Testing a few digital cables

[manisandher]

Hi y'all.

I finally found some time to do something that I've been meaning to do for a while now...

I wanted to see how close a digital capture on my Tascam recorder could sound compared to the original CD rip after it had been played back through the audio PC. So I set up the following chain:

Mach II audio PC -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> Tascam recorder digital input

I won't go through all the USB cables and various permutations that I tried (with, without Intona, etc), but here are my findings:

The closest digital capture to the original CD rip was with Clarixa cables and the Intona. I tried many vastly more expensive USB cables, and none got as close as Clarixa-Intona-Clarixa combo.

So how close is this digital capture to the original CD rip? Well, why not take a listen for yourselves? Here are the downloads:

1. Original CD rip:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfUHozS3NENkhCLWM

2. Digital capture:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfOXJGZ2xQZUMxMEk

Not absolutely identical, but VERY close. I think this is really impressive. Think about it... A file sits on my music server in my basement. It gets sent via ethernet to the audio PC over many meters distance. XX does its magic (RAM-OS, 'Copy to XX folder', MinOS, Unattended, etc) and sends it via a USB port to the USB cable. Having gone through the Intona, it reaches the USB-to-spdif converter. Once converted, it gets sent out via a BNC cable to the recorder's digital input, and is captured on an SDHC card in the recorder. All this, and the captured file remains so close in SQ to the original CD rip!

For me, it's a clear indication of how good the Mach II, Clarixa and Intona combination are.

I also captured the output from the following chain:

Mach II audio PC -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> DAC -> Tascam recorder analogue input

You're welcome to take a listen to this too...

3. Analogue capture:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfTFBrZG5vRXE0UDQ

Hmmm... This is also incredibly close in SQ to the original CD rip. Again, not identical - there are differences, but they're pretty small. It's not that easy to differentiate between this file and the digital capture.

Now, do you want to hear the 'killer'? I used the analogue output of a 25 year-old 16-bit DAC for this!

Sure, we've made a lot of progress in the audio PC field (pioneered to a very large extent by the likes of Peter), but can we really say the same about DACs? Listening to the performance of this old-timer DAC, I'm not so sure...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani,

3. Analogue capture:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfTFBrZG5vRXE0UDQ

Hmmm... This is also incredibly close in SQ to the original CD rip. Again, not identical - there are differences, but they're pretty small. It's not that easy to differentiate between this file and the digital capture.

Now, do you want to hear the 'killer'? I used the analogue output of a 25 year-old 16-bit DAC for this!

Haha, yes, quite killing. OK, not super bad perhaps, but the strings sound strange, the S'es harsh and the hall is non-existent. Flagiolettes and all are cut.
And then to think that this was my "verdict" without listening to the other two.
Of course I ate a plate of placeboes in advance, but ...

I then listening to the CD Rip (with right away the familiar sound). This made me realize how inaccurate the first I listened to was. After that I played the Digital Output one and found no differences to notice. But notice I played all only once and for maybe just over 1 minute only.

We always agree over everything (for such tests) so we should agree about this too. But also notice that it can't be about a small very short listening test anyway if it were about D/A converters; after an hour you may be annoyed about all sounding the same or be disturbed about some flavour or are tired because of things being too harsh (that would be the case for soure with this example, which btw is too gentle for real testing).

Now I am waiting for the pitfall I fell in; some unpleasant surprise.
haha

Thanks !
Peter


PS: The conclusion could also be that the A/D does not add much. Right ?
Wrong (I misjudged the process).

[manisandher]

Hey Peter, quick reply because I need to go to the gym... No, absolutely no surprises. All is exactly as I described.

I'll have more to say later, but for now I'll just remind you that file 3 went through a 25 year-old DAC and a delta-sigma ADC. It'd be very difficult to attribute the negatives that you're hearing to just the DAC. Of course, easily done if I do the same with a few more DACs, but keep the ADC the same - it's contribution to the sound should become apparent.

More later...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

OK !
(these things are always fun)

[manisandher]

OK, not super bad perhaps, but the strings sound strange, the S'es harsh and the hall is non-existent. Flagiolettes and all are cut.

Yes, I agree totally with your description.

When I play these 3 files back through the 25 year-old DAC, I hear the differences you're describing - so, this DAC has the resolution to show these differences up easily. Also, when I was taking the captures, I was monitoring through the headphone socket on the ADC. The signal coming in from DAC was much closer to the original file than that captured by the ADC.

The 25 year-old DAC is a Sugden AU51 with a TDA1541A S2 Double Crown chip. It also uses the old 4x OS SAA7220P/B filter, which I suspect is contributing to the sonic signature you can hear. Yes, it certainly has a sonic signature, but I actually find it very pleasant - very musical and very easy on the ear.

I would certainly like to 'prove' how good this Sugden DAC is. In order to do this, I need to be able to capture its analogue output accurately. The ADC in the Tascam is clearly not up to the job, but its spdif digital input seems pretty transparent. So I'll be on the lookout for a nice 16-bit linear PCM ADC with a BNC spdif output. Not many of these around, but I've identified a few old DAT recorders that may do the trick.

Once I've sorted this out, I'll be doing a full 'Old School vs. New Kid' DAC comparison. There will be a number of rounds comparing DACs that cost a similar amount today (similar used price of old DAC vs. new price of modern DAC). The DACs I'll be comparing will be the following:

Round 1 (portable, ~$500): Hifiman HM603 (TDA1543) vs. Ponoplayer (ESS9018) vs. iFi Nano iDSD (DSD1793)

Round 2 (~$500): Sugden SDA-1 (TDA1541A S1 Single Crown) vs. iFi Micro iDSD (DSD1793)

Round 3 (~$1200): Sugden Au51 (TDA1541A S2 Double Crown) vs. Altmann Attraction (TDA1543, Paul Hynes PSU) vs. Chord 2Qute (26k tap WTA)

I am deliberately not including the NOS1a in the 'official' comparisons, though of course I will be comparing for my own benefit (hopefully after the B'ASS situation is resolved). The NOS1a will be the DAC that I play all the captured files back on to identify the performance of the DACs.

I already have all the 'old school' DACs here (been doing a lot of searching on eBay these last few weeks!). Just have to get hold of an iFi Micro and the Chord 2Qute, and I should be ready to go. (But still need to sort the ADC out first...)

Why am I doing this? To promote old DACs? Nah... it's because I'm genuinely interested in knowing the outcome and I think it'll be a lot of fun!

Mani.

[manisandher]

Think about it... A file sits on my music server in my basement. It gets sent via ethernet to the audio PC over many meters distance. XX does its magic (RAM-OS, 'Copy to XX folder', MinOS, Unattended, etc) and sends it via a USB port to the USB cable. Having gone through the Intona, it reaches the USB-to-spdif converter. Once converted, it gets sent out via a BNC cable to the recorder's digital input, and is captured on an SDHC card in the recorder. All this, and the captured file remains so close in SQ to the original CD rip!

For me, it's a clear indication of how good the Mach II, Clarixa and Intona combination are.

More later...

Now that we've established that I can capture the digital output of the Mach II PC with very little loss (remember, the digital capture sounds almost identical to the original CD rip), I'd now like to capture the output whilst playing around with various XX settings, to see (hear!) what affect these settings actually have. I should be able to determine which settings are the most accurate. Working through all the various XX settings permutations will be fun 

Even if I do find the 'most accurate' settings, these would only apply to the particular USB-to-spdif converter I'm using, which is only 16/44.1 capable.

Once (if?) I achieve a close-to-100% ADC capture with the Tascam (I'm working on it) I'll be able to do the same with the analogue output of the NOS1a. I'm really excited about this because we may be able to put all the "I prefer this OS", or "I prefer a higher SFS", etc thinking to bed.

I wonder... is there really an ideal set of XX parameters???

Mani.

[manisandher]

The DACs I'll be comparing will be the following:

Round 1 (portable, ~$500): Hifiman HM603 (TDA1543) vs. Ponoplayer (ESS9018) vs. iFi Nano iDSD (DSD1793)

Round 2 (~$500): Sugden SDA-1 (TDA1541A S1 Single Crown) vs. iFi Micro iDSD (DSD1793)

Round 3 (~$1200): Sugden Au51 (TDA1541A S2 Double Crown) vs. Altmann Attraction (TDA1543, Paul Hynes PSU) vs. Chord 2Qute (26k tap WTA, Paul Hynes PSU)

A slight change to my list. It'll now be:

Round 1 (portable, ~$500): Hifiman HM603 (TDA1543) vs. Ponoplayer (ESS9018) vs. iFi Nano iDSD (DSD1793)

Round 2 (~$1200): Sugden Au51 (TDA1541A S2 Double Crown) vs. Altmann Attraction (TDA1543, Paul Hynes PSU) vs. Chord 2Qute (26k tap WTA, Paul Hynes PSU)

I have all these DACs now. I'm still trying to optimise the ADC though. I think I'll just have to splash out on a new ADC... probably go for a Forrsell MADC-2. Shame they're all delta-sigmas now...

Once I'm done, I'll probably post my thoughts on CA. But I'll state right now that the Chord 2Qute is a seriously good DAC irrespective of how little it costs - I easily prefer it to the Schiit Yggy I had here a few months ago (sorry Brian!). But is it accurate? We'll see!

More later...

Mani.

[manisandher]

I'm deliberately not starting a new thread for this post because I don't want to make a big deal about it - I'm fed up with people on CA thinking that I'm a secret agent for Phasure! But I thought a few of you might be interested nevertheless...

I've just compared my microRendu (powered by an Uptone UltraCap LPS-1 PSU) to my Mach II. I know many of you are busy, so I'll just give you my thoughts, and link the files for when you have time to take a listen yourselves.

1. Original CD rip (Julia Hülsmann Trio, 'Zahlen Bitte')

A typically good ECM recording. The cymbals are a bit too forward in this recording for my liking, but they have great delicacy and colour - I visualise them as being very thin, delicate and golden in colour. I wish there were more 'kick' from the rest of the drum kit. The piano is OK, but not as sweet-sounding as I'd like. And the bass is a bit too vague (until the solo near the end). But a nice track to my ears.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfQmcyNWxZMFNPSUE

2. microRendu -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> Tascam recorder digital input

Flatter than the original CD rip - the dynamics are not there. But the colour/tone is pretty similar. I think this is about as good as you're going to get before getting into a fully optimised audio PC like the Mach II. For the cost of the microRendu/LPS-1, it's very good... but certainly not perfect. I'm sure the microRendu crowd on CA wouldn't agree...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfNWF5YVl1WTVCSG8

3. Mach II -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> Tascam recorder digital input

OK, the dynamics are back. Very, very close to the original CD rip, though I feel there is a slight 'hardening' of the sound. The cymbals now sound 'cheaper', i.e. made of a thicker and inferior metal. I have SFS=4.00 and Q1-5=0 (xQ1=1). It might be possible to 'tune' the sound to become closer to the original by playing around with the XX settings - something that I'll do going forward, if I have the time and inclination. It also occurs to me that maybe this is 14393 showing some of its attributes?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfcDNQVFllRjFuZ0k

I've given you my views. I'd really appreciate it if some of you could compare especially file 1 to file 3 and let me know what you think. Any ideas what I could do in XX to bridge the small gap that currently exists between 1 and 3?

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hi Mani,

I will give this a try in a couple of hours.
But by what means did you listen to the original CD Rip ?

Thanks,
Peter

[PeterSt]

OK, I guess I need some psychological help here ...

I don't know what the gag or pitfall is, but with the first version I thought "oh boy, finally cymbals to compare but now all lack dynamics. It really disturbed me. Also the colour of the cymbals was not right. The tick in the beginning on them is too loud compared to the too thin remainder.
I noticed that especially at the end things were not right at all (was it hitting on the rim ? very close by that on the skin ?).

With the second there was much more body to the cymbals but the punch (sort of) in the drums was so much lacking that when the bass started I seemed to have missed the lower keyed drums (compared to the first version). Colour seemed too dirty of everything and halfway the piano started to disturb me (buzzes a bit through the room).

With the third all was suddenly OK ? Dynamics were there, cymbals had the right colour, the bass seemed to be more life-like and the end sounded dynamic as should.

Because I thought I might have gotten used to it all I replayed the last 3rd of each track, but I my initial judgement remains.


I'm sure I failed on you, Mani !
Peter

[manisandher]

But by what means did you listen to the original CD Rip ?

I've been comparing the 3 files mainly with Mach II -> NOS1a.

I'm sure I failed on you, Mani !

There really can be no failure here. Irrespective of what you think of the SQ of file 1, all we need to establish is whether file 2 or file 3 sounds the closest to file 1. File 1 could have been a recording from AM radio (although I admit it would be almost impossible to distinguish between the files in this case).

Interestingly, I think the playing back through the NOS1a makes it more difficult to distinguish between the 3 files. If I use the USB-to-spdif into another DAC (e.g. the Altmann, which I have here), the differences seem easier to pick up, to my ears. This is NOT because this setup is better than the NOS1a - definitely NOT. No, it's more because the NOS1a seems to make all 3 files sound actually quite good. Through the Altmann, file 2 sounds quite flat compared to the others, but through the NOS1a, it sounds OK - not as dynamic as the other files, but OK. It's almost like the NOS1a brings out the best in the file, flawed as it is.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense...

With the third all was suddenly OK ? Dynamics were there, cymbals had the right colour, the bass seemed to be more life-like and the end sounded dynamic as should.

I mentioned earlier that to me, the cymbals on file 3 sound different - I said 'cheaper', and made of thicker and inferior metal. But in retrospect, I can totally understand how they could actually sound more real than the very, very delicate - almost paper-thin - cymbals on file 1. They seem to shimmer more once struck, so you don't just get the initial strike, but some body afterwards also.

But irrespective of our preferences, it means that the Mach II is changing the sound. It's a very pleasant change, but it's still a change.

Overall, I still maintain that file 3 sounds closer than file 2 to the original file 1.

My conclusions:

1. Both the microRendu/LPS-1 and the Mach II are 'near-perfect' 'transports', if setup correctly. (I can only claim this to be the case with the particular USB-to-spdif converter I used, limited to a 16/44.1 output.)

2. There ain't much wrong with USB for audio purposes, if done right (at 16/44.1, at least).

3. There ain't much wrong with spdif, if done right (at 16/44.1, at least).

Happy to hear other thoughts...

Mani.

[boleary]

What playback software was used to capture the files in 2 and 3? Will give them a listen this evening.

[manisandher]

Hi Brian,

File 2: Roon -> HQPlayer -> bit-perfect 16/44.1 output
File 3: XXHighEnd -> bit-perfect 16/44.1 output

Mani.

[manisandher]

The cymbals are a bit too forward in this recording for my liking, but they have great delicacy and colour - I visualise them as being very thin, delicate and golden in colour.

Haha...

The drummer is Heinrich Köbberling. I couldn't find which drums he actually used on this recording, but he endorses Canopus Drums. Have a look at the first video here: http://canopusdrums.com/en/concept/. The cymbals are exactly the way I visualised them when listening to the original CD rip.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani,

To be 100% sure : Is that original CD Rip the original file, or did it go throught some ADC process ?

Thanks,
Peter