Working on the new setup with NAD M50

[mjb]

OS X is really not too shabby for an audiophile.

And happy birthday Jon....

[sdl2112]

Happy Birthday Jon!...and thanks for the quick review. I'll have to come back to this when I have time to review.

[JonMarsh]

Happy Birthday Jon!...and thanks for the quick review. I'll have to come back to this when I have time to review.

Thanks everyone.

BTW, MJB, I'm using Fidelia and Audirvana on OSX- the best sound I've heard from a Mac, but not so great as regards usability for someone like my GF. After have some experience with a Sonore system at various times over the last several years (my colleague in Munich), I've become attracted to those appliance like aspect.

Regarding this project, I will write up a complete overview/review at a later time, which I'll also submit to NAD's website. I do plan to try to find a contact email for giving them direct feedback on how to improve their manual.

Now, the interesting and telling thing is, that my M51 shipped a year and a half ago, WITH a remote labeled M50, and it's the exact same remote as included with my M50. This whole series has been planned for some time, but the M50 only became available in the USA the early part of 2012; what this tells me is that the development took a lot longer than expected, and I bet most of the issues have been software...

[Hdale85]

Isn't it the M50?

[Chris D]

Happy birthday! Have fun with your NADs today!

[wkhanna]

Happy birthday! Have fun with your NADs today!

There is just no quit in this guy, is there????? :W

[Hdale85]

Oh nevermind, I see the M50 is the one on top, then the m51 lol.

[JonMarsh]

There is just no quit in this guy, is there????? :W

Does this make him a NADering nincompoop?

Actually, that wish was pretty reasonable- but today is (hopefully) the comp day for Labor Day weekend, so I may be spending a lot of time on Max once two work tasks are out of the way!

[JonMarsh]

Making progress...

I'm combining the tunes from three different major "extraction" works on CD's, from my Mac Pro, mainly in ALAC format, and from the XLD extraction in the last two years, setting this up on a special set of folders on my LaCie 6TB Thunderbolt drive for fast editing.






I've already mastered the album art addition process (which is NOT totally intuitive and not well described in the help panel for Max, unfortunately, and other than one conference call later this AM, it looks like the decks are cleared for actually having a comp day today! My other major work tasks that were "must do's" for today are behind me (let's here it for getting up even earlier than usual...)

[wkhanna]

Excellent!!!!!.......now turn the ringer off on the phone & do not open any emails!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mjb]

Happy birthday! Have fun with your NADs today!

That's not a sentence you can use everyday!

[JonMarsh]

Nope! But I did take the advice...


Well, I'm finally really getting the hang of Max. Trouble is, many things don't quite work the way you might think they ought to- for example, File open is not for files on your hard disk, but for opening CD's.

What does work and speeds along reasonably well, is to set in the preferences a single master folder that the output folders will all be built in- arranged by artist and album name. Max takes care of the rest in that regard. You also set the output file format in Preferences.

Then, open the file conversion window, and drag and drop the files you want to convert or update with album art (or both). This will leave all the files in the Conversion window highlighted, which is necessary for the album art image to be imported! Took me a bit to figure that out- I'm slow on the update, and I didn't see it in the help file.

DON'T select the files on your HD and then right click to "Open with Max"- this will get the files in the conversion window, but only one will be highlighted after the import. Not what you want.

Then go to Amazon or where ever to find your album art file, drag and drop it into the album art side pane, then click on the convert control, and all will be well...

[jim1961]

That is the thing for me about computer audio……unless you are adept & comfortable creating & manipulating all these firmware & software configurations……..well, I will just say if it were not for Dan, I could never get a system configured & performing as well as he has mine working. I really envy the ones who can do this & make it look so easy while doing it.

I am sure as time passes & the technology matures, the equipment will be more user-friendly to those who do not possess the skills required to customize the set-up & get the V good performance these things are capable of.

Totally, off topic…….. I do not think there is anything in the world that makes Chris happier than being able to crack a NAD joke!
Have a banana, Chris!

:dancenana:

This is basically the reason I am not sure I want to go beyond merely feeding a CD player into a DAC. I dont have a grasp of what involved. I really dont follow what Jon is doing and why he is doing it. Safe to say a lot of work is ahead to jump beyond where I am.

[Chris D]

This is basically the reason I am not sure I want to go beyond merely feeding a CD player into a DAC. I dont have a grasp of what involved. I really dont follow what Jon is doing and why he is doing it. Safe to say a lot of work is ahead to jump beyond where I am.

You're absolutely not alone, Jim. I'm pretty lost too, which is one of the reasons why I primarily use all physical media. I've done a lot of work with digital rips, but all of it has been to rip in iTunes, catalog and manage it there, and then only use in portable settings with my iPod, portable amp, and little office system. ALL of my home audio use has been physical media.

[Hdale85]

Well a lot of this can be applied to CD's lol.

[JonMarsh]

I still have a Tascam Pro CD transport and several SACD players, but the number of disks is just unmanageable for access and storage, at this point. As it is, I'm only working with my most "popular" CD's that I've already previously ripped, and am not working on the High Res stuff until the next step, when I'll be doing some conversion in Triumph to accommodate what the Brainstorm DCD8 works best with and is compatible with the rest of the gear- single wire AES (96 kHz and below unless I get an RME ADI-192).

Well, at least I've worked my way down to the "D"'s, am almost at the end of that letter as regards album titles! And that's well over 125 GB in CD resolution. Perhaps you see the magnitude of the problem, now... :W

Consider also that I have literally hundreds of SACD's...

But I'm feeling good about this, I have the best process possible with Max now, the way I'm using it, in terms of efficiency, and I should never have to touch these files again, regardless of whatever future environment I use them in.

[jim1961]

You're absolutely not alone, Jim. I'm pretty lost too, which is one of the reasons why I primarily use all physical media. I've done a lot of work with digital rips, but all of it has been to rip in iTunes, catalog and manage it there, and then only use in portable settings with my iPod, portable amp, and little office system. ALL of my home audio use has been physical media.

I suppose a major factor is how many albums/files your dealing with in the first place. In my case, I have about 1000 albums I care about. So keeping everything on hard media (CD's,DVD's, ect...) isnt that incumbering. In Jon's case, he may have 10 or 20 times this much, and in multiple formats and file types. Different situation.

BTW Jon, I am not knocking in any way what you are doing. To say I dont understand it fully doesnt mean anything negative

[wkhanna]

Hey Jim....

I totally appreciate your standpoint.
Jon is at the leading edge of implementing computer-based audio.
But there are far simpler ways to get started.
You have a V competent system.
X-ferring your SeeDee's to a hard drive then feeding them to your DAC (by-passing the transport in the CDp which can induce jitter) can result in improved playback quality you will hear.
Ripping & playback software is cheap & in many cases free.
I humbly suggest you start a thread in the Computer Audio forum & talk with Dan.
He can provide really good advice based on what your personal expectations, capabilities & wants are, & lead you step by step in setting up user-friendly platform.

[jim1961]

Hey Jim....

I totally appreciate your standpoint.
Jon is at the leading edge of implementing computer-based audio.
But there are far simpler ways to get started.
You have a V competent system.
X-ferring your SeeDee's to a hard drive then feeding them to your DAC (by-passing the transport in the CDp which can induce jitter) can result in improved playback quality you will hear.
Ripping & playback software is cheap & in many cases free.
I humbly suggest you start a thread in the Computer Audio forum & talk with Dan.
He can provide really good advice based on what your personal expectations, capabilities & wants are, & lead you step by step in setting up user-friendly platform.

Can you unpack this?

[wkhanna]

I am not exactly sure what your question is.........

....but what I meant is your system is V(ery) capable of taking advantage of the improved sound quality that taking your source material from a HD can produce.

Additionally, you may find you enjoy the convince of accessing & playing your entire library from a laptop or smart phone.

[JonMarsh]

I suppose a major factor is how many albums/files your dealing with in the first place. In my case, I have about 1000 albums I care about. So keeping everything on hard media (CD's,DVD's, ect...) isnt that incumbering. In Jon's case, he may have 10 or 20 times this much, and in multiple formats and file types. Different situation.

BTW Jon, I am not knocking in any way what you are doing. To say I dont understand it fully doesnt mean anything negative

COMPLETELY understood- a healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing. The proof will be in the pudding, and if I can marry the combination of high playback performance and ease of use that will win the GF over.

[JonMarsh]

Hey Jim....

I totally appreciate your standpoint.
Jon is at the leading edge of implementing computer-based audio.
But there are far simpler ways to get started.
You have a V competent system.
X-ferring your SeeDee's to a hard drive then feeding them to your DAC (by-passing the transport in the CDp which can induce jitter) can result in improved playback quality you will hear.
Ripping & playback software is cheap & in many cases free.
I humbly suggest you start a thread in the Computer Audio forum & talk with Dan.
He can provide really good advice based on what your personal expectations, capabilities & wants are, & lead you step by step in setting up user-friendly platform.

I've done this at a variety of levels in the past, with various computer type systems (Mac and PC), and unless you have a VERY good digital audio output card on your PC or Mac, you may not match the jitter performance of even the better "budget" disk players these days (Cambridge Audio 651 for example), or something relatively cheap like my Tascam pro CD transport. So far I haven't found a USB audio output/input combination that is really satisfactory, somewhat to my surprise- and that even includes trying the Berkely Alpha USB, which I own. As well as the NAD M51 USB. For now, AES/EBU is my preference. And the best sounding front ends I've heard actually have been music server based with AES/EBU outputs, like the Sonore and Aurender. Best transport I've ever heard for "cheap" is my 1U height Tascam, and it sounds better than anything I've come up with in a Mac for playback, though Audirvana with Metric Halo is quite close- perhaps with the Firewire input on the DCD8 the situation will change, with a Rubidium clock hooked up. The latter can be done for under $200 with careful shopping on eBay and some DIY skills.

Note that I haven't heard the Phasure NOS1 DAC which the newer version runs from USB input- he's doing a number of things right, but USB isn't the only input.

Computer based music play back can be very convenient, but in my opinion, it isn't necessarily better quality. There are too many other processes running on PC's and Macs which may degrade performance subtlety. I think that's why I find I'm impressed with dedicated music servers running on small Linux kernels on an ARM processor. Only doing one thing... and doing it pretty well.

I think Mark Twain coined the phrase, that, "No generality is worth a damn, including this one", and I'd say it's something to keep in mind. It all depends...

[jim1961]

Thanks to the last few posts, I now at least conceptually get what your doing Jon

I am looking forward to what the pudding looks like in the end :T I have been aware for some time that digital audio going Laptop -> DAC (with the proper interface) has some advantages over CD player -> DAC. But I had always narrowed that view to 24 bit audio. It hadn't ever occurred to me that 16 bit audio may benefit as well.

So, your doing this for:

1) Organization purposes
2) Better sound

Correct? (We all know your not doing it because you have too much time on your hands :B )

So furthering this, and talking specifically about the sound, is reduced jitter the only benefit or are their others? Or should I take this to another thread (as previously mentioned) ?

[jim1961]

I've done this at a variety of levels in the past, with various computer type systems (Mac and PC), and unless you have a VERY good digital audio output card on your PC or Mac, you may not match the jitter performance of even the better "budget" disk players these days (Cambridge Audio 651 for example), or something relatively cheap like my Tascam pro CD transport. So far I haven't found a USB audio output/input combination that is really satisfactory, somewhat to my surprise- and that even includes trying the Berkely Alpha USB, which I own. As well as the NAD M51 USB. For now, AES/EBU is my preference. And the best sounding front ends I've heard actually have been music server based with AES/EBU outputs, like the Sonore and Aurender. Best transport I've ever heard for "cheap" is my 1U height Tascam, and it sounds better than anything I've come up with in a Mac for playback, though Audirvana with Metric Halo is quite close- perhaps with the Firewire input on the DCD8 the situation will change, with a Rubidium clock hooked up. The latter can be done for under $200 with careful shopping on eBay and some DIY skills.

Note that I haven't heard the Phasure NOS1 DAC which the newer version runs from USB input- he's doing a number of things right, but USB isn't the only input.

Computer based music play back can be very convenient, but in my opinion, it isn't necessarily better quality. There are too many other processes running on PC's and Macs which may degrade performance subtlety. I think that's why I find I'm impressed with dedicated music servers running on small Linux kernels on an ARM processor. Only doing one thing... and doing it pretty well.

I think Mark Twain coined the phrase, that, "No generality is worth a damn, including this one", and I'd say it's something to keep in mind. It all depends...

I suppose this answers my previous inquiry. Thanks.

[wkhanna]

My pardon for the inaccurate advice.
I thought having a dedicated music server not encumbered with other tasks other than feeding the data directly to the DAC was (in general)better than using a CD transport. ops:

As always, implantation is the critical factor.

[jim1961]

My pardon for the inaccurate advice.
I thought having a dedicated music server not encumbered with other tasks other than feeding the data directly to the DAC was (in general)better than using a CD transport. ops:

As always, implantation is the critical factor.

Barry Diament, former Atlantic mastering engineer, and I had this discussion once and he recommended the direction you are. So this isn't the first time ive heard it nor are you alone in pointing people in this direction. His specific recommendation was running a high end Mac via firewire/AES into a DAC. Our discussion centered on 24bit implementation exclusively though.

Here is how I think of it.

Whenever you have more than one path or means to get somewhere you have to weigh things. I think what Jon is saying is basically that PC based audio must have everything right to be better. A under capable PC, a capable but over burdened (as in running too many other tasks) PC, less than optimal interface to the DAC, even the wrong interface cable, could be enough to use up or completely undermine the advantages your trying to gain sonically. What this points to is that the benefits are small to begin with. Yet, when everything IS RIGHT, you have gained something.

I take this to 16bit vs 24bit audio as well. If your implementation isn't very good, it may be hard to realize the full difference or any difference at all.

On a bang for your buck scorecard, I am still unconvinced its worth it. But for ultimate performance without consideration for its cost(s), there clearly seems upward potential gain in this direction.

[JonMarsh]

My pardon for the inaccurate advice.
I thought having a dedicated music server not encumbered with other tasks other than feeding the data directly to the DAC was (in general)better than using a CD transport. ops:

As always, implantation is the critical factor.

As always, it's complicated... like what that girl friend said once, when trying to explain why she was breaking up, and even not sure herself it was the right thing to do?

There are eBooks available who's only topic is how to turn off all the running background processes on a Mac or PC that can degrade latency (and some thing impair music performance). Some players, like Audirvana, have a mode where they do most of what's possible when they start up, then disable these changes when they exit. It does seem to help.

OK, you've done this, you're getting the best output possible from your Mac or PC. Uh, through want output device? Generating it's own clock or sending async data to a remote clock (latter is where USB and Firewire typically come in). Doing up sampling, or running bit perfect?

The reason I'm out in what seems like left field to the normal computer audio crowd, is that I find that the best music servers are more organized and better to use than the software I've tried on Mac's and PC's, yet they also have excellent sonic characteristics for this class of application. Well, good compared to a lot of PC's or Macs. Now, I'm not a lone wolf in this opinion, in fact, I came around to it somewhat reluctantly. Chris Connaker at Computer Audiophile has had this viewpoint for some time.

My european colleague and I have tried out a lot of things (many times on their nickel) over the last three to four years, and to an extent, I'm just catching up in my own system with conclusions reached some years ago. Would I recommend what I'm trying now as some kind of ultimate configuration? Uh - no. Start with an Aurender W20, or if you need to cheap out, an S10. then build on it. But I don't have that kind of loot running around, and the experiment with the M40 is to see if it roughly equals the Sonare SOtM my friend has.

My friend and I have concluded that for a multi-box digital solution, the Brainstorm DCD8 with a rubidium clock is a must have. Not negotiable with the gear we have- maybe with some other super duper high end DAC like a dCS Vivaldi it wouldn't add anything, but it does with everything else we've tried it with. Running a TotalDAC reclocker in the chain also helps, but not as much; certainly it's not nearly as cost effective an add on, considering price versus performance with the DCD8 + even a SRS PRS10, much less what you can pick up on eBay usually.

I further have to consider the tradeoffs and desire to put together a system my GF is comfortable running; she's really gotten in the iPad I gave her a couple of years ago, so an iPad based remote that works sensibly is an easy sell. So far, the NAD software is looking pretty good.

And the good news as of 1:30 this afternoon, is that I'm up to the "M"'s! :T :B

[JonMarsh]

Barry Diament, former Atlantic mastering engineer, and I had this discussion once and he recommended the direction you are. So this isn't the first time ive heard it nor are you alone in pointing people in this direction. His specific recommendation was running a high end Mac via firewire/AES into a DAC. Our discussion centered on 24bit implementation exclusively though.

Here is how I think of it.

Whenever you have more than one path or means to get somewhere you have to weigh things. I think what Jon is saying is basically that PC based audio must have everything right to be better. A under capable PC, a capable but over burdened (as in running too many other tasks) PC, less than optimal interface to the DAC, even the wrong interface cable, could be enough to use up or completely undermine the advantages your trying to gain sonically. What this points to is that the benefits are small to begin with. Yet, when everything IS RIGHT, you have gained something.

I take this to 16bit vs 24bit audio as well. If your implementation isn't very good, it may be hard to realize the full difference or any difference at all.

On a bang for your buck scorecard, I am still unconvinced its worth it. But for ultimate performance without consideration for its cost(s), there clearly seems upward potential gain in this direction.

I'm familiar with Barry, have bought some of his recordings, and we've exchanged emails. I have a Metric Halo LIO-8 with the full DSP package add on, and I think it's an incredible value for an 8 channel system with the ability to add very high quality mic preamps, too, to upgrade it to a ULN-8. It with a Mac or the DCD8 with a Mac are my two preferred computer based configurations. I wouldn't say it's the last word in DAC quality, but boy, a person could do a lot, lot worse! It and the M51 are quite close on a per channel sound quality basis, though I don't think the MH measures quite as well. It uses an analog output volume control, which is a sensible choice given the rest of the signal chain and the DAC chips used.

I still hope to get my newest Arvo Part configuration up and running with that some time, but now I'm also thinking about simply using it as a record and play back system for music learning. We'll see how that works out- they may not be mutually exclusive, though the Arvo's are too big for the space I'll have available for that!

Last comment, about the whole 16 bit versus 24 bit thing- without a doubt, I think the latter is quite worth while. But the whole ball of wax is a bit like the issue of CD versus SACD, and some of the inexpensive SACD players that came out- SACD's on those players could sound better than the equivalent CD on a similar machine, but that CD on something like an M51 would clean the clock of any of the top of the line megabuck Sony SACD players, regardless of source material type.

I'm really enjoying listening to my TotalDAC, because I've never heard CD sound this good- it's like taking every CD in my collection and turning it into a remaster again, compared to the best I've head it sound previously. When you have a lot of CD's and music you're into, well, that is a big deal. This is something my colleague in Munich has remarked on too, is that recordings he formerly thought of as "b" grade from a sonics viewpoint, are generally much more engaging and it has revitalized his interest in his whole collection.

[JonMarsh]

As always, implantation is the critical factor.

Especially when you want to get your wife with child... :W



:banana: :rofl: :banana:

[wkhanna]

As always, implantation is the critical factor.

Especially when you want to get your wife with child... :W



:banana: :rofl: :banana:

Dang! Auto spellcheck strikes again!!!!

I guess my personal experience has been clouded by the fact that since retiring my CDp, I have upgraded my DAC twice & associate the improvements with CA in general.

One other thing I have experienced due to using better DAC's is finding, like you, my redbook files sound V good, & will often equal or better some of the HiRes files I have.

I wholly agree that there are few systems that are capable of reproducing all the information there is on a CD, given that it was produced with care in the first place.

[wkhanna]

...... Yet, when everything IS RIGHT, you have gained something.

I take this to 16bit vs 24bit audio as well. If your implementation isn't very good, it may be hard to realize the full difference or any difference at all.

On a bang for your buck scorecard, I am still unconvinced its worth it. But for ultimate performance without consideration for its cost(s), there clearly seems upward potential gain in this direction.

In my meager system, my vinyl rig is still king.
It would take quite a bit more $ than I could afford to do much better with digital.

[jim1961]

Dancing Bananas and Divine conceptions aside ... :W

...ive learned some things here and appreciate the participants input.

While one would like the music to sing for itself, like you Jon, it really motivates me to dig further down in my collection when some global upgrade has been instituted. Whether that be speakers, components, room treatment or DAC's, one feels like its all new again and gets the juices flowing again (read carefully Jon :B ).

[JonMarsh]

Dang! Auto spellcheck strikes again!!!!

I guess my personal experience has been clouded by the fact that since retiring my CDp, I have upgraded my DAC twice & associate the improvements with CA in general.

One other thing I have experienced due to using better DAC's is finding, like you, my redbook files sound V good, & will often equal or better some of the HiRes files I have.

I wholly agree that there are few systems that are capable of reproducing all the information there is on a CD, given that it was produced with care in the first place.

Fully agree- in fact, part of what made early SACD releases work, IMO, is that the labels went back and did a lot more careful job of mastering the source- this is particularly true of a lot of Sony and Epic material. In fact, the real comparison for how good they were at that point side by side was comparing the few Sony SBM CD's available to the SACD counterparts. Closer than you might think, with the right equipment. And frankly, the reason I've gotten into the high falutin PCM, is because I couldn't a comparable performing SACD player at the same price- and that included the SA-7. So, for me, converting SACD to PCM made more sense- it makes even more sense now with the widening libraries of high bit depth and sample rate PCM from places like HD Tracks. Stuff is showing up on there that I never would have expected in the past...

[Hdale85]

You can strip windows down quite a bit as well, but it doesn't really get any more bare bones than linux.

[JonMarsh]

You can strip windows down quite a bit as well, but it doesn't really get any more bare bones than linux.

Sure doesn't!

And now, I'm up to the "O"s! Making progress... Of course, that's just on stuff previously ripped- have tons of new stuff and old stuff I'll want on there, but will likely wait for the M52. Soft of like B52, I suppose, but further down the alphabet...

[JonMarsh]

A re-clocking alternative to Brainstorm DCD8 at half the price?

Well, those Pro Sound/Broadcast vendor mailing lists that I'm on every now and then turn up something interesting. That was the case this Friday, so though I don't have one of these, I have to say I find it intriguing, especially the possibility that it doesn't require double wire mode above 96 kHz. Possibility only, but still worth checking out.

The key point for me is that it takes a 10MHz reference clock (Rubidium clock or GPS disciplined clock) as the timing reference, and will do format conversion as well as re-clocking or clock distribution.

Unfortunately this will have to wait- I ordered a new iPhone earlier in the day, which emptied my discretionary slush fund for now. Maybe next month. The other key point is that this can be had for around $759 in the US through Markertek on special order.

http://www.mutec-net.com/product_mc-3-plus.php#features

http://www.markertek.com/Studio-Gear/Clocks-Timers-Stopwatches/Mutec/MC-3PLUS.xhtml

[wkhanna]

Trying to wrap my head around this……..

So your data comes from your source (CD transport, computer HD, NAS, etc) to this device - then this unit will deliver the data at a precisely controlled rate to your DAC?

Format conversion? As in converting a SP-DIF feed from my server to coax on my DAC?

This unit has its own clock, but allows you to insert a different one? (I am trying to figure out what all the BNC terminals are for).


Sorry for the sophomoric questions……..
………just trying to get a better understanding of how, what & why….…..

Edit: I tried to find the manual to download.....but no luck....

[JonMarsh]

Trying to wrap my head around this……..

So your data comes from your source (CD transport, computer HD, NAS, etc) to this device - then this unit will deliver the data at a precisely controlled rate to your DAC?

Format conversion? As in converting a SP-DIF feed from my server to coax on my DAC?

This unit has its own clock, but allows you to insert a different one? (I am trying to figure out what all the BNC terminals are for).


Sorry for the sophomoric questions……..
………just trying to get a better understanding of how, what & why….…..

Edit: I tried to find the manual to download.....but no luck....

Yup, no downloadable manual that I could find either. I wrote my colleague in Munich about this, and it turns out that he had checked out some earlier products from this company, and after I sent this info to him, fired off an email to them; he'd been I touch with their CEO and based on our experiments with the DCD8 had convinced him of the importance of a Rubidium clock and to try it out. This product was in development back then, and I believe released early this year.

It does not have a FireWire input like the the DCD8, but the basic functionality is very similar. Products like these are used in studios and motion picture sound post processing in order to have multiple digital systems operating in lockstep. They can use an external master clock or internal clock to generate clock distribution to the other pieces of gear, OR even another piece of digital audio gear or incoming signal from a remote feed can be used as the sample rate reference.

The purpose of the 10 MHZ input is to provide a very low noise, low jitter clock reference, which is then used as the master internal digital timing reference for all internal processing and the precise timing of the output word clocks.

In the studio or a broadcast van the main purpose is generating the high stability clock for keeping all the local gear in lockstep. In a playback system, we're doing something very specific; in the case of my friend's system, the DCD8 uses the input from the Sonore music server to set the sample rate, then re clocks it (which imposes the timing stability of the rubidium oscillator) and out puts the digital signal to the DAC. Word clock distribution isn't needed. Now, the DCD8 can be used without a Rubidium or GPS clock, then it uses high grade internal crystal oscillaors like most gear. But then you lose much of the "magic".

Format conversion means it can take in an optical or coax S/PDIF signal and output AES/EBU or vice versa if needed. This gives the possibility of taking in optical digital and really cleaning it up, in principle and output in coax or AES/EBU.

Similarly it can be an input multiplexer, say, taking in AES/EBU from a transport, coax from a music server, and optical from a PC, and output just on AES/EBU to the DAC, all signals re locked.

In our experience the re clocking with the rubidium oscillator has always opened up the soundstage and imaging and improved the transient definition with any DAC we've tried it with. Usually, the better the DAC, the more the improvement.

This company from Germany now has tried it and decided to include it, too. It's less expensive but seems to offer the same playback features that I think are important. Have to try it out to know for sure...

[wkhanna]

So you are saying one would need the rubidium clock connected to one of these to get the 'ultimate' benefit?

In my PC based system, I am relying on the way Dan has set the OS up to prioritize data feed to my DAC for maintain clocking accuracy.

We found significant improvement by inserting a Music Fidelity V-Link 192 - USB To SPDIF converter between the PC & DAC.

I suppose it must me doing something to improve clocking of the signal, too.

I wonder how much improvement might be accomplished by trying one of these just using its internal clock?

Of course, implementing AES/EBU from the PC to start with since my Gungnir DAC has an AES/EBU input might be a better place to start.

I'll have to check with Dan to see if there are any good audio boards we could use that have an AES/EBU output.

[JonMarsh]

Well, you can put together a rubidium clock for around $ 200 - 250, as I did, so you go for the gusto. Remember, you can use S/PDIF as input.

As noted in my post above, others have noted that the DCD8 is a solid product without the rubidium oscillator, but with it is when you take the significant step. On any PC the consensus seems to be that the Lynx is one of the best, but it is expensive.

[wkhanna]

Remember, you can use S/PDIF as input.

Duh!!!! :banghead:

Yeah. I guess the idea is as long as your getting all the data in bit-perfect form (I hate to use this term cuz the more I read the more I see it getting abused) you do not have to worry so much about the intrinsic problems with clocking regardless of input type since the DCD8 is correcting it?

~ $250 for a clock does not sound exorbitant in the big picture when compared to $2k & above DACs.

Hey Dan.......if you drop by & read this, let me know if you remember what audio board/motherboard you used on my server.....?

Edit: never mind, a search In my emails found it - ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

Looks like USB is my only current option.

[JonMarsh]

No problem then, you just use a Berkeley Alpha USB to convert to AES/EBU and go from there! (got one, they're about as sweet as it gets on USB to AES or S/PDIF) Or not... or something a little less spend, like a HiFace EVO. you should be able to find decent S/PDIF cards fairly easily- AES is much harder, unless you're going Pro.

[wkhanna]

For anyone besides me following this conversation.......

a link to someone who did some comparisons on a few USB to AES/EBU converters LINK


Oh yes!
The Berkeley Alpha USB would be nice........

I got to tell you, Jon, I really get a kick out of how anytime I come up with a roadblock, you just throw $1k at it & 'Boom', :blowup: problem solved! :rofl:

But honestly, as I begin to understand more & more what you have been explaining, this solution to the clocking is at the heart of any good digital music reproduction. Regardless of the DAC, whether a $100 Schiit Modi or some $2k unit, without solving the timing issue you will never realize the potential of any DAC.

Once I get my NatP's 'duded up', my plan was to work towards a TT upgrade. But now that I have so much music on HD (many, many times more than the 700 LP's I have, it may make more sense to instead look at implementing some type of clocking management. It is the kind of up grade that is like getting a hi-end pre amp. Once you get a really good one, no mater what other up grades you make from then on, they will always sounds their best.

[JonMarsh]

For anyone besides me following this conversation.......




Oh yes!

But honestly, as I begin to understand more & more what you have been explaining, this solution to the clocking is at the heart of any good digital music reproduction. Regardless of the DAC, whether a $100 Schiit Modi or some $2k unit, without solving the timing issue you will never realize the potential of any DAC.

Once I get my NatP's 'duded up', my plan was to work towards a TT upgrade. But now that I have so much music on HD (many, many times more than the 700 LP's I have, it may make more sense to instead look at implementing some type of clocking management. It is the kind of up grade that is like getting a hi-end pre amp. Once you get a really good one, no mater what other up grades you make from then on, they will always sounds their best.

This is at the heart of the matter...

[PewterTA]

Bill... We can do whatever you'd like with your system! It really comes down to prioritizing the "toys."

Had I not gotten that deal on the PS Audio P10, I'd probably have gotten Mutec just to see what it would do with how our current systems are set up. Heck that may be a later Christmas type present to myself... ha ha. Or maybe we'll just work towards building two clocks and then.... well still save some money over the price of the Mutec! Just have to see.

From the get go, I've basically been going with the idea of the best clocking possible, that will give the biggest difference in both our systems. Our DACs are really decent enough and would have to jump to something like the NAD for us to really go further on the DAC side of things. That's why I've taken part in more doing things that I can justify as affordable without breaking the bank (minus the PS Audio, that was just too good to pass up). So I've noticed with the updated power supply for my MF V-Link192 and upgraded USB cables... it has made a nice difference in all aspects of the system.... and the next part in the upgrade path is the clocking for me. It's sort of like my version of writing a symphony... getting all the pieces into place. Even though they might not be the best... it's making everything work together in a way where it elevates the system beyond what it should. So far... I think we are accomplishing this...

Now if only there was a money tree planted at your place!