I still use 💿..my decades old Denon 3520 to feed a cheap DAC ..and you know what ..it still sounds great. You’re absolutely right..jitter , clock data ..ect all need to be correct BUT even the red book standard of 16 bit -44.1 KHz can sound truly astonishing when processed and played back with a good system. That being said , it doesn’t matter how good the stream of data is (that’s being fed to the DAC) ..if the recording and mastering suck there’s no way of getting it to sound good . Again it comes down to the quality of the recording, the mixing and the mastering..then into the digital chain for consumers. As usual a great video. Thanks Paul and the team at PS Audio ☕️
I use Roon for Tidal streaming + local library of FLAC DSD etc and yes it does sound a lot better than any other basic player that goes via windows audio driver. This one sends the bit perfect signal to the DAC and you can the see DAC recognise the resolution of what you are playing. On windows driver it just locks on the bitrate you set and upsamples ou downsample everything to that resolution. Will try audirvana shortly and see whether there's a possible difference in sound from Roon and if it has a better interface.
the standard windows audio driver is always chewinggum sound. an asio bridge or wasapi to the digital output is very usefull. a few soundcards have build in hardware bridges, so that extra software solutions are not needed.
Audirvana Studio is now subscription based (software as a service), and it still has a few issues with the latest update but it's really a decent player / transport for local files and HQ subscription music services. Disclaimer: I don't work for that company. I'm just in the trial period now with the software and I like it so far. 🙂
Just send bit perfect audio to a dac using asynchronous USB. Store the bits in a FIFO on the dac. Dump all the USB clock data, and use dedicated internal clocks to control the FIFO and viola. You now have bit perfect jitter free audio.
I would have liked to get the PSAudio opinion on a DAC with a FIFO buffer/reclocker. I believe the DirectStream brands it as a "digital lens". Given bit perfect input, the FIFO reclocker/isolator should eliminate all upstream influence on sound. So with any PC or SBC upstream feeding bit perfect via I2S we should only hear the impact of the DAC.
Pretty new to all this. So if I stream a Tital Master track wirelessly through my Iphone into a Hegal H390 for example, the sound will not be optimized?
Good video, Paul. At the tail end you said, somebody who knew what they were doing to get the digits to sound right." Based on your inflectinos, it seems like you're implying there are some-to-many who don't know what they are doing? Do tell. :) Also, regarding this same statement, With potentially few who "know" what they are doing, how is one able to discern such in-the-know types?
Not only is the quality of the transport/digital source important but also how you connect the source to the dac. A decent coaxial connection sounds way better than an optical connection from the same source.
@@stevefagetaboutit8158 I had thought that it wouldn't make a difference, especially with a modern dac. A friend of mine has a high quality transport and had just got a new high end dac. We experimented swapping between an optical and coaxial connection. The difference in sound quality was not subtle with the coaxial being notably better. Who would have thunk it.
I HAVE A QUESTION: I took the hood off an old-skool amp, and found what I think is the rectifier. This rectifier, from what i've read, converts AC-DC, so does the state of my AC power matter?
Yes , and the better your gear the more noticeable it is . It is possible to go overboard on anything audio-related . I suggest you spend time researching and studying , rather than throwing money at the "problem" . Learning the basics of electricity is doable as there is logic in it and you already know more than you believe you do . safety first
@@nunofernandes4501 But there is also error correction to detect any bit flips (and correct them). The beauty about digital is that most proper protocols will just drop the chunk when it's bad. So you'll know when it does, because it either works or it doesn't.
@@EraYaN this is my understanding too. Yes, digital bits are carried by wires using voltage and amperage and resistance, but the digital information HAS all the musical data in it, so if something gets lost, either the error-correction fixes it or it comes out as a glitch - not as a reduction of soundstage or transparency or some other audiophile-speak. Now bit-perfect vs not- perfect is another matter - where something at the source changes the data being sent - I’ve read where Apple Music does this, but once the data is in the stream, it either IS or it AIN’T. Saying that a streamer does something to process the data somehow - clocks, etc. implies that some of the source data was lost or changed and it’s “fixing” it, but how does the streamer or transport know what to fix? It would have to know what’s supposed to be there which would have to come from the digital stream it’s trying to fix. Makes no sense. The only other possibility I could think of is if the streamer or DAC has the ability to sense the losing of data and downgrades, resamples, or interpolates, like how your smart TV reduces or improves the video quality based on bandwidth, but I don’t think that happens in audio, or does it?
@@jonl1034 I´m not gonna pretend I know why or how. But I suggest to check out the latest video from Audio Excellence Canada, great audiophile channel and retailer, they discuss the sonic difference between two affordable streamers.
I use Neutron Player on android to bypass the android audio drivers and send bitperfect data to my DAC. It does sound noticeably better than players that don't bypass the driver.
I'd also like to call out JRiver Media Center that's available for Mac/Windows (or both) with direct bitstream output. It's sophistication might take more effort to get configured ideally for your setup.
It depends on how well the DAC deals with Jitter. Some older cheaper DAC chips will sound worse while newer or more expensive ones will hardly be affected. (Edit. When using TOSlink it is the source clock that makes the difference since it is responsible for the timing, the DAC can't do anything about it. Via USB jitter will be less because it can be handled by the DAC).
@@NoEgg4u Any dac that has its own FIFO buffer, isolator & reclocker. The PSAudio DirectStream is one example. In this case, you only need to worry that the source is bit perfect. IE ASIO or WSAPI.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w "Any dac"? -- that has the components that you listed? I hope that Walmart starts selling FIFO buffers, isolators and reclockers. As long as you use them, your DAC will qualify for quality status? And if the DAC has the aforementioned components, then why would the source need to be bit perfect? The DAC is going to fix everything. Right? Even PS Audio's DAC will be affected by jitter. All DACs are affected by jitter. There are no exceptions. In any event, I am waiting to hear from D1N02, who claims that more expensive DACs will hardly be affected. That is like saying that more expensive speakers will hardly be affected by the source.
@@NoEgg4u There is a lot to talk about in this... I did not say that it would sound good, just not terribly affected by the source. To sound good a lot of things have to be done right. Don't expect to see Walmart selling these as they will typically appear in better DACs. The BOM for a decent FIFO is about $100. The clock could be $30 to thousands. The sale price has to be a multiple of that so think Directstream pricing and above. All DAC's are affected by Jitter, but if the Jitter is defined by the FIFO reclocker, then everything upstream does not matter. You are not listening to a signal timed by the source, you are listening to the FIFO reclocker. The FIFO is a buffer/isolator and a clock. It's sole purpose is to eliminate the sound impact of the source. So if you speak of a PS Audio DAC that has a FIFO/clock then it is isolated from upstream Jitter. The DAC chip/ladder/process depends on the quality of the clock in the FIFO reclocker. In the Directstream it is a Crystek. A decent mid fi clock that costs around $30. A top DAC may have a clock with 100 times less jitter and cost a LOT more. D1N02 will likely cite an expensive DAC that has a well implemented FIFO/isolation/reclock scheme. In which case he will be right. Cheers
Me too. I use Moode as my OS. Just ordered an Allo DigiSig (also RPi based) with BNC output for comparison. Curious to see if I will hear any difference.
Proof? Don't know about that. But as anecdotal evidence my Schitt DAC has a warning light that illuminates if the DAC determines the digital source is too jittery. So, that's at least two manufacturers that seem to suggest jitter matters.
No one can prove what they heard, to a third party -- any more than they can prove that their local burger joint is better than McDonalds. Each person would have to listen for themselves. But to suggest that jitter is an illusion and has no affect on sound quality is wrong. Jitter exists, and quality transports minimize jitter, resulting in better sound quality.
@@davidfairchild1640 For USB connection, I doubt which modern DAC still makes use of Sync data stream, and so the clock is from your source? For TOSLink and SPDIF, yes, DAC locks to the source clock, but each manufacturer claims their small crystal inside their equipment is superior to the other brandnames.
@@NoEgg4u Yes, jitter is real, but there are scientific studies on perceivable jitter that human can detect. It's not in the range that one's normal, in the market, brandnames will produce. Even those super-expensive brands which claim to use TCXO, it has no effect on jitter, but just long term accuracy, and long term accuracy has nothing to do with audio quality.
Absolutely source matters. Tried it with a sony player vs Cambridge transport. Both going through the same dac. The difference is very noticeable. Also coax sounds way better that optical.
No, not in this situation it doesn't. One caveat - both transports must adhere to Red Book standard (which the Sony definitely will and from memory so do Cambridge) rather than using a cheap'n'cheerful multi-playing multi-format DVD style player, which may not meet the Red Book standard. If your Sony player is acting purely as a transport, then it will sound exactly the same as the Cambridge being used solely as a transport. The DAC will be receiving exactly the same digital signal and then doing the conversion of it. You've fallen into the trap of confirmation bias.
If you take a CD for example, the laser pickup is a wonder of analog engineering, trying to discriminate between pits and no pits with the reflection being read as an analog voltage, with plenty of noise and interference from dust and fingerprints. There's an awful lot of error correction making it happen and that error correction mostly fixes errors to 100%. But not always.
It will only mess with it if you don't have a properly configured one, Windows for example in WASAPI exclusive mode (the mode where the volume control stops working) it streams everything as is. And your player can on supported hardware adjust the sampling rate of the dac on the fly. Same goes with macOS and CoreAudio (macOS will also disable volume control when this mode is active) some audio interfaces force this mode at all times (most professional gear will).
Some interconnects that are poorly constructed, or are too long, will not always deliver the zeros and ones accurately. For computer equipment, this usually will not be noticed, due to error correction. If a file transfer has to resend a few packets of data, then a fraction of a second delay for completion of the file transfer will not matter, just as if a web page takes a tenth of a second longer to load. But for music, you will hear those delays -- even if you do not realize that they are there, until you fix the delays and hear the music blossom. With audio gear, there is no retransmission of bad packets of data. The DAC will process whatever it receives. Also, the timing of the packets of data is critical, for obtaining the best sound quality. Time-wise: If the zeros and the ones show up clustered together, followed by being spread out, then that is how the DAC will process those zeros and ones. In an ideal transport condition, you want a bit-perfect data stream. You want all of the zeros and ones to arrive at the DAC in unison. Just as you would not want an old, film based, movie to play its frames at irregular time intervals, the zeros and ones are the frames that make up the sound that the DAC will turn into sound. You want to frames to be perfectly times. That is the job of a quality transport. Cheers!
@@NoEgg4u You really can't "not hear" audio glitches though. It's not affecting the quality in the way you describe because nobody is going to listen to glitching audio. When say USB drops a frame that is like 512 or 256 samples gone, you hear that, like super easily. Has nothing to do with "blossoming" of the music or whatever. And a DAC (the device not the chip) that truly works without buffering yes you might hear some glitches if your interconnect is shit (which IMO is a bad design but alas). Though if you really have a DAC THAT cheap I don't think the bit of word jitter from some digital transport is where your problem lies. Every good DAC holds at least 512 samples or probably half a second of audio in a buffer, especially for audio only products. And for video products most seem to "guess" at about 1 frame (so 16ms for most 60Hz content) to correct video processing latency. Which is more than enough to smooth out ANY jitter in the digital domain. And when that deadline is missed because the system is bottom tier you get a glitch. When a CPU can't keep up for example and can't serve the next say 512 samples before the previous one have finished being played due to high load on the CPU, but that should never happen for just playback from a file or source the only time that is really an issue in in a DAW with too many plugins and layers.
@@EraYaN The best quality DACs have zero buffering. They rely on having a quality transport deliver bit-perfect data streams to them. The best quality DACs to the job of being a DAC, and only a DAC. If a DAC buffers data, which results in the DAC feeding data to itself, then that DAC is doubling as a transport. And that level of a transport will have mass produced, imprecise clocking crystals, resulting in jitter. That does not mean that they will sound bad. Many of them sound very good. However, without a quality transport that delivers a bit perfect data stream to a DAC, you will have jitter, and you can hear the jitter. If you do not hear the jitter, it is because you are accustomed to always hearing jitter. Once you hear a DAC produce a song, jitter free (or as close to jitter free as possible), then you will recognize the jitter that you currently think you do not hear. If the only hamburgers you ever ate were from McDonalds, you would probably say there is nothing wrong with them, they are very good, and people who complain are imagining things. That is mostly true. There is nothing wrong with those burgers. They are very good. Then, you eat a hamburger prepared by a Top Chef, and you then recognize the difference. Jitter is there. When you eliminate (or minimize it), the music blossoms.
My first thought was that the DAC only receives 0s and 1s, so the source shouldn't matter. Then I realised that the transport's job is to send the DAC the same 0s and 1s that were on the master recording, and that depends on how well it corrects disc errors. Case in point: I have a couple of vintage CD players, one with a Sony mechanism and one with a Philips. The Sony is prone to skipping if the disc isn't spotlessly clean, but the Philips doesn't care - its error correction is far more accurate than the Sony's.
Skipping is nothing to do with error correction - that's a hardware fault, and naturally if you have a defective transport then that will affect what the DAC receives. If both the Sony and the Philips are maintained and serviced then they will both send the same 1s and 0s, and both being Red Book standard devices, will sound exactly the same through an external DAC.
there is no way you can hear a difference from a file coming from even Floppy Disk compared to whatever you are selling. Kernel sound is one thing, transfer of data is another.
Please provide a list of the high-end, professionally set-up stereo gear that you used for your "floppy disk" listening test. Please include all components, including interconnects, power conditioners, and room treatments.
Aha - we got to the nub of the "digital source matters" answer at 2 minutes in - there's a PS Audio Streamer on the way, folks! Really, you need to listen to the question - "high quality DAC with a digital signal being sent to it". The "high-quality DAC" mentioned right at the start of the question does all the work, all the converting, and there is no difference - none - made by using a Sonos or a Linn or Cambridge Audio or whatever else if they are all just sending the same purely digital information to that DAC because they are just sending a purely digital signal, nothing more, nothing less. That's exactly why digital is so good - in terms of audio quality, the only thing you need to spend money on to get the best signal is a very good DAC - whether onboard or external.
@@davidfairchild1640 A) Not calling anyone a liar. Differences of opinion don't have to resort to childish name-calling. B) I'm saying the digital source doesn't matter. C) *Perfect
Translation: "Quality stereo gear is out of my reach. So I am bashing it, trying to convince myself that I am not missing out on the enjoyment that others are experiencing" "I also like to give my own comment a thumb's up"
@@NoEgg4u I've had it all, extremely expensive and cheap. You know what they say 'a fool and his money'. You carry on. And my hearing is perfect by the way.
@@eddiebaby22 "I've had it all..." And I've heard it all, including claims of having had it all. Because there is a saying about a fool and his money, does not mean that all pricey stereo equipment is foolish to buy. Just because all squares are rectangles, does not mean that all rectangles are squares. Using an old saying, out of context, just to continue name calling ("fools") those who you envy, illustrates how childlike you are. And because you say that your hearing is perfect, it bothers you all the more that you cannot listen to desirable stereos that others can. So you call those people suckers. And yet, you are still left out. I am, too. But I hold no animus for those that have expensive, great sounding stereos. Unlike you, I am not an envy troll.
@@NoEgg4u There's is reality and there is recorded audio. Recorded audio doesn't get better every year because equipment gets better every year. Some of the best and still most sort after speakers are 40years old (ls3/5a) you would think in 40 years sound reproduction would have improved. All that's improved is the choice to waste your money on. All hifi is just effects boxes, if there was a goal of ultimate fidelity every high end manufacturer would make the same thing. But its not how its is, they all make different equipment, that all sounds different. You want to waste your money carry on. I woke up to it a short while ago, I still love audio equipment and have been an audiophile for over 30years. You don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good hifi. And certainly the amount you spend has absolutely no correlation to improvement.
@@eddiebaby22 "you would think in 40 years sound reproduction would have improved" It has. th-cam.com/video/aNIGvSexydM/w-d-xo.html "if there was a goal of ultimate fidelity every high end manufacturer would make the same thing" I guess that car manufacturers have not been in touch with you for your "make the same thing" idea for their industry, too. "You don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good hifi" That is true. "And certainly the amount you spend has absolutely no correlation to improvement" That is not true, but could be true. It depends... If you blindly spend $100,000 on a stereo, without matching up the gear, without having it professionally set-up, then under those circumstances the suitcase of cash will not correlate to the sound quality. If you skillfully, knowledgeably, informatively, spend $100,000 on a stereo, with components that make an outstanding marriage, then the suitcase of cash will correlate to the sound quality. You keep insisting that expensive is always a waste of money. That is the same as insisting that all rectangles are squares. A fool and his money applies to poor purchasing decisions. It does not apply to an expensive, yet spectacular, sounding stereo system. If you are bitter because you spent a great deal and were disappointing, then that would explain why you believe that expensive stereo gear is wasteful. And it could also explain why you envy people that spent a great deal, and made great choices and have amazing sounding stereos.
I still use 💿..my decades old Denon 3520 to feed a cheap DAC ..and you know what ..it still sounds great.
You’re absolutely right..jitter , clock data ..ect all need to be correct BUT even the red book standard of 16 bit -44.1 KHz can sound truly astonishing when processed and played back with a good system.
That being said , it doesn’t matter how good the stream of data is (that’s being fed to the DAC) ..if the recording and mastering suck there’s no way of getting it to sound good .
Again it comes down to the quality of the recording, the mixing and the mastering..then into the digital chain for consumers.
As usual a great video.
Thanks Paul and the team at PS Audio ☕️
Excellent video on how to make digital even better. In 30 years all the records will be gone. We need to embrace digital music NOW.
I was just wondering about this. Very timely video for me. Thanks!
I use Roon for Tidal streaming + local library of FLAC DSD etc and yes it does sound a lot better than any other basic player that goes via windows audio driver. This one sends the bit perfect signal to the DAC and you can the see DAC recognise the resolution of what you are playing. On windows driver it just locks on the bitrate you set and upsamples ou downsample everything to that resolution. Will try audirvana shortly and see whether there's a possible difference in sound from Roon and if it has a better interface.
the standard windows audio driver is always chewinggum sound.
an asio bridge or wasapi to the digital output is very usefull.
a few soundcards have build in hardware bridges, so that extra software solutions are not needed.
What's your opinion about Roon in comparison with Audirvana on a Mac M1?
Roon is too expensive.
@@haula251 yes, but with one licence you can have as many clients as you desire.
Audirvana Studio is now subscription based (software as a service), and it still has a few issues with the latest update but it's really a decent player / transport for local files and HQ subscription music services.
Disclaimer: I don't work for that company. I'm just in the trial period now with the software and I like it so far. 🙂
doesn't apple music do 24-bit/192kHz now on the mac mini??
Could use ASIO drivers w/ the dac
Just send bit perfect audio to a dac using asynchronous USB. Store the bits in a FIFO on the dac. Dump all the USB clock data, and use dedicated internal clocks to control the FIFO and viola. You now have bit perfect jitter free audio.
3:07 Can someone help me understand what Paul's saying? Something-BANA ???
Audirvana
I would have liked to get the PSAudio opinion on a DAC with a FIFO buffer/reclocker. I believe the DirectStream brands it as a "digital lens". Given bit perfect input, the FIFO reclocker/isolator should eliminate all upstream influence on sound. So with any PC or SBC upstream feeding bit perfect via I2S we should only hear the impact of the DAC.
Pretty new to all this. So if I stream a Tital Master track wirelessly through my Iphone into a Hegal H390 for example, the sound will not be optimized?
Afaik, if we use ASIO or WASAPI output from Windows it emits bit perfect audio to the dac. right?
IMO, yes. I'm using my linux a for years now but I miss WASAPI output. It bypasses everything.
what new streamer? when was this shot?
Good video, Paul. At the tail end you said, somebody who knew what they were doing to get the digits to sound right." Based on your inflectinos, it seems like you're implying there are some-to-many who don't know what they are doing? Do tell. :) Also, regarding this same statement, With potentially few who "know" what they are doing, how is one able to discern such in-the-know types?
Not only is the quality of the transport/digital source important but also how you connect the source to the dac. A decent coaxial connection sounds way better than an optical connection from the same source.
Wait, WHAAAT????
@@stevefagetaboutit8158 I had thought that it wouldn't make a difference, especially with a modern dac. A friend of mine has a high quality transport and had just got a new high end dac. We experimented swapping between an optical and coaxial connection. The difference in sound quality was not subtle with the coaxial being notably better. Who would have thunk it.
It seems like digital is complicating and a lot of work. Would it be easier just to stick with vynal and stay analog the whole signal path?
Just thought about building a moving parts free source Intel NUC is cheap...would love to see measurement difference in SSD vs HDD vs CD transport
I HAVE A QUESTION: I took the hood off an old-skool amp, and found what I think is the rectifier. This rectifier, from what i've read, converts AC-DC, so does the state of my AC power matter?
Yes , and the better your gear the more noticeable it is . It is possible to go overboard on anything audio-related . I suggest you spend time researching and studying , rather than throwing money at the "problem" . Learning the basics of electricity is doable as there is logic in it and you already know more than you believe you do . safety first
@@biketech60 (heart)
Do you still allow visitors there??
What turntable is that
Digital signals are also analog. The 1´s and 0´s are defined by a voltage "penduling" and as we know, nothing is perfect.
nonsense
@@Harald_Reindl the signal travelling in a coaxial or usb cable is electrical voltages, not ones and zeros and is not immune to distortions.
@@nunofernandes4501 But there is also error correction to detect any bit flips (and correct them). The beauty about digital is that most proper protocols will just drop the chunk when it's bad. So you'll know when it does, because it either works or it doesn't.
@@EraYaN this is my understanding too. Yes, digital bits are carried by wires using voltage and amperage and resistance, but the digital information HAS all the musical data in it, so if something gets lost, either the error-correction fixes it or it comes out as a glitch - not as a reduction of soundstage or transparency or some other audiophile-speak. Now bit-perfect vs not- perfect is another matter - where something at the source changes the data being sent - I’ve read where Apple Music does this, but once the data is in the stream, it either IS or it AIN’T. Saying that a streamer does something to process the data somehow - clocks, etc. implies that some of the source data was lost or changed and it’s “fixing” it, but how does the streamer or transport know what to fix? It would have to know what’s supposed to be there which would have to come from the digital stream it’s trying to fix. Makes no sense. The only other possibility I could think of is if the streamer or DAC has the ability to sense the losing of data and downgrades, resamples, or interpolates, like how your smart TV reduces or improves the video quality based on bandwidth, but I don’t think that happens in audio, or does it?
@@jonl1034 I´m not gonna pretend I know why or how. But I suggest to check out the latest video from Audio Excellence Canada, great audiophile channel and retailer, they discuss the sonic difference between two affordable streamers.
I use Neutron Player on android to bypass the android audio drivers and send bitperfect data to my DAC. It does sound noticeably better than players that don't bypass the driver.
Hello to you🥰
I wanted to ask if roon core got bit perfect built-in?
Thanks allot!
Yes if you set it up that way
What about foobar2000?
What is the mac program?
Paul is using BitPerfect but you could also use Audiovana or Roon
I'd also like to call out JRiver Media Center that's available for Mac/Windows (or both) with direct bitstream output. It's sophistication might take more effort to get configured ideally for your setup.
Linux audiophile os put that on your computer can boot from USB
Sprout stream! 499. Built in dual ess dacs fully balanced and unbalanced out, dual sub out, tidal connect, spotify connect, airplay, bluetooth....earc, spdif , coax in . Bam
Is your answer the same if Sonos and Linn are streaming from Qobuz and using digital out to a dac?
audiophiles here differences even if there aren't one
oh my god. still talk of mac minis? I truly thought that was behind us. Now others will invest in mac minis. well done...
It depends on how well the DAC deals with Jitter. Some older cheaper DAC chips will sound worse while newer or more expensive ones will hardly be affected. (Edit. When using TOSlink it is the source clock that makes the difference since it is responsible for the timing, the DAC can't do anything about it. Via USB jitter will be less because it can be handled by the DAC).
Please provide an example of a quality DAC that would hardly be affected by jitter.
@@NoEgg4u Any dac that has its own FIFO buffer, isolator & reclocker. The PSAudio DirectStream is one example. In this case, you only need to worry that the source is bit perfect. IE ASIO or WSAPI.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w "Any dac"? -- that has the components that you listed?
I hope that Walmart starts selling FIFO buffers, isolators and reclockers. As long as you use them, your DAC will qualify for quality status?
And if the DAC has the aforementioned components, then why would the source need to be bit perfect? The DAC is going to fix everything. Right?
Even PS Audio's DAC will be affected by jitter. All DACs are affected by jitter. There are no exceptions.
In any event, I am waiting to hear from D1N02, who claims that more expensive DACs will hardly be affected. That is like saying that more expensive speakers will hardly be affected by the source.
@@NoEgg4u There is a lot to talk about in this... I did not say that it would sound good, just not terribly affected by the source. To sound good a lot of things have to be done right.
Don't expect to see Walmart selling these as they will typically appear in better DACs. The BOM for a decent FIFO is about $100. The clock could be $30 to thousands. The sale price has to be a multiple of that so think Directstream pricing and above.
All DAC's are affected by Jitter, but if the Jitter is defined by the FIFO reclocker, then everything upstream does not matter. You are not listening to a signal timed by the source, you are listening to the FIFO reclocker. The FIFO is a buffer/isolator and a clock. It's sole purpose is to eliminate the sound impact of the source.
So if you speak of a PS Audio DAC that has a FIFO/clock then it is isolated from upstream Jitter. The DAC chip/ladder/process depends on the quality of the clock in the FIFO reclocker. In the Directstream it is a Crystek. A decent mid fi clock that costs around $30. A top DAC may have a clock with 100 times less jitter and cost a LOT more.
D1N02 will likely cite an expensive DAC that has a well implemented FIFO/isolation/reclock scheme. In which case he will be right.
Cheers
Love your armchairs, mate!
Thank u Pau
This is my exact question. lol.
Im using Raspberry Pi which I bought just for 50$ and it does the job perfectly (as audio src)
Me too. I use Moode as my OS. Just ordered an Allo DigiSig (also RPi based) with BNC output for comparison. Curious to see if I will hear any difference.
@@davidfairchild1640 Darko audio 👀
@@davidfairchild1640 I use volumio and its ok. I have doubts about difference....
Audirvina just went subscription recently like roon otherwise I would have made the switch
Jitter from USB, TOSLink, SPDIF, which affect sound quality, proof please?
Proof? Don't know about that. But as anecdotal evidence my Schitt DAC has a warning light that illuminates if the DAC determines the digital source is too jittery. So, that's at least two manufacturers that seem to suggest jitter matters.
No one can prove what they heard, to a third party -- any more than they can prove that their local burger joint is better than McDonalds.
Each person would have to listen for themselves.
But to suggest that jitter is an illusion and has no affect on sound quality is wrong. Jitter exists, and quality transports minimize jitter, resulting in better sound quality.
@@davidfairchild1640 For USB connection, I doubt which modern DAC still makes use of Sync data stream, and so the clock is from your source? For TOSLink and SPDIF, yes, DAC locks to the source clock, but each manufacturer claims their small crystal inside their equipment is superior to the other brandnames.
@@NoEgg4u Yes, jitter is real, but there are scientific studies on perceivable jitter that human can detect. It's not in the range that one's normal, in the market, brandnames will produce. Even those super-expensive brands which claim to use TCXO, it has no effect on jitter, but just long term accuracy, and long term accuracy has nothing to do with audio quality.
This is widely known and extremely well documented. Use your ears and stop being a dickhead.
Absolutely source matters. Tried it with a sony player vs Cambridge transport. Both going through the same dac. The difference is very noticeable. Also coax sounds way better that optical.
nonsense
No, not in this situation it doesn't. One caveat - both transports must adhere to Red Book standard (which the Sony definitely will and from memory so do Cambridge) rather than using a cheap'n'cheerful multi-playing multi-format DVD style player, which may not meet the Red Book standard. If your Sony player is acting purely as a transport, then it will sound exactly the same as the Cambridge being used solely as a transport. The DAC will be receiving exactly the same digital signal and then doing the conversion of it. You've fallen into the trap of confirmation bias.
@@richardt3371 that happens when people from the old analog / vinyl ages can't get their brain follow how digital works
@Sblackfll He's not so much wrong as plugging the soon to be released PS Audio Streamer with magic bean compatibility.
@Taco Lol. Course you did.
If you take a CD for example, the laser pickup is a wonder of analog engineering, trying to discriminate between pits and no pits with the reflection being read as an analog voltage, with plenty of noise and interference from dust and fingerprints. There's an awful lot of error correction making it happen and that error correction mostly fixes errors to 100%. But not always.
Does it mean 101001 is not streamed as 101001 and it varies from one digital streamer to another ?
It will only mess with it if you don't have a properly configured one, Windows for example in WASAPI exclusive mode (the mode where the volume control stops working) it streams everything as is. And your player can on supported hardware adjust the sampling rate of the dac on the fly. Same goes with macOS and CoreAudio (macOS will also disable volume control when this mode is active) some audio interfaces force this mode at all times (most professional gear will).
Some interconnects that are poorly constructed, or are too long, will not always deliver the zeros and ones accurately.
For computer equipment, this usually will not be noticed, due to error correction. If a file transfer has to resend a few packets of data, then a fraction of a second delay for completion of the file transfer will not matter, just as if a web page takes a tenth of a second longer to load. But for music, you will hear those delays -- even if you do not realize that they are there, until you fix the delays and hear the music blossom.
With audio gear, there is no retransmission of bad packets of data. The DAC will process whatever it receives.
Also, the timing of the packets of data is critical, for obtaining the best sound quality.
Time-wise: If the zeros and the ones show up clustered together, followed by being spread out, then that is how the DAC will process those zeros and ones.
In an ideal transport condition, you want a bit-perfect data stream. You want all of the zeros and ones to arrive at the DAC in unison.
Just as you would not want an old, film based, movie to play its frames at irregular time intervals, the zeros and ones are the frames that make up the sound that the DAC will turn into sound. You want to frames to be perfectly times. That is the job of a quality transport.
Cheers!
@@NoEgg4u Thanks for the detailed explanation.
@@NoEgg4u You really can't "not hear" audio glitches though. It's not affecting the quality in the way you describe because nobody is going to listen to glitching audio. When say USB drops a frame that is like 512 or 256 samples gone, you hear that, like super easily. Has nothing to do with "blossoming" of the music or whatever.
And a DAC (the device not the chip) that truly works without buffering yes you might hear some glitches if your interconnect is shit (which IMO is a bad design but alas). Though if you really have a DAC THAT cheap I don't think the bit of word jitter from some digital transport is where your problem lies. Every good DAC holds at least 512 samples or probably half a second of audio in a buffer, especially for audio only products. And for video products most seem to "guess" at about 1 frame (so 16ms for most 60Hz content) to correct video processing latency. Which is more than enough to smooth out ANY jitter in the digital domain. And when that deadline is missed because the system is bottom tier you get a glitch. When a CPU can't keep up for example and can't serve the next say 512 samples before the previous one have finished being played due to high load on the CPU, but that should never happen for just playback from a file or source the only time that is really an issue in in a DAW with too many plugins and layers.
@@EraYaN The best quality DACs have zero buffering. They rely on having a quality transport deliver bit-perfect data streams to them.
The best quality DACs to the job of being a DAC, and only a DAC. If a DAC buffers data, which results in the DAC feeding data to itself, then that DAC is doubling as a transport. And that level of a transport will have mass produced, imprecise clocking crystals, resulting in jitter.
That does not mean that they will sound bad. Many of them sound very good.
However, without a quality transport that delivers a bit perfect data stream to a DAC, you will have jitter, and you can hear the jitter.
If you do not hear the jitter, it is because you are accustomed to always hearing jitter. Once you hear a DAC produce a song, jitter free (or as close to jitter free as possible), then you will recognize the jitter that you currently think you do not hear.
If the only hamburgers you ever ate were from McDonalds, you would probably say there is nothing wrong with them, they are very good, and people who complain are imagining things. That is mostly true. There is nothing wrong with those burgers. They are very good. Then, you eat a hamburger prepared by a Top Chef, and you then recognize the difference.
Jitter is there. When you eliminate (or minimize it), the music blossoms.
Dear Paul, wtf happened to the bass traps behind you. How and why do you keep those beat up old pieces of nonsense that are all beat to heck.
You've heard them in his room so you know they are nonsense?
My first thought was that the DAC only receives 0s and 1s, so the source shouldn't matter. Then I realised that the transport's job is to send the DAC the same 0s and 1s that were on the master recording, and that depends on how well it corrects disc errors. Case in point: I have a couple of vintage CD players, one with a Sony mechanism and one with a Philips. The Sony is prone to skipping if the disc isn't spotlessly clean, but the Philips doesn't care - its error correction is far more accurate than the Sony's.
Skipping is nothing to do with error correction - that's a hardware fault, and naturally if you have a defective transport then that will affect what the DAC receives. If both the Sony and the Philips are maintained and serviced then they will both send the same 1s and 0s, and both being Red Book standard devices, will sound exactly the same through an external DAC.
there is no way you can hear a difference from a file coming from even Floppy Disk compared to whatever you are selling. Kernel sound is one thing, transfer of data is another.
Please provide a list of the high-end, professionally set-up stereo gear that you used for your "floppy disk" listening test.
Please include all components, including interconnects, power conditioners, and room treatments.
Aha - we got to the nub of the "digital source matters" answer at 2 minutes in - there's a PS Audio Streamer on the way, folks!
Really, you need to listen to the question - "high quality DAC with a digital signal being sent to it". The "high-quality DAC" mentioned right at the start of the question does all the work, all the converting, and there is no difference - none - made by using a Sonos or a Linn or Cambridge Audio or whatever else if they are all just sending the same purely digital information to that DAC because they are just sending a purely digital signal, nothing more, nothing less. That's exactly why digital is so good - in terms of audio quality, the only thing you need to spend money on to get the best signal is a very good DAC - whether onboard or external.
not remotely true i'm afraid
@@johnholmes912 Except all of it, you mean.
So, you're saying Paul is lying that some sources don't send a bit prefect signal?
@@davidfairchild1640 A) Not calling anyone a liar. Differences of opinion don't have to resort to childish name-calling. B) I'm saying the digital source doesn't matter. C) *Perfect
Hey Paul, please ensure that the new streamer supports MQA. Thanks
People pay too much for digital, audiophiles are suckers for BS.
Translation:
"Quality stereo gear is out of my reach. So I am bashing it, trying to convince myself that I am not missing out on the enjoyment that others are experiencing"
"I also like to give my own comment a thumb's up"
@@NoEgg4u I've had it all, extremely expensive and cheap. You know what they say 'a fool and his money'. You carry on. And my hearing is perfect by the way.
@@eddiebaby22 "I've had it all..."
And I've heard it all, including claims of having had it all.
Because there is a saying about a fool and his money, does not mean that all pricey stereo equipment is foolish to buy.
Just because all squares are rectangles, does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
Using an old saying, out of context, just to continue name calling ("fools") those who you envy, illustrates how childlike you are.
And because you say that your hearing is perfect, it bothers you all the more that you cannot listen to desirable stereos that others can. So you call those people suckers. And yet, you are still left out. I am, too. But I hold no animus for those that have expensive, great sounding stereos. Unlike you, I am not an envy troll.
@@NoEgg4u There's is reality and there is recorded audio. Recorded audio doesn't get better every year because equipment gets better every year. Some of the best and still most sort after speakers are 40years old (ls3/5a) you would think in 40 years sound reproduction would have improved. All that's improved is the choice to waste your money on.
All hifi is just effects boxes, if there was a goal of ultimate fidelity every high end manufacturer would make the same thing. But its not how its is, they all make different equipment, that all sounds different. You want to waste your money carry on. I woke up to it a short while ago, I still love audio equipment and have been an audiophile for over 30years. You don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good hifi. And certainly the amount you spend has absolutely no correlation to improvement.
@@eddiebaby22 "you would think in 40 years sound reproduction would have improved"
It has.
th-cam.com/video/aNIGvSexydM/w-d-xo.html
"if there was a goal of ultimate fidelity every high end manufacturer would make the same thing"
I guess that car manufacturers have not been in touch with you for your "make the same thing" idea for their industry, too.
"You don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good hifi"
That is true.
"And certainly the amount you spend has absolutely no correlation to improvement"
That is not true, but could be true. It depends...
If you blindly spend $100,000 on a stereo, without matching up the gear, without having it professionally set-up, then under those circumstances the suitcase of cash will not correlate to the sound quality.
If you skillfully, knowledgeably, informatively, spend $100,000 on a stereo, with components that make an outstanding marriage, then the suitcase of cash will correlate to the sound quality.
You keep insisting that expensive is always a waste of money.
That is the same as insisting that all rectangles are squares.
A fool and his money applies to poor purchasing decisions. It does not apply to an expensive, yet spectacular, sounding stereo system.
If you are bitter because you spent a great deal and were disappointing, then that would explain why you believe that expensive stereo gear is wasteful.
And it could also explain why you envy people that spent a great deal, and made great choices and have amazing sounding stereos.
First
th-cam.com/video/gCCD40eB-cU/w-d-xo.html