[slim.a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosgr63 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Back on track, when are the Mac drivers for the M2Tech hiFace going to be released?

By the way, I was just asked this morning by a junior head-fier in a PM if I still liked the hiface over my other converters.

The answer is yes, I am still using the hiface as my reference usb to spdif converter, however I couldn't fully recommend it to him since he intended to use it with Mac and I have no idea how it works in Mac.

tosehee, any news on the Mac front for the Hiface ?

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slim.a /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, I was just asked this morning by a junior head-fier in a PM if I still liked the hiface over my other converters. The answer is yes, I am still using the hiface as my reference usb to spdif converter, however I couldn't fully recommend it to him since he intended to use it with Mac and I have no idea how it works in Mac. tosehee, any news on the Mac front for the Hiface ?

What I know is, they already got the compile working, but they have some issues with version of OSX. But, from what I heard, it's not too far away from the beta driver.

I was told to wait until Friday last week, but I guess they are little behind. Soonish though from what I hear.

 

[rosgr63]

From Marco I understood it was a matter of days, but it hasn't been released yet.
I hope is OK with a Mac as I've already ordered it a few weeks ago!

 

[mmerrill99]

Dan, I've done some research into this now (not one to let such contradictory viewpoints just co-exist - I have to find my own position) & my evidence indicates that you are wrong - you don't take reflection coefficient into account which is the loss in signal that occurs at each end of the cable. So even if you have a really bad cable with 10-20% of the energy reflected, you cannot have anything like the number of reflections you state - i you have a good cable where 1% is reflected then after 1 round trip, your reflection from 1 volt is down to 0.01volt!

Here's my reference from Wenzel which gives a non-mathematical explanation of a lot of RF issues SWR, Return Loss, and Reflection Coefficient

 

[tosehee]

For love of God, take these discussions to PM or Science forum. I don't know why this type of request needs to be made several times. I mean, can't you respect a simple request of OP and rest of us?

 

[mmerrill99]

Sorry, guys, I didn't see your other posts before I posted my last post - I will let go of it here - as I said on many occasions to Dan let's take it up over on the thread referenced but he continued to post here. I'm sorry if I'm dogged in this but that's the learning process in operation (for me anyway) & when faced with such bullish contradictory opinion I have to get to the bottom of it. My last word on this here is that he appears to be completely wrong & misleading but I'll take it up on the other thread!

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkeny /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, guys, I didn't see your other posts before I posted my last post - I will let go of it here - as I said on many occasions to Dan let's take it up over on the thread referenced but he continued to post here. I'm sorry if I'm dogged in this but that's the learning process in operation (for me anyway) & when faced with such bullish contradictory opinion I have to get to the bottom of it. My last word on this here is that he appears to be completely wrong & misleading but I'll take it up on the other thread!

I have wasted a lot of time trying to help you understand. It has not worked, so be my guest, believe what you wish and be wrong forever.

Dan Lavry

 

[mmerrill99]

For love of God, take these discussions to PM or Science forum. I don't know why this type of request needs to be made several times. I mean, can't you respect a simple request of OP and rest of us?

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slim.a /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jkeny, could please let go of this subject and let us move on to something else. Dan Lavry has given enough information. At this point either you are convinced or not. - We all know there are articles saying we can't hear jitter and differences between cables. Let assume that those posting in this thread believe otherwise. If people want to discuss about - The intent of this thread is discuss about actual listening experiences using usb to spdif converters as transports and not about theory. If people hear (or don't hear differences) between different usb to spdif converters and digital cables, they should be able to express/share their listening experience free from criticism in this thread. My intent is not to sound harsh but to put back this thread in the right track.

Hello slim.

Yes, one can hear spdif and AES cables, and THERE IS a technical reason for it!

The mechanism is jitter related. One can read about it in the paper "Is the AES/EBU Standard Flawed", an AES publication from around 1995, by Proffesor Hawksford from Essex University (U.K.).

Hawksford and Dunn found out that a LONG CABLE will contribute further to the deterioration of the rise time, making the jitter higher. Funny, once again, the shorter the cable, the less rise time deterioration, so short is better.

One can read the paper, and of course I could explain it. But I do not want to.

Lets have jenkey explain it

Regards
Dan Lavry

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hello slim. Yes, one can hear spdif and AES cables, and THERE IS a technical reason for it! The mechanism is jitter related. One can read about it in the paper "Is the AES/EBU Standard Flawed", an AES publication from around 1995, by Proffesor Hawksford from Essex University (U.K.). Hawksford and Dunn found out that a LONG CABLE will contribute further to the deterioration of the rise time, making the jitter higher. Funny, once again, the shorter the cable, the less rise time deterioration, so short is better. One can read the paper, and of course I could explain it. But I do not want to. Lets have jenkey explain it Regards Dan Lavry

Dan Lavry, Thanks for the time you have taken to post in this thread.

By the way, is Lavry Engineering planning to release a usb to spdif converter ? I saw in your website that some of your DACs have usb inputs but there doesn't seem to be stand alone usb to spdif converters. It would be nice anyway if a "pro" company such as Lavry, Lynx or Prism Sound released such a product.

 

[mmerrill99]

If you guys continue to post on this thread then so will I & I don't expect to be told to leave it alone because I believe that Dan Lavry has left out a critical element of information about SPDIF signals in cables - reflective coefficient. And leaving this out amounts to misinformation as it is so critical to understanding of the whole process!

So, Dan, it's not about whether jitter can be heard or not & "opinions" such as these, it's about "FACTS" as you yourself said & the incontrovertible laws of physics!!

 

[DarKu]

jkeny if do not believe a proffesional dedicated sound ingineer who allready is in the bussiness for a long time, then i do not know who else you can believe. Reading some typical guy opinions is different from an opinion from an sound engineer, don't you think??.
Personally for me Dan put a lot of efforts here and i learned a lot from this thread alone.
Today around here i read about 60% of overhyped posts, 30$ of noobish posts and only 10% is valuable information around here...
PS: I'm still confused which USB to SPDIF converter should i get :-|

 

[regal]

It amazes me the OCD whenever the jitter topic comes up. I'll say this to DAC manufacturers, if they spent less time worrying about jitter and more time working with R2R DAC chips and zero feedback analog stages the quality of DAC's would be a lot better. Worrying about jitter and digital cable length is completely OCD. The quality of the sound in digital to analog conversion comes from the quality of the power supplies, the DAC chip, and the analog stage. Jitter reduction schemes are cheap and easy to market, the three things I pointed out are expensive and not profitable for sub $1000 DAC's, so we get the jitter OCD.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkeny /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dan, I've done some research into this now (not one to let such contradictory viewpoints just co-exist - I have to find my own position) & my evidence indicates that you are wrong - you don't take reflection coefficient into account which is the loss in signal that occurs at each end of the cable. So even if you have a really bad cable with 10-20% of the energy reflected, you cannot have anything like the number of reflections you state - i you have a good cable where 1% is reflected then after 1 round trip, your reflection from 1 volt is down to 0.01volt! Here's my reference from Wenzel which gives a non-mathematical explanation of a lot of RF issues SWR, Return Loss, and Reflection Coefficient

I don't see that paper as disagreeing with anything Dan Lavry has said. If anything useful, it talks about how long cables can change the characteristic impedance, as well as standing waves caused by impedance mis-match, neither of which we'd want in a digital cable. That's rather important IMO when it comes to converters, as any improvement they attempt to make to a digital signal by reducing the jitter might possibly be negated one isn't using a 50 Ohm cable from the converter to DAC.

 

[gattari]

Jkeny, buy a lavry DAC and live happy

, they are the state of the art, how do you counter the Dan lavry argomentations

??? Are you an engineer

?