advertisement


Reclocking USB signals - significant improvement !

Cereal Killer said:
I'll ask again just in case you missed it; Do you know what it really is and does ... (under the skin) .... or are you simply objecting to what its called?
Click to expand...
Hi,
As Keith said - it regenerates the signal - but it may do other things - so you have to state which product you are referring to, for any analysis.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Cereal Killer said:
Do you know you are insulting someones intelligence with your fairly self-righteous statement?
Click to expand...
Hi,
How about you only use your own experience as evidence to be provided in a discussion ?

Funny how you accept someones elses subjective opinion, but react against any objective opinion as per your other thread, since it does not agree with your own preconceptions.

Anyone quoting someone elses subjective experience, as being proof, is an insult to others. Why not just stand on your own two feet and present your evidence or engineering analysis ?

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Purité Audio said:
Andy you believe that Chord DACs sound better than anything else, yet there is no evidence from their measurements that they do.
Perhaps both you and Nick could take the same unsighted public comparison?
Keith
Click to expand...
Difference is I’m not trying to sell anything Keith. Nor am I making technical claims that I can’t substantiate. I just happen to like the sound of my DAC with my speakers. With them I find I am more likely to achieve the state of ecstatic transcendence that I cherish when I listen to great music. It is a personal thing.
 
Let's not forget the Phoenix also removes and replaces the 5v line, maybe that's how it improves the sound, if indeed it makes any measurable difference at all.
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
I think people are viewing the perceived effect of USB reclockers wrong.

If you are spending however many £100's or £1000's on a USB reclocker for your £100's or many £1000's DAC, then you should not be viewing it that the USB reclocker makes an improvement.

You should take the approach, why you have spent such a vast sum on a DAC for another product (USB reclocker) to put right the engineering incompetence of your many £1,000's DAC.

What ever the claimed improvement of the USB reclocker, you do have to ask yourself why doesn't your existing DAC implement the reclocker technology anyway.

This is not to say that the USB reclocker works, but that you believe it works, and happily accept that you need the additional cost of the USB reclocker in addition to your existing DAC costs.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

Shadders, you've misunderstood this completely.

I'd expect my £1000s DAC to be so resolving that it can reveal what a very expensive reclocker can do. A DAC has to be good enough for the reclocker to make a difference to it.

Obviously.
 
mattgbell said:
Shadders, you've misunderstood this completely.

I'd expect my £1000s DAC to be so resolving that it can reveal what a very expensive reclocker can do. A DAC has to be good enough for the reclocker to make a difference to it.

Obviously.
Click to expand...
Hi,
No, it is exactly the opposite.

If your very expensive DAC is affected by a data interface connection, then you have a seriously f*cked up DAC design.

All that matters is the I2S signal and local clock - these are three digital lines, bit, bit clock and word clock, and relevant clock for audio, which the DAC IC accepts. If the DAC digital design is affected by any other signal, it is an utter sh!te design.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
No, it is exactly the opposite.

If your very expensive DAC is affected by a data interface connection, then you have a seriously f*cked up DAC design.

All that matters is the I2S signal and local clock - these are three digital lines, bit, bit clock and word clock, and relevant clock for audio, which the DAC IC accepts. If the DAC digital design is affected by any other signal, it is an utter sh!te design.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

Shadders, I was joking!
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
No, it is exactly the opposite.

If your very expensive DAC is affected by a data interface connection, then you have a seriously f*cked up DAC design.

All that matters is the I2S signal and local clock - these are three digital lines, bit, bit clock and word clock, and relevant clock for audio, which the DAC IC accepts. If the DAC digital design is affected by any other signal, it is an utter sh!te design.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

Are you a qualified dac/digital designer?
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
No, it is exactly the opposite.

If your very expensive DAC is affected by a data interface connection, then you have a seriously f*cked up DAC design.

All that matters is the I2S signal and local clock - these are three digital lines, bit, bit clock and word clock, and relevant clock for audio, which the DAC IC accepts. If the DAC digital design is affected by any other signal, it is an utter sh!te design.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that this reclocker was claimed to make a difference to a Kii Control. Checking it out, there is no mention of an asynchronous USB interface, or any kind of galvanic isolation, and it would seem to get some of its power down the proprietary Kii Link CAT5. It maybe that the USB interface is self-powered. It is the case that Paul Miller has measured big improvements in the jitter and noise performance of USB powered DACs when driven from servers like the Melco and Roon. Maybe the USB implementation of the Kii Control leaves something to be desired.
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
I think people are viewing the perceived effect of USB reclockers wrong.

If you are spending however many £100's or £1000's on a USB reclocker for your £100's or many £1000's DAC, then you should not be viewing it that the USB reclocker makes an improvement.

You should take the approach, why you have spent such a vast sum on a DAC for another product (USB reclocker) to put right the engineering incompetence of your many £1,000's DAC.

What ever the claimed improvement of the USB reclocker, you do have to ask yourself why doesn't your existing DAC implement the reclocker technology anyway.

This is not to say that the USB reclocker works, but that you believe it works, and happily accept that you need the additional cost of the USB reclocker in addition to your existing DAC costs.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

Shadders said:
Hi,

. . . ..If your very expensive DAC is affected by a data interface connection, then you have a seriously f*cked up DAC design.

All that matters is the I2S signal and local clock - these are three digital lines, bit, bit clock and word clock, and relevant clock for audio, which the DAC IC accepts. If the DAC digital design is affected by any other signal, it is an utter sh!te design.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

From what you are saying it seems to me that you ARE saying the Kii 3 DAC "is an utter sh!te design" if it was affected by the Phoenix as reported by the OP (and I accept that at this stage it is an if).

Have I got that right? Note I am NOT vouching for the OP's statement, merely asking the question.
 
AndyU said:
It’s interesting that this reclocker was claimed to make a difference to a Kii Control. Checking it out, there is no mention of an asynchronous USB interface, or any kind of galvanic isolation, and it would seem to get some of its power down the proprietary Kii Link CAT5. It maybe that the USB interface is self-powered. It is the case that Paul Miller has measured big improvements in the jitter and noise performance of USB powered DACs when driven from servers like the Melco and Roon. Maybe the USB implementation of the Kii Control leaves something to be desired.
Click to expand...
Hi,
Without any definitive statement on how the Kii Three was connected - then we can only speculate. I have seen the reports in Hifi News that some cables affect the jitter performance of the DAC and galvanic isolation is a key solution to this - for USB powered DAC's and powered.

For the Kii Three report - we only have someones subjective opinion that it did have an effect. The Kii Three is probably not an issue, but without any jitter analysis as per Hifi News reports, then we cannot trust a persons ears that the jitter is improved.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Fourlegs said:
From what you are saying it seems to me that you ARE saying the Kii 3 DAC "is an utter sh!te design" if it was affected by the Phoenix as reported by the OP (and I accept that at this stage it is an if).

Have I got that right? Note I am NOT vouching for the OP's statement, merely asking the question.
Click to expand...
Hi,
There is a claim that someone heard a difference. This is not proven. Without proof, then no other statement can be attributed to the equipment performance.

The only method to see if the speakers were affected is by measurements.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
sq225917 said:
Let's not forget the Phoenix also removes and replaces the 5v line, maybe that's how it improves the sound, if indeed it makes any measurable difference at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's indeed clear from the Innuos video.

For those of us whose enjoyment of the hobby includes technical curiosity, AFAICS (please correct me if I am wrong) the box could be replicated as per this USB hub design: https://www.eeweb.com/profile/ti/news/7-port-usb-hub-ic (or several other inexpensive designs) modified as follows:
  • cut down to have one dedicated USB input and one dedicated USB output​
  • a well-engineered separate USB power source (and good internal power supplies too)
  • a well-engineered 48 MHz clock source with the chip's internal PLL turned off
I think that would be consistent with the re-clocker's function AIUI, and with the publicly available information I have seen so far. However available details are few, so I don't really know.

And the second bullet above might make a difference as you say.

For example, here is a test of a TEAC UD-501 DAC showing that fed from an ASUS motherboard's USB connector you get rather poor, audible levels of 8 kHz USB micro-frame interference on the analogue output. The test also shows that a $50 USB hub from Kensington can sufficiently remove that problem. But not all hubs do.

I have also seen DACs tested from various computer USB sources that do not show any audible level of USB interference so I think the problem is not inevitable.

However It's not clear to me how to make sure a DAC is not sensitive to USB noise other than listening or using an audio spectrum analyser. My DAC shows no audible signs of USB interference when fed direct from a Raspberry Pi (to these ears anyway, with volume turned right up). So perhaps I won't be trying another box in my now minimized system.​
 
Shadders said:
Hi,
There is a claim that someone heard a difference. This is not proven. Without proof, then no other statement can be attributed to the equipment performance.

The only method to see if the speakers were affected is by measurements.

Regards,
Shadders.
Click to expand...

Either the Innuos Phoenix reclocker makes no difference and in which case you are calling Innuos out as con artists or it does make a difference and to use your words again, the Kii DAC "is an utter sh!te design".

Are you just saying it needs to be investigated by measurements before you decide which of those is going to be your verdict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top