward and any that are at the far left or right get captured by the speakers.
• etched imaging - singers or instruments seem to have a fizz of an outline about them, a sort of hyper real cut out effect.
• false emptiness - often referred to as a "black background" in a recording. What's often happening is that subtle sounds or reverb are being masked by the confusing effect of RF noise. Reverb dies away for a while then suddenly just stops instead of flowing into the next instrumental sounds. Unplayed piano strings lose their sympathetic sounding and the instrument appears dead.

The "broad dampening effect" that you refer to is actually the result of you getting closer to perceiving the black car without any snow!

When a system is radically tweaked it can require that some other setup tweaks are altered. A lot of people use analogue interconnects or speaker cables as filters. Another common tweak is moving the speakers closer to a wall to make the bass sound beefier. Or using less toe-in with the speakers than they are designed for, because the treble was too piercing.

I don't know what your system is, from the DAC onwards, so I have no idea what tweaks you might make there. But it's best to think of any such downstream tweaks as "out of date" when you mitigate RF noise problems that affect the DAC.

I believe you're being patient in the setup and evaluation of your tweaks, so it's not much use me saying "be patient" or "learn to push through the pain of the change". I can only suspect that your dissatisfaction with a lack of energy derives from the qualities of the downstream parts of your system.

 

[edwardsean]

I'll draw a car analogy: your black car when covered in snow is still a black car. Cleaning the snow off the car doesn't change the car's colour.

So, for example, adding ferrites to a digital cable to reduce RF noise cannot filter the high frequencies in music. The ferrites can't change the digital data at all. They can't effect a transformation on the bits such that only high frequencies "suffer attenuation". Similarly with a power cable, the signal is either a pure sine wave or a steady voltage. In neither case is the presence of noise of any kind required for the functioning of the cable. That's the engineering answer.

For an experiential answer: your perception of the music is being snowed-on by RF noise which upsets analogue circuits. The noise makes the music sound brittle, confused and simplistic with the following problems:

• bass loses its power, timing and texture - the timing of transients (which is to do with the timing, speed and refinement of the treble) is essential to your perception of bass.
• rhythms become subtly confused - some instruments or notes in a rhythm get unexpectedly emphasised. In general rhythms become simplistic or mechanical.
• harshness (often heard in voices, electric guitars, trumpets) - naturally these can have a "strained" feeling in their sound, e.g. the singer "shouts", but RF noise will exaggerate the effect. There's an overall feeling that the system is playing as loud as it can go or too loudly. The volume knob has a really obvious limit, beyond which the cringe effect is too much.
• confused vocals - smeared treble causes natural sibilants to be exaggerated and sometimes even painful. Dialogue in TV or films becomes confused and unintelligible. Lyrics become mysterious.
• exaggerated treble - finesse and refinement in the treble are ruined by the presence of noise and instruments will sound like their register is shifted upwards, with dynamics that become "plinky plonky".
• soundstage compression - the soundstage squashes up, so that instruments and singers far back are brought forward and any that are at the far left or right get captured by the speakers.
• etched imaging - singers or instruments seem to have a fizz of an outline about them, a sort of hyper real cut out effect.
• false emptiness - often referred to as a "black background" in a recording. What's often happening is that subtle sounds or reverb are being masked by the confusing effect of RF noise. Reverb dies away for a while then suddenly just stops instead of flowing into the next instrumental sounds. Unplayed piano strings lose their sympathetic sounding and the instrument appears dead.

The "broad dampening effect" that you refer to is actually the result of you getting closer to perceiving the black car without any snow!

When a system is radically tweaked it can require that some other setup tweaks are altered. A lot of people use analogue interconnects or speaker cables as filters. Another common tweak is moving the speakers closer to a wall to make the bass sound beefier. Or using less toe-in with the speakers than they are designed for, because the treble was too piercing.

I don't know what your system is, from the DAC onwards, so I have no idea what tweaks you might make there. But it's best to think of any such downstream tweaks as "out of date" when you mitigate RF noise problems that affect the DAC.

I believe you're being patient in the setup and evaluation of your tweaks, so it's not much use me saying "be patient" or "learn to push through the pain of the change". I can only suspect that your dissatisfaction with a lack of energy derives from the qualities of the downstream parts of your system.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I agree with you; noise is always the issue and presents many of the problems you listed. I also think you're right and that we have to think systemically. The goal is a pure signal, and reduced noise can sound duller in a setup–but so can a compromised signal. I'm not suggesting that ferrites can alter digital bits. Thinking systemically, digital bits exist in analog chips and metal conductors.

You seem convinced that it is categorically impossible for ferrites or noise suppression materials to have any effect on digital or power signals. I can conjecture why you believe this, but I do disagree from both a theoretical and practical perspective.

I would be afraid of what my car would like once you were done just "clearing off the snow" (grin).

I respect your devotion to ferrites and I'm glad that you've been able to use them to such good effect. I'm not opposed to ferrites, but I also think there is a reason why you can't just attach a bunch of stock beads on a BNC and call it a Wave cable.

When it comes to noise suppression my principle has been Hippocratic, "first, do no harm." Or, to paraphrase John Swenson, I would rather have no shielding than shielding done wrong."

I also appreciate you taking the time to share what has worked so well for you. I've chosen a different route, and as always it's good for users here to have options to try out to see what works for themselves.

P.S. You understand of course by "car" I mean my audio system. I'm in Chicago, and after these storms, I would appreciate anyone clearing the snow off my car!

 

[Jawed]

I would be afraid of what my car would like once you were done just "clearing off the snow" (grin).

I can just about see 6cm of a pair of ferrited cables at my listening position

 

[sm60]

Galvanic isolation is to prevent current flow between devices with different ground planes. It can enter a device on any ground linked connection. Like RCA or coaxial.

The noise that travels from USB is noise along the power rails from e.g. a laptop or PC. The simple solution to effectively almost completely curing that noise is the Audioquest Jitterbug. Some don't like the Jitterbug or believe it works, but it makes USB sound like optical. (Optical being reference.) If you search Head-Fi, you will find Rob Watts take on the Jitterbug. He effectively endorsed it.

I noticed the effect of the Jitterbug with the Chord Mojo, which doesn't have a noise filtered USB input. It was immediate.

The Hugo 2, Qutest, and TT2 have incorporated that sort of USB noise filtration. Meaning you don't need the Jitterbug with those DACs. (I leave a Jitterbug on with those DACs though, because I am a plant.) I don't know if the DAVE USB input is filtered.

EDIT: I think this is the right explanation. (99% sure.) However do your own reading on it, if you want to be sure.

This product has elicited a range of opinions, from enthusiasm to snake oil criticism. John Atkinson of Stereophile found a subjective improvement but his measurements showed almost no difference.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug-usb-noise-filter-measurements
Interesting that he liked it precisely for the reason I find plain old redbook CDs on a top notch transport to decisively stomp over any material played back on Roon through the Dave M-scaled through USB. In his description he uses the word “ethereal” to describe the sonic signature of streaming playback from his Mac mini. Using the jitterbug restored some of the realism of the playback from his Mark Levinson 31 CD transport. My sentiments precisely. Even though I’m dubious, I’ll have to try the jitterbug. It’s around $70, so not too pricey for a tweak. If it can make my Roon playback sound even half as good as my CDs do through my CEC TL0 transport, I’d be delighted.

 

[muski]

• bass loses its power, timing and texture - the timing of transients (which is to do with the timing, speed and refinement of the treble) is essential to your perception of bass.
• rhythms become subtly confused - some instruments or notes in a rhythm get unexpectedly emphasised. In general rhythms become simplistic or mechanical.
• harshness (often heard in voices, electric guitars, trumpets) - naturally these can have a "strained" feeling in their sound, e.g. the singer "shouts", but RF noise will exaggerate the effect. There's an overall feeling that the system is playing as loud as it can go or too loudly. The volume knob has a really obvious limit, beyond which the cringe effect is too much.
• confused vocals - smeared treble causes natural sibilants to be exaggerated and sometimes even painful. Dialogue in TV or films becomes confused and unintelligible. Lyrics become mysterious.
• exaggerated treble - finesse and refinement in the treble are ruined by the presence of noise and instruments will sound like their register is shifted upwards, with dynamics that become "plinky plonky".
• soundstage compression - the soundstage squashes up, so that instruments and singers far back are brought forward and any that are at the far left or right get captured by the speakers.
• etched imaging - singers or instruments seem to have a fizz of an outline about them, a sort of hyper real cut out effect.
• false emptiness - often referred to as a "black background" in a recording. What's often happening is that subtle sounds or reverb are being masked by the confusing effect of RF noise. Reverb dies away for a while then suddenly just stops instead of flowing into the next instrumental sounds. Unplayed piano strings lose their sympathetic sounding and the instrument appears dead.

What a great and complete description of the problems caused by RF noise. This morning I installed an Audioquest Niagara 1200 (w/two NRG-Z3 power cables). The difference was striking, and if asked “In what way?”, I’d tick off improvements on every item in your list. I think what blew my mind the most was the improvement in reverb. It adds a shocking realism of reproduction that brought me one step closer to the concert hall.

I‘d always felt all things AC power (cords, conditioners, etc), a bit voodoo-ish. Boy was I wrong. I can see why there are so many rave reviews of the AQ Niagara (including DARKO’s).

muski

 

[Sampajanna]

Yep, the Everest 8000 is one of the biggest updates to a system I have experienced....

 

[pspentax]

What a great and complete description of the problems caused by RF noise. This morning I installed an Audioquest Niagara 1200 (w/two NRG-Z3 power cables). The difference was striking, and if asked “In what way?”, I’d tick off improvements on every item in your list. I think what blew my mind the most was the improvement in reverb. It adds a shocking realism of reproduction that brought me one step closer to the concert hall.

I‘d always felt all things AC power (cords, conditioners, etc), a bit voodoo-ish. Boy was I wrong. I can see why there are so many rave reviews of the AQ Niagara (including DARKO’s).

muski

Indeed, this week I installed and 5000 and the improvements were amazing.
Some months ago I also installed one 7000 and again crazy improvement
From my experience the Niagara are the most interesting ones in the market, I also tested/installed ones from Isotek, PSaudio, Stromtank, etc... but the Niagara are the ones that show bigger improvements.

 

[Sampajanna]

Nice setup. I haven't heard the Audioquest conditioner. Will check it out if I get the chance. Love the Everest, though. Not a small difference. How does that Palyback Dream Dac compare the HMS/Dave?

 

[pspentax]

Nice setup. I haven't heard the Audioquest conditioner. Will check it out if I get the chance. Love the Everest, though. Not a small difference. How does that Palyback Dream Dac compare the HMS/Dave?

It’s not the Dream DAC it’s the Dream Transport
The DAC is the amazing Nagra HD DAC X and is miles away in a good way from Dave