[SodaBoy]

   
I haven't seen such shunning but I wouldn't understand it either. Is this just based on aesthetic preferences? Toslink sends a S/PDIF signal. The signal being sent is the same, whether it be coaxial/RCA or toslink/fibre optic.

The Toslink interface adds around 200 psecs of interface jitter, but offers opto isolation which will eliminate ground loop issues. I don't remember the USB 2.0 jitter spec, but I think it went up into the nanoseconds, which by comparison makes 200 psec less significant than it seems. This interface jitter will be reclocked by low noise XOs through any competent modern audio input interface.
 
A bit OT but I do feel that even the best Chinese TCXOs are a bit marginal for the application. Admittedly Gustard does use the highest quality clocks in its price range, I have seen $1500 DACs use the same or worse. I looked at the new Yulong DA8II (version 2 basically) and they upgraded the MCLK to a CCHD-950 from the original Chinese TCXO, and the price jumped like $150 USD, that should tell you how much "features" cost in the audio world.

 

[DreamKing]

 
The Toslink interface adds around 200 psecs of interface jitter, but offers opto isolation which will eliminate ground loop issues. I don't remember the USB 2.0 jitter spec, but I think it went up into the nanoseconds, which by comparison makes 200 psec less significant than it seems. This interface jitter will be reclocked by low noise XOs through any competent modern audio input interface.
 
A bit OT but I do feel that even the best Chinese TCXOs are a bit marginal for the application. Admittedly Gustard does use the highest quality clocks in its price range, I have seen $1500 DACs use the same or worse. I looked at the new Yulong DA8II (version 2 basically) and they upgraded the MCLK to a CCHD-957 from the original Chinese TCXO, and the price jumped like $150 USD, that should tell you how much "features" cost in the audio world.

 
Yes, so in the end it will be inaudible through any decent source. The optical interface has matured enough, audible differences are down to the component and not the cable. The old "limited Toslink" arguments some people erroneously have don't hold up today. These days toslink can sound better than coaxial and vice versa. It's all up to the implementation as they are indiscernible all things being equal in ABX testing. I have seen the aesthetic arguments (some RCA interconnects locking in better than some Toslink interconnects). That's the only subjective but tangible difference raised in in the argument.

 

[BassDigger]

hello, I am from Italy.
I don't think the word 'gustare', whose meaning you explained correctly, has anything to do with the name 'Gustard', sorry

 
Hi, I wasn't implying that there's any basis in fact; Gustard is a chosen name, not an already existing word.
I was just suggesting a possible (positive) perception of this new word: a person with good taste.
Remember: language is an ever evolving phenomenon.
 
Maybe you could help with our quest to define the name....?
 

 
I haven't seen such shunning but I wouldn't understand it either. Is this just based on aesthetic preferences? Toslink sends a S/PDIF signal. The signal being sent is the same, whether it be coaxial/RCA or toslink/fibre optic.

 
Where have you been? 

 
I think that the main problem/argument is the additional change of signal transfer technology; it requires changing from electrical to optical, and back again. Additional processes and components are not conducive to keeping the original signal intact.
But then, it has its advantages, which is why it's something that I advocate.

 

[SodaBoy]

   
Yes, so in the end it will be inaudible through any decent source. The optical interface has matured enough, audible differences are down to the component and not the cable. The old "limited Toslink" arguments some people erroneously have don't hold up today. These days toslink can sound better than coaxial and vice versa. It's all up to the implementation as they are indiscernible all things being equal in ABX testing. I have seen the aesthetic arguments (some RCA interconnects locking in better than some Toslink interconnects) but that's the only subjective, tangible difference raised in in the argument.

Well Toslink is limited to around 192khz sample rate. This might matter if you do heavy oversampling software side like the HQPlayer crowd. Inputting higher than 192khz is not very advisable on ES9018 implementations, since current XOs simply cannot handle high sample rates such as 352.8khz and 384khz with the sabre OSF enabled.

 

[DreamKing]

  Well Toslink is limited to around 192khz sample rate. This might matter if you do heavy oversampling software side like the HQPlayer crowd. Inputting higher than 192khz is not very advisable on ES9018 implementations, since current XOs simply cannot handle high input rates such as 352.8khz and 384khz with the sabre OSF enabled.

 
My point pertains to just optical and coaxial which have the same sample rate limitations. And you can imagine what I think of stuff like higher than 192khz sample rates for just enjoying sound lol...
 

 
Where have you been? 

 
I think that the main problem/argument is the additional change of signal transfer technology; it requires changing from electrical to optical, and back again. Additional processes and components are not conducive to keeping the original signal intact.
But then, it has its advantages, which is why it's something that I advocate.

 
Hey BassDigger, just had my 25th birthday so I've been having quite some fun over the weekend spilling into this week 

 
And agreed on the advantages. Toslink is immune to ground loops like SodaBoy mentioned as well as RF interference so its retransmission has real-world perks against coaxial.
 
In the end though, I'd state whatever the audio equivalent of "out of sight, out of mind" is.

 

[GioF71]

   
Hi, I wasn't implying that there's any basis in fact; Gustard is a chosen name, not an already existing word.
I was just suggesting a possible (positive) perception of this new word: a person with good taste.
Remember: language is an ever evolving phenomenon.
 
Maybe you could help with our quest to define the name....?
 

 
I am sorry, didn't mean to be rude in any way

 

[BassDigger]

 
I am sorry, didn't mean to be rude in any way

 
Eh? 

 
No offense, whatsoever, taken. I was just clarifying my previous comment. I'm sorry if I came across as terse; that was not my intention.

 

[GioF71]

No you weren't terse, but I thought my comment could be intended as a little too harsh.
Luckily it wasn't!
 
Cheers

 

[Lorspeaker]

always love seeing headfiers being courteous to each other...great attitude guys !!

 

[Noodlz]

Hey guys, wanted to ask real quick about your thoughts on the current X12 / U12 stack and how it compares to some of the existing DACs out there. I have a geekout 450 and wyrd4sound µDAC HD as my DACs, and i'm itching for an upgrade.
 
It's my understanding that the X12 is a huge upgrade from what i have now and the X20 would be even better? Im tempted to try out one of the cheaper DIY parallel PCM1794 DACs from ebay/china for now, and then get the X20 as kinda my end game DAC when it finally does come out. Any thoughts /recommendations? (Oh and i'm going to pair it with the incoming H10)

 

[GioF71]

Unluckily I never head the wyred4sound but I see there are nice comments around.
I think the x12 is probably a nice upgrade especially if you use the wyred4sound powered through usb (so without the optional psu).

My previous best dacs were a Peachtree dacit and a yulong d200; I still own then both and enjoy using them. The Gustard stack has been a nice step up.
I especially still like the yulong d200, more for the dac than the amp: nice but not on par with the h10.
The x12 has given my system some more clarity.
I use it with the u12 and a schiit wyrd, all connected to a dedicated linux box with music player daemon (mpd) and upmpdcli (gives mpd the ability to behave as an upnp renderer).
HDMI cable between u12 and x12.

Also this setup allows me great flexibility as I also connected the dac to the desktop pc. So I can use both solutions easily if for a quick listen I don't want to turn on the linux box (or vice versa).

Also there is probably no comparison with the cheap dacs you can find around. Smsl Sanskrit for example, if this is one of the dac you were suggesting. I own the Sanskrit and it is quite nice especially since I conneted it with a m2tech hiface 2 instead of direct usb. But the new stack is on another level.
There's better stuff around for sure, but I doubt (and hope) there are other stacks on the market with much higher quality/price ratio.


Cheers

Edit: typos

 

[Noodlz]

Nice~ yeah so i just spent my money getting the beresford capelli amp, so now im gonna wait for the X20 to come out to get an upgrade for the dac lol. Decided to pick up the capelli since i hear great things about it being a nice preamp for the H10, and having some interesting options to tune the signature of the sound. Should be interesting to play with =)

 

[GioF71]

  Nice~ yeah so i just spent my money getting the beresford capelli amp, so now im gonna wait for the X20 to come out to get an upgrade for the dac lol. Decided to pick up the capelli since i hear great things about it being a nice preamp for the H10, and having some interesting options to tune the signature of the sound. Should be interesting to play with =)

 
If I may ask, why would you want to use a preamp before the H10?
Are you concerned about the volume pot quality, so that you want to crank it up at 100% and control the volume from the preamp?
 
Just asking, no criticism intended.
 
Thanks

 

[Noodlz]

No worries~ Actually im not really super concerned about the volume pot quality. It's this whole evil evil curiosity / escalation / strive for better audio quality thing, when you hear something can be even better lol
 
I've been seeing some reports from this thread and other threads (namely the beresford capella thread), where there are some users (dreamking i believe) who are getting even better sound with H10 using the Capella as the preamp. Supposedly it is even more organic sounding. Theres even another report by DecentLevi who's using a schitt magni to feed into his capelli and getting a reported 25% improvement in the details heard. 
 
Now i know double amping is generally kind of a bad idea, but i am still curious haha. Waiting to see what people say on the other thread =P

 

[BassDigger]

  No worries~ Actually im not really super concerned about the volume pot quality. It's this whole evil evil curiosity / escalation / strive for better audio quality thing, when you hear something can be even better lol
 
I've been seeing some reports from this thread and other threads (namely the beresford capella thread), where there are some users (dreamking i believe) who are getting even better sound with H10 using the Capella as the preamp. Supposedly it is even more organic sounding. Theres even another report by DecentLevi who's using a schitt magni to feed into his capelli and getting a reported 25% improvement in the details heard. 
 
Now i know double amping is generally kind of a bad idea, but i am still curious haha. Waiting to see what people say on the other thread =P

 
This seems to call into concern the versatility of the H10's pre input section; maybe it's a bit fussy about matching with certain output sections.
 
I've heard of this before; some dac output sections, despite being very good quality, cause the dac to have very different sound characteristics, with different amps, because of impedance mis-matches with certain pre-amp sections.
 
I wonder if that's what, or the reverse of it, is happening here; maybe the dac matches better with the additional pre, and/or the additional pre matches better with the H10, but the dac doesn't match well when connected directly to the H10.