[Torq]

  USB signal cleaners are in fact able to make quite audible differences in low-mid tier DAC however, as I heard a fairly sizeable improvement with with current DACs with the Wyrd. Was thinking to try Wyrd + SU-1 into my DAC's 

Not to the degree that just buying a better DAC will achieve.
 
And a Wyrd + SU-1 is pretty much a declaration that you're affected by a hard-core case of USB-nervosa.
 
Personally, I'd take that MIMBY over the X12.
 
And I wouldn't spend a dime on USB "fixes" for either of them, since "useful" improvements to either can be had for less than adding good DDC.

 

[DecentLevi]

Sure I don't expect them to sound as good as this new flagship DAC, just wanting to see what can be had. Also I'll be trying I2S and coax with these to see if these help anything. Yup I was one who confirmed first-hand a few weeks ago that the Holo Spring DAC enormously benefits from the likes of the SU-1 via HDMI/I2S as opposed to USB direct

 

[Energy]

If you're really keen on using a SU-1 I have one for $325 shipped. I haven't even touched it.
 
But to be more on topic, I agree with Torq regarding the USB-nervosa.
 
Comparing S/PDIF to USB I hear about a 4-6% improvement in sound quality improvements (S/PDIF>USB). Comparing i2S to S/PDIF maybe another 2-4%. It really isn't much as long as you have a source with a decent output.

 

[mav52]

I'm really interested in this DAC (the Level 3). Its right in the financial ball park  I need to replace my clinical sounding Mytex.  I've been looking at the Yggdrasil also but I do enjoy DSD.

 

[Sherwood]

And I thought USB-nervosa was bad ...

This isn't necessarily a ridiculous question, in all circumstances. DACs which don't rely on oven crystals are theoretically sensitive to temperature. Depends how hot and how localized, of course.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

Have you guys every heard the focusrite rednet units using lan as a transport? It confirms the usb nervosa is a real thing or that usb is limited in my experience and opinion.

 

[BlakeT]

The USB inputs on DAC's are almost always inferior to spidf/ AES EBU /I2S inputs.  People keep wanting the usb input to be the best so they don't have to deal with usb converters, but sorry folks, it is not going to happen.  
 
Heck, ask Berkeley what input is best on their Reference DAC.  Guess what?  They still recommend using a stand alone usb converter.
 
People just need to get over it.  You want good sound?  Don't use the USB input on your DAC.
 
The Singxer SU-1 converter is not some miracle product.   It simply allows the user to avoid the inferior usb input on this DAC and others.

 

[Torq]

Have you guys every heard the focusrite rednet units using lan as a transport? It confirms the usb nervosa is a real thing or that usb is limited in my experience and opinion.

I did the RedNet 3 for a while.  That's being swapped for a D16 AES, so the same thing in a slightly different form.  But I've found that any AOIP solution, be it Dante, Ravenna or something proprietary, yields very useful gains over USB.

 

[Currawong]

There was some discussion in the DAVE thread where someone used the Rednet with a CD player and it sounded the same. It appears that they have excellent AES outputs and it has nothing to do with not being USB or using ethernet. If the output of the transport is free of noise and any other issue-causing signal distortion then anything else about the transport doesn't matter.

 

[Torq]

  There was some discussion in the DAVE thread where someone used the Rednet with a CD player and it sounded the same. It appears that they have excellent AES outputs and it has nothing to do with not being USB or using ethernet. If the output of the transport is free of noise and any other issue-causing signal distortion then anything else about the transport doesn't matter.

USB is always going to have higher noise on the receiving side than something simpler, like AES.  It's just much more complicated, and there's no clever way around that short of taking USB outside the DAC and feeding the component something simpler.  Doesn't matter what your transport is, there's no real way around this.
 
CD transport vs. AOIP/streamer will come down to proper AES/S/PDIF implementation and either solid clocks on the source, or a properly re-clocking DAC.  No reason they can't sound identical, but short of read-ahead-and-buffer CD implementations (e.g. Meridian's Reference Transport), streamers are easier to get good, stable, performance out of.

 

[Robert McAdam]

 The Singxer SU-1 converter is not some miracle product. Blake T

Would you suggest this converter is the best one for the money at this point in time? Have you compared to others? 
 
I see you use the Berkeley Alpha USB, which is not a cheap converter but probably a very good one. I have just read up on this one. 

 

[Currawong]

Spoiler: Somewhat OT reply to Torq about USB boards

 

  There was some discussion in the DAVE thread where someone used the Rednet with a CD player and it sounded the same. It appears that they have excellent AES outputs and it has nothing to do with not being USB or using ethernet. If the output of the transport is free of noise and any other issue-causing signal distortion then anything else about the transport doesn't matter.

USB is always going to have higher noise on the receiving side than something simpler, like AES.  It's just much more complicated, and there's no clever way around that short of taking USB outside the DAC and feeding the component something simpler.  Doesn't matter what your transport is, there's no real way around this.
 
CD transport vs. AOIP/streamer will come down to proper AES/S/PDIF implementation and either solid clocks on the source, or a properly re-clocking DAC.  No reason they can't sound identical, but short of read-ahead-and-buffer CD implementations (e.g. Meridian's Reference Transport), streamers are easier to get good, stable, performance out of.

Yup, what I meant was, it doens't matter if it's a USB to AES converter, or an ethernet to AES system, it's the quality of the final output at the AES socket of the device that matters. I do know a manufacturer that reckons they have managed to get an internal USB board to sound as good as the AES or S/PDIF input on their DAC, but they haven't released the board yet. I don't believe it's impossible, especially after owning the Singxer F-1 board.

 

[despinos]

This isn't necessarily a ridiculous question, in all circumstances. DACs which don't rely on oven crystals are theoretically sensitive to temperature. Depends how hot and how localized, of course.

 
I agree with that, though are wondering about  the R2R ladder instead.
The R2R ladder, which is at the heart of this DAC, is just a bunch of resistors, with very tight resistance values.
The value of resistance changes with temperature, which means that if you heat that resistor array unevenly, you may get resistors that increase their resistance more than others. Some calculations would be required to check when this becomes significant. Some designers (e.g. Soekris) offer their R2R designs choosing resistors with very tight tolerance. for what I have read, other designers like Jeff (Holo Audio) do not rely so much in the tolerance of each individual resistor, but take more in account other factors, such as the effect (on resistance) of connections/solderings, which may be of more effect than choosing the resistors with the tighter tolerance. I also suspect myself than (uneven) heating of the R2R array (or/and taking in account the resistance of solderings and conductors)  can become more important than going for the most expensive resistors.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

If you're speaking of the run of the mill usual usb inputs of Dacs then there is no doubt that aes will be cleaner due to its isolation properties as well as the transport or CD players capabilities of an output signal.

Where the problem comes in for usb is the source computer on top of the afterthought usb input on dacs including the usb input on totl gear using regular usb receivers (yggy, Pagoda, master 7, etc).

As for usb vs lan transports, the lan transports even using a lower spec clock imo sounds better than a usb with femto clocks while all using aes/ebu out to dacs. Read stock rednet3 vs f1 with wyrd in front of it. The problem imo is coming out of the computer and software management of data on top of the power related issues of usb. Lan on the otherhand is just solid long as the settings are correct, which may be why it sounds better (due to the amount of manipulation you can make to the signal in tweaking).

If you've not tried it (Focusrite R3 or D16) yet or anyone on the head-fi crew, I highly highly recommend you or Jude or both get onboard to test one and hear for yourselves - specially if using a computer as a source.

Spoiler: Somewhat OT reply to Torq about USB boards

Yup, what I meant was, it doens't matter if it's a USB to AES converter, or an ethernet to AES system, it's the quality of the final output at the AES socket of the device that matters. I do know a manufacturer that reckons they have managed to get an internal USB board to sound as good as the AES or S/PDIF input on their DAC, but they haven't released the board yet. I don't believe it's impossible, especially after owning the Singxer F-1 board.

 

[mav52]

Is the display adjustable can you dim the display