[DecentLevi]

Oh I see. Google failed me, showing the price for the smaller Ideon reclocker instead. It would be interesting to see Chrissdrop's opinion on my comments above about differences between those and the SU-1, SW1X 2 vs. 3 and anything about transport cable types into those and the Amber 3, and comparisons between the two DACs at a later point.

 

[chrisdrop]

USB v SPDIF (v other) is an interesting entire area. I have been trying to read and understand for a few weeks "what is best". I am sure many (most?) are more knowledgable than me on this. So take that as a caveat; I am not an expert.

Some comments from this guy I found helpful (youtube hole, sorry). I forget which videos but he said something like "USB easier to do right than SPDIF". I think that has something to do with the fact that USB can be done asynchronously and SPDIF is synchronous. Another comment related to this in my notes on this topic is: "async usb-> spdif is probably best to deal with timing errors". (Sorry, not sure of my note's origin).

I think the topic is broader than just the transport of data across devices... Again, I am sure this is just a catharsis for me and others know better, but...

You have to transport the bytes from the data source to the DAC. If the transport is USB, you have noise from USB. This is really noise from the transmitting end coming to the DAC via the USB transport. As one unneeded possible source of noise, the bigger Ideon reclocker has a switch on the back that blocks the pass-through of the power component of USB to the DAC (5v on switch). People sometimes mod their USB cables/ connectors to remove the power component.

As an aside, regarding the noise from power, I noticed that the USB port nearer to the power supply on my Macbook was noisier than the USB port on the far side of the machine. Can't recall if I said that already...

Ultimately you have the data source, upstream of the DAC. How can you generate the cleanest, least needing of correction data stream? Is the switching power supply causing noise? Then you can ideally transport to the next device with the least manipulation required.

Rather than "cleaning up problems", IMO ideally you would go to the start of the chain and start with the least problems you can. Then you can get the bits to come from a source with the least mangling possible. This is somewhat ironic as I sit here playing with reclockers I realise.

With that in mind, I am trying to get a solid Roon-endpoint that will have a simple job, get music, send to DAC. If needed, a reclocker could be in-between, but ideally, I'd like to not need it. I think starting with the best quality source upstream of the DAC is a good starting point, then getting that signal to the DAC with the least fiddling possible seems desirable to me. I intend to start with an allo usbridge signature with a linear power supply replacing my macbook pro and see how that goes. (At some point, maybe I'll go whole-hog with a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo, but sheesh, not cheap!)

Regarding one of the units from @Zachik's post above:

The interface DI-20 by Audio-GD is based on a USB module Amanero Combo 384 coupled to a pair of Accusilicon 90 / 98M clocks. The circuit is designed to provide plethora of options regarding clocks use strategies: interfacing from the internal clocks, following an external clock (slave mode) or offset of the internal clock to another device (master mode). This type of circuit allows for integrations in highly advanced audio systems.

1. The GD DI-20 is using the same USB unit as part of the solution that the Amber 3 is.
2. The comment on "clock strategies" shows the coordination of clocks topic. Thinking of your system from the high-level with questions like these seem right-minded: What is the source clock? What is slaved to the source clock? I assume you want the best source clock and get the rest of the devices slaved to it? I am not 100% clear on how to setup the ideal clock-strategy, but I am sure there is one

FWIW - this part of this thread does have more on this generalised topic...

All of this is still blurry in my mind, but clarifying as the days and google-hours go by ...

Coming back to Amber, I have been listening again to the Amber w/ no reclocker. It is lovely and while the bigger Ideon reclocker does add some smoothness, without it the DAC does still sound nice. When I 1st started w/ the Amber I felt there was some very subtle hash (amidst giant lovely images) that the reclocker does certainly smooth. (Keep that in perspective; the DAC sounds great). To add to the confusion, I *think* I find myself pressing "next song" less frequently with the reclocker (i.e.; I am more engaged in the music). Later today I'll try the small one...

This post supported in part by:

 

[Zachik]

The GD DI-20 is using the same USB unit as part of the solution that the Amber 3 is.

Since both Amber 3 and DI-20 (by Audio-GD) are based on a USB module from Amanero, and assuming Lampizator does a good job implementing it (impressions by me and others support that assumption), looking with over-simplifying eyes on those 2 options - here are my thoughts:
a. Both take same USB signal from source, parse it (separate the data from the stream that includes embedded clock), and since they use the same USB Amanero chip -> result should be the same!
b. Amber takes that, translates to I2S internally, and feed to the DAC chip. Done.
c. DI-20 takes the result, re-clocks it, translates to I2S, SPDIF and AES.

So... (c) output of DI-20 should be identical at best to Amber 3 internal I2S.
I can see how DACs with crappy USB circuit would benefit from better signal (either re-clocked USB, SPDIF or AES etc.) coming in, but I cannot convince myself the same would be held true for the Amber 3.

Notes:
1. Some of my assumptions above could be wrong. Biggest assumption they both use SAME Amanero chip. In theory the DI-20 could use different (better ?) chip from Amanero?
2. Better clocks used by DI-20 used for parsing the USB incoming stream, and not just for re-clocking it? If that's the case - the DI-20 could in theory do a better job parsing the USB stream...
3. Most important note: the proof is in the listening! Take a group of people, preferably audiophiles, and let them judge (blind test, not knowing whether A is with DI-20 or B is with)... If they cannot hear a difference, or prefer Amber 3 "naked" as opposed to DI-20 in the middle - then one does not need DI-20 with the Amber 3. Again, other DACs would DEFINITELY benefit. Not every DAC uses best USB circuits!!

 

[chrisdrop]

I'll make more comments here on reclocking, but to be crystal clear; most of the raw value (90% say) comes from the DAC itself. IMO this is icing, not cake ... but who doesn't like some icing! Also, I am trying to add info that is not already on the thread...

After a bit of listening using the smaller Ideon reclocker I can make some comments. They are very different sizes physically, but I think the truly-tiny unit does an admirable job mimicking the truly-big brother. I was expecting not that much, especially with the wall-wart power supply. I think the small reclocker does a good chunk of what the big one does: ??60%?? (if it is even possible to say it that way). Maybe a very slightly higher noise floor with the small one? It could be that I am not using a good power supply? This was initially on my macbook pro as the upstream USB data source. i.e.

Macbook Pro -> USB -> 3R USB Renaissance mk2 -> USB -> Lampizator Amber3 -> RCA -> GOTL -> Neotech UPOCC Silver single-ended -> Verite Closed

Perhaps I am not that sophisticated (anyone who knows me well would say that!). I may change my mind after more time. At this point, I am not positive that I could A/B the 2 reclockers (I'd give myself just better than split-odds of picking the right one), but I could A/B with and without a reclocker. I DO think the smaller is somewhat 'less' than the bigger, but it is subtle (to me at least) in this setup.

The smaller reclocker made a very big difference when using an RPI4B via USB and Ropieee as the input to the DAC (I didn't try the big reclocker w/ the lil' RPI). It made the source sound pretty good. RPI4B is not known as a particularly good signal source (others have mentioned too). It is running on the default Rpi switching power supply. FWIW - my MacBook also runs on its own switching power supply of course. Also, when I had the wifi on the RPI, you could hear the sound from it. No bueno! Ethernet only! Now, why would you want to start w/ a suboptimal source and clean it up further down the chain? Here is this path:

RPI4B w/ Ropiee as Roon endpoint -> USB -> 3R USB Renaissance mk2 -> USB -> Lampizator Amber3 ...

I think it still probably sounds best from the macbook, but not sure yet. I bet w/ cleaned up power supplies for all, it would sound nicer. I wonder how much the quality power supply in the big Ideon accounts for the betterness?

I wouldn't consider getting the big Ideon reclocker w/ an Amber. The cost is as stated, not cheap. If I was to spend that #, I'd consider a different path upstream.

What would ideal look like? I like the idea of the Roon endpoint (or device-source of files if you are just going to play local files) with a 1) good clock and 2) low-noise USB to a downstream DAC with minimal subsequent faff would be ideal. I think the highly regarded SOtM sMS-200ultra would be an ideal choice (sadly expensive alone + needs LPS).

I am enjoying the Amber regardless of other variables. It is certainly a mess of cables and boxes at my little listening area presently. Thank goodness for a high-tolerance wife. Certainly, my present setup would not pass the long-term-WAF.

... When I get some more time, I will also try the Amber running via a regenerator vs dedicated mains circuit alone. I have 1500VA on the regenerator between my amp and DAC. I assume this will be plenty.

The end portion of this post brought to you by:

 

[leftside]

With that in mind, I am trying to get a solid Roon-endpoint that will have a simple job, get music, send to DAC. If needed, a reclocker could be in-between, but ideally, I'd like to not need it. I think starting with the best quality source upstream of the DAC is a good starting point, then getting that signal to the DAC with the least fiddling possible seems desirable to me. I intend to start with an allo usbridge signature with a linear power supply replacing my macbook pro and see how that goes. (At some point, maybe I'll go whole-hog with a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo, but sheesh, not cheap!)

@Zachik's post above:

1. The GD DI-20 is using the same USB unit as part of the solution that the Amber 3 is.
2. The comment on "clock strategies" shows the coordination of clocks topic. Thinking of your system from the high-level with questions like these seem right-minded: What is the source clock? What is slaved to the source clock? I assume you want the best source clock and get the rest of the devices slaved to it? I am not 100% clear on how to setup the ideal clock-strategy, but I am sure there is one

Since both Amber 3 and DI-20 (by Audio-GD) are based on a USB module from Amanero, and assuming Lampizator does a good job implementing it (impressions by me and others support that assumption), looking with over-simplifying eyes on those 2 options - here are my thoughts:
a. Both take same USB signal from source, parse it (separate the data from the stream that includes embedded clock), and since they use the same USB Amanero chip -> result should be the same!
b. Amber takes that, translates to I2S internally, and feed to the DAC chip. Done.
c. DI-20 takes the result, re-clocks it, translates to I2S, SPDIF and AES.

So... (c) output of DI-20 should be identical at best to Amber 3 internal I2S.
I can see how DACs with crappy USB circuit would benefit from better signal (either re-clocked USB, SPDIF or AES etc.) coming in, but I cannot convince myself the same would be held true for the Amber 3.

Notes:
1. Some of my assumptions above could be wrong. Biggest assumption they both use SAME Amanero chip. In theory the DI-20 could use different (better ?) chip from Amanero?
2. Better clocks used by DI-20 used for parsing the USB incoming stream, and not just for re-clocking it? If that's the case - the DI-20 could in theory do a better job parsing the USB stream...
3. Most important note: the proof is in the listening! Take a group of people, preferably audiophiles, and let them judge (blind test, not knowing whether A is with DI-20 or B is with)... If they cannot hear a difference, or prefer Amber 3 "naked" as opposed to DI-20 in the middle - then one does not need DI-20 with the Amber 3. Again, other DACs would DEFINITELY benefit. Not every DAC uses best USB circuits!!

Zachik nailed it. It's a poor DAC design if it can't handle the incoming USB signal properly. I'd also add a 4) Can the differences be measured? I'm fully aware that measurements are not the be all and end all (hey, I have tube gear ..), but I still like to see them.

I purchased a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo on the used market today from another guy in Canada. I believe I can probably get the same result from a $150 cheap/small PC sitting inbetween my Roon server and Lampizator GA DAC, but I'm willing to give it a try. I can always sell it again if I'm not impressed.

My current setup is Roon Server -> Laptop (Roon endpoint) -> USB -> DAC, but I interrupt the sound sometimes if I'm using the laptop (browsing the web, etc) at the same time as listening to music. Hence, the need for a Roon network endpoint in the chain connected to the DAC - which I will control via the laptop.

 

[Zachik]

Macbook Pro -> USB -> 3R USB Renaissance mk2 -> USB -> Lampizator Amber3 -> RCA -> GOTL -> Neotech UPOCC Silver single-ended -> Verite Closed

Perhaps I am not that sophisticated (anyone who knows me well would say that!). I may change my mind after more time. At this point, I am not positive that I could A/B the 2 reclockers (I'd give myself just better than split-odds of picking the right one), but I could A/B with and without a reclocker. I DO think the smaller is somewhat 'less' than the bigger, but it is subtle (to me at least) in this setup.

The smaller reclocker made a very big difference when using an RPI4B via USB and Ropieee as the input to the DAC (I didn't try the big reclocker w/ the lil' RPI). It made the source sound pretty good.

Chris - you're writing that "The smaller reclocker made a very big difference when using an RPI4B via USB". You also write, with the context of the Macbook Pro as source that "I could A/B with and without a reclocker" (both in bold above).
So, for the Macbook Pro as source - how big of a change did the small reclocker make?
The source (Macbook pro in this case) would output whatever it does! Then, it is up to the reclocker or Amber to decode the data out of the stream that comes in.
That means that unless the reclocker is better in decoding the info from the USB stream - the reclocking should not make any difference!
Since the Amber uses the highly regarded Amanero chip - I find it a little hard to believe. UNLESS the clocks make a difference, and the reclocker use better clocks...

Bottom line:
Chris, when using the better source (macbook) - did the small reclocker sound noticeably better than without to the Amber?

 

[chrisdrop]

Chris - you're writing that "The smaller reclocker made a very big difference when using an RPI4B via USB". You also write, with the context of the Macbook Pro as source that "I could A/B with and without a reclocker" (both in bold above).
So, for the Macbook Pro as source - how big of a change did the small reclocker make?
The source (Macbook pro in this case) would output whatever it does! Then, it is up to the reclocker or Amber to decode the data out of the stream that comes in.
That means that unless the reclocker is better in decoding the info from the USB stream - the reclocking should not make any difference!
Since the Amber uses the highly regarded Amanero chip - I find it a little hard to believe. UNLESS the clocks make a difference, and the reclocker use better clocks...

Bottom line:
Chris, when using the better source (macbook) - did the small reclocker sound noticeably better than without to the Amber?

Thes posts of mine have been a bit of a run-on-info-dump / long and meandering .

• The small reclocker made a bigger difference on the RPI than it did on the Mac.
• Yes, the small reclocker makes a difference with the Mac.

My interpretation is that there is more noise from the RPI coming across USB. Having a USB-hub in the middle removes (at least some of) that noise. Is it just the isolation or is it the reclocking? Don't know, but seems like isolation I'd guess. Is it possible that removing noise (through isolation) is most of the impact?

Regarding the Mac and small reclocker, I am still trying to figure out how I like the difference. I have a bias to less stuff in the chain (+ there is cost) so it would have to generate a clear improvement for me to "want one" in my chain (whatever the DAC). That said, I think I prefer the sound having the small reclocker in at this stage, but I need a week or so of listening/ longer exposure.

Through the week I'll attempt to get a firmer answer/ feeling on the Mac with/ without the small reclocker. No other variable changes, more hours.

Finally, I came across these interesting USB devices. As elsewhere, YMMV.

USB Wedding Rings
​

Edit: to keep this on Amber3 target, not just another USB post. Here is the Amber in action in my headphone corner.

 

[warp2600]

Thes posts of mine have been a bit of a run-on-info-dump / long and meandering .

• The small reclocker made a bigger difference on the RPI than it did on the Mac.
• Yes, the small reclocker makes a difference with the Mac.

My interpretation is that there is more noise from the RPI coming across USB. Having a USB-hub in the middle removes (at least some of) that noise. Is it just the isolation or is it the reclocking? Don't know, but seems like isolation I'd guess. Is it possible that removing noise (through isolation) is most of the impact?

Regarding the Mac and small reclocker, I am still trying to figure out how I like the difference. I have a bias to less stuff in the chain (+ there is cost) so it would have to generate a clear improvement for me to "want one" in my chain (whatever the DAC). That said, I think I prefer the sound having the small reclocker in at this stage, but I need a week or so of listening/ longer exposure.

Through the week I'll attempt to get a firmer answer/ feeling on the Mac with/ without the small reclocker. No other variable changes, more hours.

Finally, I came across these interesting USB devices. As elsewhere, YMMV.

USB Wedding Rings
​

Edit: to keep this on Amber3 target, not just another USB post. Here is the Amber in action in my headphone corner.

Wow. That's one heck of a headphone amp. What phones is it driving?

 

[chrisdrop]

Wow. That's one heck of a headphone amp. What phones is it driving?

I feel lucky and thankful to have: amp & HPs to keep me company.

 

[Hansotek]

I feel lucky and thankful to have: amp & HPs to keep me company.

GREAT setup.

 

[Zachik]

Regarding the Mac and small reclocker, I am still trying to figure out how I like the difference. I have a bias to less stuff in the chain (+ there is cost) so it would have to generate a clear improvement for me to "want one" in my chain (whatever the DAC). That said, I think I prefer the sound having the small reclocker in at this stage, but I need a week or so of listening/ longer exposure.

Through the week I'll attempt to get a firmer answer/ feeling on the Mac with/ without the small reclocker. No other variable changes, more hours.

Chris, I am with you on "less stuff and less money is preferable"
Looking forward to read your impressions after a few extra days with/without the small reclocker.
Also, I wish you could compare it with the https://wyred4sound.com/products/digital-converters/recovery
Very reputable company, and cost $199 (so a little more than half of the small reclocker).

 

[chrisdrop]

One week later...

Mega-caveat: It is entirely possible I am lost in my own psychoacoustic-confusion-dilemma. These, however, are the thoughts and words I have. No expert, just 2x ears + 1 brain full of weaknesses & biases.

I have spent a week of back/forth, with/without the Ideon 3R USB Renaissance mk2 Blackstar edition, (*I will abbreviate as 3RM2BE to not confuse with the bigger device mentioned below) i.e.; A) [MacBook>Amber3] vs B) [MacBook>3RM2BE>Amber3]

The 3RM2BE's 3Rs are {re-generating, re-clocking, re-driving}. I am not sure which of the Rs matter (assuming any do!). I am not sure what "re-driving" even is? Here are a few links that I came across trying to understand in case you are bored...

In summary: I like the MacBook/Amber3 a touch more with the 3RM2BE than without it. I can't really put a value on it, however. It is not "big" but I do prefer it. All I can really say is that I tended to not skip songs, just listened and enjoyed a touch more with it on. It is not easy to blind A/B without knowing what I am using. The difference as I said is not big, but it is there. The main impact I will flailingly describe as more coherent note-inception. This is heard most clearly when there is a snare hit or a louder note-start of some sort. The note peak is less harsh like the note is more whole. There is also more smoothness in the bass and slightly fuller lower-mids. I imagine one with a better power supply would sound better still.

A related experiment: This article says the 3RM2BE removes the USB power on the output side. (I am not sure if it does FWIW, but) I tried to "lift the power pin" on my Tellurium USB cable (using tape, non-destructive) to see if I could avoid potential power noise without the 3RM2BE. I couldn't really discern a major difference or match the effect of the 3RM2BE.

Also relevant to Lampizator DACs and USB devices like this: In this article, they use the Ideon 3R Master Time (big brother of the 3RM2BE I have been discussing). They try it with both the Lampizator Golden Atlantic and mention trying it on the Pacific too. In both cases, the reviewer thought it brought improvements, although less improvement with increasing DAC cost. I don't know if the other Lampi DACs use the same Amanero USB card, but I'd think it is likely. If you are feeling cash-rich, the bigger Ideon Master Time is worth a look.

For completeness sake; using an RPI4>3RM2BE>Amber3, the 3RM2BE does make better, but it is still less than the MacBook>3RM2BE>Amber3. RPI4+3RM2BE is thinner, with a touch of harshness in the lower treble. It lacks the same smoothness in the bass that the MacBook source has with the 3RM2BE. I thought this was worth mentioning this because 1) there is a difference of sources upstream of the DAC (with or without the 3RM2BE) 2) the 3RM2BE does not both making any source the same. Clearly the DAC USB is impacted by what it is fed. You can really hear the difference between the (RPI4 vs the MacBook) with no 3RM2BE.

In (my) conclusion, I think this is a sort of device worth experimenting with if you are using a USB source. I have no particular allegiance to the products I happen to have to try and I am equally sure other products out there are likely to have similar positive effects. For example, I imagine the Wyred4Sound Recovery will do something similar.

I have not experimented with Pi2AES, or the other USB>SPDIF devices, or any>I2S devices out there. I imagine they all have effects worth comparing.

The Taleb skin-in-the-game question; will I be buying one? If I wind up with a Lampizator DAC, I will consider buying this, or a unit like it. IMO any chain will have to be trialled.

Over and out...

 

[chrisdrop]

Storm Denis woke me at 4:30 AM and I was just forced to listen to music since then . A cool 7hrs has passed in pleasure. Poor me!

In an effort to continue my evaluation, I had another thing to try; power. In short, I preferred the Amber3 through my regenerator vs the raw wall. I have a worse cable to the regenerator than I did to the wall and I still preferred it that way. My house does not have the cleanest power so this is unsurprising. Of course, YMMV.

The DAC is sounding very nice in all cases and all of these comments are "shades" intended to be taken in that context. I'd hate for the overall very positive assessment of the Amber3 to be taken out of context for any people interested in this DAC.

 

[Zachik]

Thanks @chrisdrop for all your notes and data points!
Edit: I agree the Amber 3 is a great DAC. I have owned it for 2 months or so, and absolutely love it

 

[chrisdrop]

I purchased a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo on the used market today from another guy in Canada. I believe I can probably get the same result from a $150 cheap/small PC sitting inbetween my Roon server and Lampizator GA DAC, but I'm willing to give it a try. I can always sell it again if I'm not impressed.

My current setup is Roon Server -> Laptop (Roon endpoint) -> USB -> DAC, but I interrupt the sound sometimes if I'm using the laptop (browsing the web, etc) at the same time as listening to music. Hence, the need for a Roon network endpoint in the chain connected to the DAC - which I will control via the laptop.

Slightly left-of-topic, but I'd be keen to hear how you get on with this. I am also trying to move from Roon Server -> Laptop (Roon endpoint) -> USB -> DAC to a streamer solution. In practice, I have a long USB cable and as you, if my laptop gets busy, sound can get interrupted. I managed to get a Pro-ject stream box s2 ultra via eBay for a good price so if it is not satisfactory, it can go. I will also compare it to USBridge Signature w/ LPS. Internet says Pro-ject > USBridge FWIW.

I am still curious about the SOtM device because it has a high-quality clock in it. IMO the quality clock at source + 'decrapifying' at source (instead of an interim device) seems ideal to me.

Just to keep the thread LA3 related; I happened to get the dealer loaner Amber3 as a new unit and it seems to have had a good 2w burn-in period. It does seem to like to be continuously on and warm, as others have mentioned.