I read Meridian's literature and they suggest using the fixed output in a main stereo system for maximum performance. Does this mean the variable analog is inferior in resolution?
The difference is on the analog part only, the line-out avoids the additional signal attenuation circuitry which is simply unnecessary when feeding a system that has its own volume control.
Sorry if I didn't go back the previous 30 pages looking for a link or recommendation, but I would like to replace the stock USB cable on the Explorer with something better that's not too expensive. Any ideas, links?
Thanks!
Why exactly do you think that a USB cable can make a difference? It transfers digital data - no matter what cable, the same data is transferred between the computer and the Explorer.
Why exactly do you think that a USB cable can make a difference? It transfers digital data - no matter what cable, the same data is transferred between the computer and the Explorer.
Have to agree, can understand investing in analog cables including headphone cables, but USB, no.
The digital signal will not improve with a better cable, either it will be transmit or it will not. It will contain the same amount of 0's and 1's at the beginning of the stream as at the end. That is the nature of digital.
There are posts earlier on the topic of USB cables; some people argue that it makes a tremendous difference regarding the phase sync between the device and the DAC. Still, 100 bucks for a cable might be stretching it a bit.. But that's head-fi
If its true that you cannot use this device with a phone or a portable listening device other than a laptop, I am extremely dissapointed :/
Well, USB protocol is more like the 'internet' instead of simple continuous bit steaming like TOSLink.
USB transmission is based on packets, like TCP of the internet, a packet contains a header and data. if a packet is lost / corrupted during transmission, then it will be re-transmitted.
A poor cable may introduce higher rate of packet loss, and cause more delayed re-transmissions. The receiver side have certain amount of memory buffer and cpu power to sort out-of-order packets to in-order and ensure there won't be any 'pause' in sound due to the re-transmission.
But maybe these activities can cause fluctuations in usb chips' power consumption and radiation? and also cause jitter in the output signals to the DAC ?
But I agree that these only should be a concern for very long cables, or very poor cables. Any >$10 short cables should be the same.
Have to agree, can understand investing in analog cables including headphone cables, but USB, no.
The digital signal will not improve with a better cable, either it will be transmit or it will not. It will contain the same amount of 0's and 1's at the beginning of the stream as at the end. That is the nature of digital.
Why exactly do you think that a USB cable can make a difference? It transfers digital data - no matter what cable, the same data is transferred between the computer and the Explorer.
Exactly. A fancy $500 USB cable isn't going to make your 1s and 0s more one-ey and zero-ey. Digital is digital.
Analog can have some extremely slight alterations based on continuity, but people are constantly making a mountain out of an anthill. Continuity is a game of weakest link in the chain. Dynamics and orthodynamics use copper in the driver construction, making esoteric metals like rhodium and silver useless in almost every application. Unless you have an exceptionally terrible cable on the headphone in its stock form there will almost certainly be no noticeable difference in sound. You're hearing your money. Any cable that's "cryo-treated" or "perfect-surface copper" or any of that other marketing ******** is an absolutely pointless waste of money.
The difference is on the analog part only, the line-out avoids the additional signal attenuation circuitry which is simply unnecessary when feeding a system that has its own volume control.
Well, USB protocol is more like the 'internet' instead of simple continuous bit steaming like TOSLink.
USB transmission is based on packets, like TCP of the internet, a packet contains a header and data. if a packet is lost / corrupted during transmission, then it will be re-transmitted.
A poor cable may introduce higher rate of packet loss, and cause more delayed re-transmissions. The receiver side have certain amount of memory buffer and cpu power to sort out-of-order packets to in-order and ensure there won't be any 'pause' in sound due to the re-transmission.
But maybe these activities can cause fluctuations in usb chips' power consumption and radiation? and also cause jitter in the output signals to the DAC ?
But I agree that these only should be a concern for very long cables, or very poor cables. Any >$10 short cables should be the same.
Currently, for USB Audio (even class 2), it is not It is a common misconception: USB Audio Class 1.0 & 2.0 deal with isochronous endpoints, which does not feature error correction.
The S/PDif features a low-level protocol that splits the audio into frames, sub-frames and time-slots.
USB audio does not feature re-transmission or error correction. Only the bulk transfert mode allows for error correction (mass storage devices). The Musiland convertors (Monitor 01 & 02) are the only USB devices I know that don't relie on the isochronous transfert mode (as found in all synchronous, adaptive & asynchronous converters). They rely on the bulk transfert mode and require specific drivers (not USB Class complient).
Can anyone answer this question about USB error correction authoritatively? We're just getting different people saying different things. I'd love to see a reliable reference.
Can anyone answer this question about USB error correction authoritatively? We're just getting different people saying different things. I'd love to see a reliable reference.
You will not be able to find a reliable reference about audio and video cables anywhere. Everybody has a different opinion. I am more than happy with my Wireworld Ultaviolet and with the differences it brings
Can anyone answer this question about USB error correction authoritatively? We're just getting different people saying different things. I'd love to see a reliable reference.
Cables are like a holy war. Most people do agree agree with the fact that the changes cables make (if they exist) make a small amount of difference compared to other things. If you don't believe this, you can try them out and see what you think.
How about we get back on topic of the Meridian Explorer
As a dedicated DAC, I am still finding it lovely. Downloaded some 24bit / 48k Dead matrixes (soundboard/audience blends by Hunter Seamons) and all shifted automatically to 24-bit. I'll have to A-B it with the 16 bit version, but I can't say anything about the sound jumped out at me as me superior to the 16/44 recording.
I am really tempted to get some cans since I started reading about them on this site. With the impedance issues on the amp side of the Explorer, would there be appropriate Sennheisers or Beyerdynamics or Grado or something else appropriate for this DAC/Amp?
I'd like to buy a pair and never replace them. Over-Ear makes sense for me as I already have the P5s for when I am out and about. I'd like them to be comfortable, not induce sweat, and most important of all, sound wonderful and as close to natural music as possible.
Maybe this belongs in a new thread.
PS: I think the HD-6xx or the HiFiMan 400s are about as expensive as I'd like to get, unless I am really getting a big boost for the mega money that I see CAN be spent on cans.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It is a common misconception: USB Audio Class 1.0 & 2.0 deal with isochronous endpoints, which does not feature error correction.
