[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Why not an audiophilleo 2?  It seems to be consistently higher rated than the EVO, have yet to see an impression of something that is better aside from megabuck DIs.  But I have yet to see one compared against the Mk3 which I'm sure is excellent.  

 
Here ya go:
 
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews/item/289-audiophilleo1-2-usb-spdif-convertor
 
 

 

[bobeau]

Fantastic, I've been waiting for that review.  Too bad these guys never show up used...

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Hi.
 
I'm torn between a Mk3 and a EVO. 
 
Anyone experienced both?
 
Cheers

 
I have a friend who told me the EVO doesn't even sound as good as the MK2, let alone the MK3. I would skip it unless you want the extra inputs/outputs the EVO offers.
 
BTW, the MK3 is affected by both USB cables and digital coax cables. I know John says that USB cables shouldn't matter, but I've tried several high-end (and low-end) ones now and they all make a difference that I can pick out every time. I don't know which cables digitalaudioreview was using with the MK3, but I know the MK3 can scale higher with better cables. Just something to keep in mind.
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

BTW, the MK3 is affected by both USB cables and digital coax cables. I know John says that USB cables shouldn't matter, but I've tried several high-end (and low-end) ones now and they all make a difference that I can pick out every time. I don't know which cables digitalaudioreview was using with the MK3, but I know the MK3 can scale higher with better cables. Just something to keep in mind.
 

USB cables matter, and unfortunately the USB port matters as well. I think the SoTM USB card is pretty much mandatory for a serious computer transport setup. Motherboard ports that can have various levels of noise and interference and also have to deal with other devices are not the way to go. While the Audiophilleo can plug straight into the DAC, unless the DAC is right next to the PC, there is an argument for using a S/Pdif cable anyway. Coaxial digital cables can actually benefit from being 1.5 - 2M in length rather than shorter lengths, while as far as I know there is no benefit to using a long USB cable, only downsides. The USB cable should be as short as possible.
 
 
 

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

USB cables matter, and unfortunately the USB port matters as well. I think the SoTM USB card is pretty much mandatory for a serious computer transport setup. Motherboard ports that can have various levels of noise and interference and also have to deal with other devices are not the way to go. While the Audiophilleo can plug straight into the DAC, unless the DAC is right next to the PC, there is an argument for using a S/Pdif cable anyway. Coaxial digital cables can actually benefit from being 1.5 - 2M in length rather than shorter lengths, while as far as I know there is no benefit to using a long USB cable, only downsides. The USB cable should be as short as possible.
 
 
 

I agree. The USB port matters too, and I've tried out several from my PC and others to confirm this. I keep all my cables as short as possible (even coax). I read a whole debate on whether to use a 6 feet coax cable or one that's very short. Turns out both have their pros and cons but from experience, I know that shorter runs have sounded better to me.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shahrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
<snip>
I know John says that USB cables shouldn't matter, but I've tried several high-end (and low-end) ones now and they all make a difference that I can pick out every time.
<snip>
 

What does John know anyway??  

 
As long as a USB cable is up to spec there is no reason why it shouldn't perform as well as any other up to spec cable.
 
That you've been able to differentiate between up to spec USB cables is a further illustration of how fallible human hearing can be..... don't ya think????
 
The better question is "why" you hear a difference.
 
Quote:

....the USB port matters as well.....  Motherboard ports that can have various levels of noise and interference and also have to deal with other devices ....

 
Possibly true for the reasons you mentioned, although I've never seen any data to support it, and also because some ports offer power and some do not.
 
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

As long as a USB cable is up to spec there is no reason why it shouldn't perform as well as any other up to spec cable.
 
Possibly true for the reasons you mentioned, although I've never seen any data to support it, and also because some ports offer power and some do not.
 
 

What does "up to spec" mean? Whose spec? And what was the spec designed for? There is no "spec" for audiophile level transfer over USB as far as I know.
 
Chris over at Computer Audiophile noted significantly improved performance with the SoTM card in his server. It makes sense if you think about it. The card gets its own 5V DC straight from the PSU rather than by way of the motherboard's ATX 12V input that's also servicing about a million other components on the board. It's then cleaned up and fed to two discrete ports that aren't part of another shared hub.
 
 

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

What does "up to spec" mean? Whose spec? And what was the spec designed for? There is no "spec" for audiophile level transfer over USB as far as I know.
 
Chris over at Computer Audiophile noted significantly improved performance with the SoTM card in his server. It makes sense if you think about it. The card gets its own 5V DC straight from the PSU rather than by way of the motherboard's ATX 12V input that's also servicing about a million other components on the board. It's then cleaned up and fed to two discrete ports that aren't part of another shared hub.
 
 

Dave, could you please provide a link where I can read more about this SoTM card? I think I'd like to try one out.
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Dave, could you please provide a link where I can read more about this SoTM card? I think I'd like to try one out.
 

Sure. Chris talks about it in his server project article here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-Pocket-Server-CAPS-v20
 
Info on the card: http://sotm-audio.com/sotm/products/tX-USB.htm
 
http://www.sonore.us/SOtM.html#2

 

[Pricklely Peete]

300 USD ?  Holy crap.....

 
Peete.

 

[drez]

I have tried one of those in my P55 system with external power supply, testing all jumper settings and found the onboard ports sounded better.  Results might be better in a fully optimised dedicated music server but I have yet to build such a machine.
 
But at $300 you are much better buying a dedicated music server such as this one of these which actually contains the SoTM card as well as a CPU, motherboard, ram SSD and optimised Linux install for only $300 more, although this still doesn't mean that the SoTM card is any good.
 
All of these sources however are suspect as they are hosted on sites which distribute SoTM products so I would be cautious - none of the CMP² forum dudes use USB controller cards, but their rationale is pretty different.
 
The issue on my system may well be to do with the PCI bus sharing etc but unfortunately all the motherboards I wanted to try a music server build on are either out of production or yet to be released...
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

I have tried one of those in my P55 system with external power supply, testing all jumper settings and found the onboard ports sounded better.  Results might be better in a fully optimised dedicated music server but I have yet to build such a machine.
 
But at $300 you are much better buying a dedicated music server such as this one of these which actually contains the SoTM card as well as a CPU, motherboard, ram SSD and optimised Linux install for only $300 more, although this still doesn't mean that the SoTM card is any good.
 
All of these sources however are suspect as they are hosted on sites which distribute SoTM products so I would be cautious - none of the CMP² forum dudes use USB controller cards, but their rationale is pretty different.
 
The issue on my system may well be to do with the PCI bus sharing etc but unfortunately all the motherboards I wanted to try a music server build on are either out of production or yet to be released...
 

Another possibility rather than a PCI based card is the Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub, which is powered by a DC wall wart and regulated. Presumably a DIY battery supply could be easily made, or it could be powered with something like a Hynes linear supply.
 
http://www.vaunix.com/products/high-quality-usb-hub/overview.cfm
 

 

[Shahrose]

Just saw this message from John (on his website):
 
"...any owners of a MK2 can upgrade to a MK3 & get a €100 discount. Just purchase through paypal from my purchase page & leave a note that you are an owner of a MK2. I will check my records & refund you €100. Any previous purchasers of MK2 that have also bought a MK3 please contact me for this €100 refund."
 
I urge any previous owners on the fence to take advantage of this opportunity. I feel the MK3 is worth the upgrade over the earlier HiFaces.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

What does "up to spec" mean? Whose spec? And what was the spec designed for? There is no "spec" for audiophile level transfer over USB as far as I know.
 
Chris over at Computer Audiophile noted significantly improved performance with the SoTM card in his server. It makes sense if you think about it. The card gets its own 5V DC straight from the PSU rather than by way of the motherboard's ATX 12V input that's also servicing about a million other components on the board. It's then cleaned up and fed to two discrete ports that aren't part of another shared hub.
 
 

 
Up to spec means that the cable was made according to " USB specification 2.0 high speed ".  There are many cables like this.  The developers and associated information can be found here . The full USB 2.0 Electrical Test spec can be found here. 
 
Can you think of a reason why one up to spec  (and non defective) cable should transmit the 1s and 0s differently than another? 
 
 
What does the SoTM card do (besides providing power from the PSU) and what kind of testing did "Chris over at Computer Audiophile " do to support a "significantly improved performance" claim?  <---- just asking, because I have become very skeptical of unsupported claims that have no data to back them up.  <shrug>
 
How about using something like this?
 

 
 
 
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Up to spec means that the cable was made according to " USB specification 2.0 high speed ".  There are many cables like this.  The developers and associated information can be found here . The full USB 2.0 Electrical Test spec can be found here. 
 
Can you think of a reason why one up to spec  (and non defective) cable should transmit the 1s and 0s differently than another? 
 

 
When it comes to real time, digital audio transfer, the idea that's it's "just ones and zeroes" is a myth. If it was just transferring data from A to B, there would be no difference at all between asynchronous and adaptive, would there? Just 1s and 0s, moving data. Who cares where the clock comes from? Unfortunately things don't work that way.
 
Where in that spec does it say how to make a USB cable for real time digital audio streaming? I'm not seeing it.
 
A functional USB cable will not fail at its job. Sound will come out of it. Sound will also come out of speaker cables made out of aluminum or bronze as well. Would you want to listen to speakers using those cables? Probably not. They are "up to spec" though, as long as there's a positive and negative, they will work. Any USB cable with its wires and pins in the right place for the USB spec will work. USB was not designed for audiophile music streaming though, or it wouldn't have squeezed power and signal into the same bundle of wires.
 
If any thought was given to USB DACs when the design was created, it would resemble something more like internal SATA.