October 6, 200916 yr Hmm, here is a cheaper contender featuring I2S output even (never seen that before, and I don't have anything that takes that anyway, but cool I guess): http://www.aprilmusic.com/main/sub02_03_02.html Choices choices... want. Not at $285 though.
October 9, 200916 yr ... Since this is almost certainly using the exact same receiver board that's in the Wavelength and Ayre USB DACs ... I just got one ... kinda :D
October 9, 200916 yr So another converter joins the fray. No mention about it being asynchronous or not though. M2Tech
October 9, 200916 yr Hmm, here is a cheaper contender featuring I2S output even (never seen that before, and I don't have anything that takes that anyway, but cool I guess): http://www.aprilmusic.com/main/sub02_03_02.html Choices choices... I hope it's much better than the converter they put in the Stello DA100... USG
October 9, 200916 yr I hope it's much better than the converter they put in the Stello DA100... USG Can you expand on that a little for those of us less well informed?
October 9, 200916 yr Explain thyself I bought a pre-production version of the Legato, which also uses Wavelength's Streamlength firmware. Differences between Legato and Wavelink: - cost is $500 for production version, I got my preproduction version for $400. Difference is the preproduction version has a generic Hammond case... its pretty big... about 1.5 times the size of Wavelink. - restricted to 44/16 (I guess GR did this to segment the market) - Legato uses its own power supply, Wavelink uses battery power references: Computer Audio Asylum - I bet Mr. Rankin could make a real nice usb-spdif converter - Dynaudio_Rules - September 06, 2009 at 15:06:47 Legato USB-SPDIF converter is ready
October 9, 200916 yr Hmm, here is a cheaper contender featuring I2S output even (never seen that before, and I don't have anything that takes that anyway, but cool I guess): http://www.aprilmusic.com/main/sub02_03_02.html Choices choices... It's very clever how they put the PCB upside down, so they can show an "internal" picture without actually showing anything
October 9, 200916 yr Author I noticed that too. That (woefully-named) hiFace thing K3cT pointed out actually looks like it might be interesting, though. They've written the custom drivers necessary to get 24/192 sample rates (including on Atom-based platforms) and seem to have thought seriously about the (potential) jitter issue. Although, of course, I don't actually have the technical competence to tell if their claims are gibberish or not. hiFace uses, in place of a PLL, two highest stability, very low phase noise crystal oscillators. In standard environmental conditions, the precision is around 2,5ppm: this means that they derive no more than 2,5Hz for every MHz of their output frequency. The maximum error at 192kHz will thus be 0,5Hz! On the contrary, a PLL
October 9, 200916 yr I don't actually have the technical competence to tell if their claims are gibberish or not. Me neither, but I think the 192khz part can be misleading. Each of the 192,000 samples is made up of 16 to 24 bits. That's 3 to 4.6 million bits per second. Whether they are samples, packets or whatever I would prolly want as many of them to make it through as possible. No I don't understand what Jitter is either.
October 9, 200916 yr Well, they had to write proprietary drivers, because USB doesn't handle 192kHz on its own. OTOH, since they have written proprietary drivers, they can do things like make it asynchronous. Unfortunately, like stretch, I saw nothing on the website that says, one way or the other.
October 10, 200916 yr The ppm portion of their spec is meaningless in the context of digital audio (as long as it is withing 100ppm you are fine), but the mention of phase noise is correct, as this directly translates to jitter. Measuring at 10Hz is a plus as well. I don't really understand all of this myself, but most will only publish down to 100Hz. The lower the frequency, the higher the jitter/phase noise (at least according to Jocko and gmarsh). Of course that is just the crystal spec... I think what you do with it has more of a determining factor.
October 10, 200916 yr I noticed that too. That (woefully-named) hiFace thing K3cT pointed out actually looks like it might be interesting, though. They've written the custom drivers necessary to get 24/192 sample rates (including on Atom-based platforms) and seem to have thought seriously about the (potential) jitter issue. Although, of course, I don't actually have the technical competence to tell if their claims are gibberish or not. There is an impression thread here but as of right now, it's not very informative. A user has all three converters (Musiland, hiFace and VALAB's Teralink-X) but I noticed that everytime he got a new converter, he would always favor the newer toy which raises a question on his credibility.
October 10, 200916 yr Can you expand on that a little for those of us less well informed? Hey Morph, how are you? Haven
October 10, 200916 yr Nope, I sent it back as I never really bought it. It was a free loan as I let them use my balanced amp (GSX) during CanJam. I probably would have bought it for a more extended listening session but I succumbed to the sirens call of the buffalo32. Now I actually have to finish building it
October 11, 200916 yr I thought the more commonly used jack for I2S is RJ45? The one in the U2 unit is looking like a PS/2?
October 11, 200916 yr In the past most products have used a RJ45, though I don't think there's any particular standard on the pinout of the RJ45 outside of each maker. The PS Audio uses a hdmi jack, which would be convenient if others used it, but I have yet to see any other companies use the hdmi.
October 11, 200916 yr Ah, I just seem to always associate I2S with RJ45. And in case anyone is interested, someone has written a review here comparing the more popular converters in the market.
October 11, 200916 yr Isn't that thing like 15 years old? Can't believe an I2S standard still hasn't be developed yet
October 11, 200916 yr I think that's because the I2S standard was designed as an internal bus spec On the flip side, imagine the horrors of audiophile I2S cables....eek.
October 11, 200916 yr Author I think that's because the I2S standard was designed as an internal bus spec On the flip side, imagine the horrors of audiophile I2S cables....eek. What, you don' like purple?
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now