[olear]

Which DAP, aside from a Cowon has a S/PDIF output?  I prefer to utilize the DAC in the Leckerton UHA-6S.MKII and going with an Apple product will not allow the use of another DAC.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

Which DAP, aside from a Cowon has a S/PDIF output?  I prefer to utilize the DAC in the Leckerton UHA-6S.MKII and going with an Apple product will not allow the use of another DAC.

I do not know if the Android-powered Cowons (the D3 and Z2) have S/PDIF output or not, but the non-Android ones that I had do not have it.

 

[ClieOS]

COAX or Toslink? Old iriver has Toslink, Litte Dot DP_II has both, I think.

 

[olear]

Quote:

COAX or Toslink? Old iriver has Toslink, Litte Dot DP_II has both, I think.

Finally getting to hear how much better the UHA-6S.MKII sounds better than the prior amp I had.
Thanks ClieOS for your recommendation!
 
I have a RB Clip+ HO to the UHA input and HD600 connected to the phone jack of the UHA.
Listening on low gain, volume is set at 1:00 position on the volume. On high gain, I can only move up the volume so the white line is less than 9:00 position. Anything past this is way to loud. The bass is definitely more powerful and the sound is more clear.
 
Would the SQ increase if connect the HO of the Clip using a Coax and connecting the other end to the Coax on the UHA?
Which would you recommend the Coax or Toslink?

 

[qusp]

umm coax and toslink are for digital connections, nobody is recommending you connect your clip by coax to anything

 

[ClieOS]

Clip+ most definitely isn't capable of outputting digital, so connecting its HO to a COAX is a waste of time.

I think the general thinking is COAX is better than Toslink if everything else is equal since Toslink tends to have more jilter issue.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Clip+ most definitely isn't capable of outputting digital, so connecting its HO to a COAX is a waste of time.
I think the general thinking is COAX is better than Toslink if everything else is equal since Toslink tends to have more jilter issue.

nope, particularly for portable devices I would take optical over coax, most proper receivers will dominate the jitter as they will reclock, i've never come across a portable device that has a transformer coupled coax, let alone impedance matched, so the comparison isnt really very valid and will almost definitely be higher jitter than a well done optical input that isnt subject to that. it also means without the transformer than the 2 devices will share a ground, which could quite easily be catastrophic for jitter in the dac. shared ground plus using a mini for the coax will add up to higher jitter IMO.

 

[ClieOS]

I am thinking that way because I think I have read it some where that, on some devices that offer both output, the Toslink is reconverted from the coax signal so the extra process adds more jilter. Maybe that isn't true to all and it is all down to the actual implementation. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[qusp]

nah that would be a pretty flawed device that did that. spdif is the same on both coax or toslink, the only extra conversion is from electrical to light and light to electrical. This DOES create more jitter than a perfectly implemented electrical spdif, but a perfectly implemented electrical spdif circuit needs to be impedance matched (means proper termination, BNC connectors and transformers), which needs all connectors, traces and cables to be of consistent impedance (not a minijack or RCA in sight) and quality pcb layout. this will still create some jitter, but not as much as plain vanilla toslink. a sub-par (most) electrical spdif could easily create more
 
without a transformer you have the issue of the grounds being connected and the impedance being all wrong, which creates reflections->Jitter. all of these will be converted to i2s in a high quality dac and the receiver generally reclocks using its own clock, which may or may not be the same clock thats used for the dac master clock. a decent dac should not be any more effected by the jitter from the 2 different types, but optical makes it much easier to keep the 2 devices isolated.
 
something like the WM8804/5 receiver will spit out i2s with about 50ps of jitter regardless of source

 

[olear]

Quote:

nah that would be a pretty flawed device that did that. spdif is the same on both coax or toslink, the only extra conversion is from electrical to light and light to electrical. This DOES create more jitter than a perfectly implemented electrical spdif, but a perfectly implemented electrical spdif circuit needs to be impedance matched (means proper termination, BNC connectors and transformers), which needs all connectors, traces and cables to be of consistent impedance (not a minijack or RCA in sight) and quality pcb layout. this will still create some jitter, but not as much as plain vanilla toslink. a sub-par (most) electrical spdif could easily create more
 
without a transformer you have the issue of the grounds being connected and the impedance being all wrong, which creates reflections->Jitter. all of these will be converted to i2s in a high quality dac and the receiver generally reclocks using its own clock, which may or may not be the same clock thats used for the dac master clock. a decent dac should not be any more effected by the jitter from the 2 different types, but optical makes it much easier to keep the 2 devices isolated.
 
something like the WM8804/5 receiver will spit out i2s with about 50ps of jitter regardless of source

Does any portable DAP have spdif perhaps a Cowon? DX100 might? but very expensive.
Basically, any portable DAP that is chosen its DAC will be utilized. In this case, which would you choose: an iPod or a Sony?

 

[qusp]

apple, I dont need EQ and you cant rockbox a sony, I'm a mac user too so its only logical. besides the latest models sound pretty good IMO and have low enough impedance for my IEMs. that being said I never use them for music, I built my own dac/amp as I didnt like any of the choices on the market. I use an old iriver with optical out to drive it, but I have also modded one for coax out and i2s out.
 
there is iriver iHP1X0, sony D1, QA550, QA350, little dot dap MkI, MkII, dx100, some other fake wooden looking thing I cant remember the name of. no cowons. mostly old stuff, or bricks I dont need. I like the irivers remote as I can keep the rig in my rucksack or manbag and only need to change tracks on the remote clipped to my shirt or jacket

 

[olear]

Quote:

apple, I dont need EQ and you cant rockbox a sony, I'm a mac user too so its only logical. besides the latest models sound pretty good IMO and have low enough impedance for my IEMs. that being said I never use them for music, I built my own dac/amp as I didnt like any of the choices on the market. I use an old iriver with optical out to drive it, but I have also modded one for coax out and i2s out.
 
there is iriver iHP1X0, sony D1, QA550, QA350, little dot dap MkI, MkII, dx100, some other fake wooden looking thing I cant remember the name of. no cowons. mostly old stuff, or bricks I dont need. I like the irivers remote as I can keep the rig in my rucksack or manbag and only need to change tracks on the remote clipped to my shirt or jacket

Thanks for the helpful information. I will check into iriver and the little dot daps as I understand they will allow the UHA's DAC to be utililized? I also appreciate your thoughts on Cowon. There is a lot of hype not only from Head-fi but from also sites such as Cnet, consumerresearch, trustedreviews and others that make Cowon out to be superior in SQ especially compared to an iPod.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

 There is a lot of hype not only from Head-fi but from also sites such as Cnet, consumerresearch, trustedreviews and others that make Cowon out to be superior in SQ especially compared to an iPod.

 
People get sucked in by the array of sound enhancements on the Cowon players, but they are the proverbial slippery slope. Used in very careful, judicious increments they can be enjoyable, but it's very easy to go too far and forget what natural, accurate sound is. And without using them, the Cowon players are no better than a Sansa or an iPod, in my experience. (I'm sure some will disagree with that, of course)

 

[olear]

Quote:

 
People get sucked in by the array of sound enhancements on the Cowon players, but they are the proverbial slippery slope. Used in very careful, judicious increments they can be enjoyable, but it's very easy to go too far and forget what natural, accurate sound is. And without using them, the Cowon players are no better than a Sansa or an iPod, in my experience. (I'm sure some will disagree with that, of course)

I almost pulled the trigger on a Cowon. Thanks to you and other experienced HF'ers for keeping the hype as just that.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

I almost pulled the trigger on a Cowon. Thanks to you and other experienced HF'ers for keeping the hype as just that.

As soon as I found out that you don't use EQ or other tweaks, I knew that Cowon wasn't right for you. A lot of people love them, and that is fine.....they can be fun. I thought that the iAudio 9, which is of the same generation as the S9 and J3, sounded a little bit "thinner" (if that makes any sense) than my 4th-gen Touch did, with both players used flat, and with the most revealing headphones that I had at the time, and the same files on both players.