I agree - I haven't tried transformers lately. What has changed? And I am a big believer in fully balanced/differential inputs.
Baffled about computer power
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
- Status
I agree - I haven't tried transformers lately. What has changed? And I am a big believer in fully balanced/differential inputs.
High-end preferences? I have never heard Dr. Toole talk about high-end preferences. Only what people in general prefer. What he is saying is that since there are choices of speaker technologies, as consumers you get to make the dish out of selection of such devices. Nothing at all is said about up stream electronics -- the topic we are talking about.
There is no war. I do however treat these discussions as mini court-room trials. Evidence needs to be put forward to make one's case rather than just declaring the other side wrong. You are doing exactly that: quoting Dr. Toole as your evidence and expert witness. Oddly, you then go on to say you disagree with him on small differences? Isn't that what we are talking about when it comes to electronics?
Would you say Dr. Toole has any room for sighted evaluation of gear? I assume the answer is a resounding no. He has used double blind testing in areas that even objectivists don't: speakers. Using him to back high-end audiophile choices would be like an objectivist quoting Robert Harley to back his argument.
We can look to Dr. Olive who worked under Dr. Toole for his similar views. This is the results of the testing they did with different groups of people: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
How could anyone seeing such a result then back audiophiles and their hearing abilities? How can magazine reviewers garner such low scores if they are the leaders of audiophiles??? And assume that Dr. Toole would have a view that is favorable to such people's ability to assess audio fidelity??
Honestly, I know the arguments from both sides, more intimately than they know it
Amir,
As you know well the first part of the F. Toole book (up to page 170) addresses basic and general audio reproduction not specific to any class of audio listeners, including high-end audiophiles. Every time I quote something from this part of the book I am just using his findings about general sound reproduction and listeners perception to illustrate my point - no way I am using him as expert witness about anything concrete. Unfortunately most people only know about his writing's through references or through the texts that Harman marketing leaks in the net - IMHO they are loosing the best part - and can not separate Part Two (Designing listening experiences) from Part One. I should have remembered that people love the fireworks and hate debating the chemistry of black powder. My fault. But I can not copy entire pages of his book in a forum any time I refer to him.
I entered the discussion about computer audio expecting to learn something from your long experience. Unhappily the only advice could be summarized in a few words: get an USB asynchronous interface, a DAC with good measurements, forget about your preferences and the small differences, enjoy the music and perhaps get a boat. As I am living far from navigable waters, I do not feel tempted to follow any of your friendly advices.
I will leave now this thread. Besides, no way I will want to enter the intimacy of anyone.
What has changed is the technology of the core materials. These transformers I use simply don't saturate and they are extremely linear. Like an open window to the music, totally unconstrained.
The thing that these transformers improves in balanced applications is this: Most balanced outputs and inputs are implemented with solid-state circuits these days. These can never be "truly balanced" because the + and - signals generated can never be identical in amplitude. This is where the transformer shines. It is amazing how even SS balanced inputs on amps respond to a truly balanced signal. There is a layer of grunge that is removed. The other benefits of course are elimination of ground loops and blocking of any DC offset.
Steve N.
Tim,
They are related. My apologies if I could not make you understand. Feel free to interpret and insult as you wish.
So what is the change in material?
I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on that. If you have a differential input that is not ground/earth-referenced, there is no separate "+" or "-" amplitude - the only thing that matters is the difference between the + and - inputs.
Your customer was right.
As you know the Music First is among the very best TVC solutions.
Its proprietary I guess.
Exactly and this is how balanced is supposed to work. SS implementations don't mimic this very well at all. The receiver sets the earth-ground reference where it likes to see it, and not always at 0VDC.
Steve N.
I have a silver-wound MF that is cryo-treated. Its very good indeed, but my new transformer technology actually beats it.
Steve N.
Is that what is built into your flagship DAC?
I'm getting silver wound Baby ref soon for review. I just did the Classic V2 for Tone Audio.
I got the impression you were talking about a broad change in the technology that had eliminated the old linearity problems with transformers. You're talking, instead, about a solution resulting from a proprietary material in a single innovative product? Exciting. Who's the manufacturer? Brand?
Of course we wouldn't expect them to reveal the source of their breakthrough, but they have solved a fundamental audio problem, surely they have published the results, the improvement in the linearity of the signal at output. Could you point us to that?
Tim
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Thread sanitized and reopened
Gentlemen
this is a most interesting topic but the usual banter and insults will not be tolerated here or anywhere at WBF. We take such acts seriously and never condone them
As a result over 60 derogatory posts have been removed
The thread is reopened but again, "Challenge the post, not the poster". Insults here will be dealt with pursuant to our TOS
Gentlemen
this is a most interesting topic but the usual banter and insults will not be tolerated here or anywhere at WBF. We take such acts seriously and never condone them
As a result over 60 derogatory posts have been removed
The thread is reopened but again, "Challenge the post, not the poster". Insults here will be dealt with pursuant to our TOS
No, it is a separate box, the Final Drive
Very good. I found the silver to be a bit harsh, so I cryo-treated it. Seems to have fixed that. I don't use my silver MF much anymore, so I may be selling it.
Steve N.
If I did, it would give away my IP. Its a new manufacturer with a superb product.
Steve N.
If you ever want a change of pace, come up to central Oregon and try some of our golf courses here, such as Crosswater, Pronghorn, Tetherow, Black Butte Ranch and even Crooked River Ranch, which is on the edge of a "grand canyon". Spectacular views and excellent golfing. Two resorts to stay at: Black Butte Ranch or Sun River. Make a vacation of it. More courses to play here within 30 miles than anywhere else.
Steve N.
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I'm sure it is great in central Oregon. I would offer up the same invite Steve for Southern California
There is a bit more to it than that but not a whole lot Micro
. With respect to a digital transport, there are three things that engineering tells us:1. Digital PCM samples. Unless something is broken, these get through reliably whether you the world's worst transport or best. Should anything happen to them, they would easily and readily show up in measurements. So there is no reason to worry about improvements especially in the class of products we are talking about.
2. Digital sample timing. A lot can vary these from the source, to cable to receiver. There are also mitigation techniques in the DAC for upstream issues. What makes this situation the most difficult, is the DAC attempting to guess at the sample timing on every input pulse. And using a transport like S/PDIF that embeds such clock in the data stream itself. High-performance implementations (in DACs) can deal with this very effectively. In my WSR magazine article I showed for example how even over the "dirty HDMI" connection where every AVR did poorly, the Mark Levinson 503 processor passed this test nearly with flying colors. I say nearly because one could do even better with good async USB but we do know how to do extract the clock well. It is just that it takes a lot of engineering skill and material cost. It involves what is called "mix-signal design" meaning you need to know both analog and digital design which many engineers are not trained or experienced in.
The easy way out of the above, with a computer server or proprietary connection to a DAC, is to reverse the roles. Put the DAC in charge of the clock, have it generate a super stable one and then tell the upstream source to track it. An async USB interface accomplishes this by generating a local clock and having the PC (the USB source) track it. What is left then is the accuracy of local clock in the async interface. In the case of external async USB, you still have a bit of consideration left with respect to the S/PDIF output. With internal ones this can be avoided.
3. Noise. PCs are very noisy devices. That noise can easily bleed into the DAC. On my "work" PC, I once hooked an HP Fax/Printer over USB. The audio was provided by a "high-end" Creative Labs "gold" card or some such nonsense with claimed 100 db or so signal to noise ratio. Despite such lofty numbers, if I attempted to send a fax or print something, massive amount of noise would bleed into my internal sound card's output. By the same token, we want isolation between the USB and the clock side of the async USB. Isolation is a generic term however. You can have a little or a lot of it. Here is a version of it on the Berkeley Alpha:
On the right is the USB interface. Notice that large vertical component. Look to the right and that is the "digital" (computer) interface. You see a very clean physical isolation beyond any electrical ones. Compare that to some async interfaces that are just a bulge in a USB cable. Clearly there is not as much room there to isolate things. Here is an example of one that is board level but clearly no attempt at physical isolation (Musical Fidelity V-Link II):
Good news is that we can measure #2 and #3. Bad news is that we can't necessarily show what is audible or not. In the case of jitter, we have models for simple sinusoidal tones. I have used that to analyze the jitter profiles in the products that I tested. Noise from PC is unpredictable. It can be any and all things. This is why it is important to have good isolation. How good, I can't tell of course because that depends on the nature of the noise at the source and how good the DAC is at rejecting it.
You say I have a lot of experience. I don't in how many devices I have tested. My experience however is in analyzing such devices from design, theory and psychoacoustics of noise and distortion. That analysis is stipulated above. If you look for those factors, and have them minimized, then you are golden. How many decimal places you go past inaudibility, is a choice you have to make.
Now if we put aside everything we know about engineering, and wish to have factors and measurements that are unknown, then I am out of commission. I can't engage in discussion of topics such as preference with respect to transports for example. You don't control the jitter and noise so I don't know how one would optimize for them based on preference. You can control which speaker you buy so you can optimize there. But not in digital transports where we have not even converted the digital samples to analog i don't know how preference is established.
Glad to see the thread has been reopened and that Steve N has joined the discussion.
I've been waiting a few months for a linear PSU for my music file player, so I started this thread by posting the link to Steve N's Asylum post. I wanted to see if anyone on WBF had upgraded the PSU on their music server like Steve N did with his Mac Mini.
I guess it's my fault that the thread got off that subject, because I quoted the post - "that a $500 contraption will wipe the floor with our kilobucks transports."
Revealing the manufacturer of a transformer you use would give away your intellectual property? I'm not sure I understand.
Tim
It is fairly typical in hardware world to not disclose model/brands of components as a way to protect design. Often finding the right part takes considerable work and companies try to hide their identity going as far as erasing the numbers of components, burying them in glue, etc.
The measure of how well any implementation does provide true differential input is the Common Mode Rejection Ratio - I am curious as to what do you consider a good enough CMRR (as not even transformers get a totally unlimited ratio)?
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |