advertisement


Resonessence Labs INVICTA - move over Weiss DAC202U, theres a new king in town!

spacey said:
Yes!! thats why its been mentioned already and hinted at in the Resonessence reply; the computer should also be fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
The problem with using terms like "fit for purpose" or "adequately designed" is that for one thing the computer is an all-purpose device so what is it's purpose? It hasn't been designed specifically for audio so if there is an interaction like you experienced with your laptop brick, does it mean it's not fit for purpose? Did the laptop still perform all the functions that a laptop should? Then it was fit for purpose!

Both these terms are too undefined to mean anything other than the two systems don't work together as expected, so where does the fault lie? In the laptop brick for connecting to ground or in the DAC because it isn't immune to CM noise?

This is exactly what Mark is focussing in on - the finer details of the possible interactions between the PC as a transport & the DAC
 
I agree, and think Mark is doing the right thing! I've experimented with computers myself and found that being fan-less and SSD helps. As does choosing a SMPS without a mains earth. But thats where i found the limits, and all (hardware) for £450 which included a 512GB SSD
 
OK, it's good to share this information based on experience rather than deal with beliefs.

One thing that I questioned above was this dismissing of the LAT USB cable as being "badly designed". How do we know? Just because it sounds bad on the Invicta only means that the two don't work well together. Again, where does the fault lie? Is the LAT exposing some problem in the Invicta or the Invicta some problem in the LAT? The rush to denounce the LAT, based solely on this evidence, is not conclusive. If it similarly sounded bad on other DACs then it would have more credence!
 
jkeny said:
The problem with using terms like "fit for purpose" or "adequately designed" is that for one thing the computer is an all-purpose device so what is it's purpose? It hasn't been designed specifically for audio so if there is an interaction like you experienced with your laptop brick, does it mean it's not fit for purpose? Did the laptop still perform all the functions that a laptop should? Then it was fit for purpose!

Both these terms are too undefined to mean anything other than the two systems don't work together as expected, so where does the fault lie? In the laptop brick for connecting to ground or in the DAC because it isn't immune to CM noise?

This is exactly what Mark is focussing in on - the finer details of the possible interactions between the PC as a transport & the DAC
Click to expand...

There is no problem associated with referring to computers as being fit for purpose.
If the computer is being used to serve data to a dac, the question is answered amply by looking at how the dac performs.

I asked before but cannot recall any answer being posted, but where are the things which you (and Mark) identify as being problems worthy of solution manifesting themselves on the analogue output of the dac?

You both seem to be adept at listing a range of potential problems but I see no evidence - none at all - demonstrating any relevance to performance.
 
Oh, btw, I believe the ferrites on that LAT cable are more than likely the problem with it's interaction with the Invicta!
 
jkeny said:
OK, it's good to share this information based on experience rather than deal with beliefs.

One thing that I questioned above was this dismissing of the LAT USB cable as being "badly designed". How do we know? Just because it sounds bad on the Invicta only means that the two don't work well together. Again, where does the fault lie? Is the LAT exposing some problem in the Invicta or the Invicta some problem in the LAT? The rush to denounce the LAT, based solely on this evidence, is not conclusive. If it similarly sounded bad on other DACs then it would have more credence!
Click to expand...

It's possible you had a faulty sample of that cable, but we've used the LAT USB2 for a number of years and not found it 'faulty' in the way that is suggested.
 
Robert said:
There is no problem associated with referring to computers as being fit for purpose.
If the computer is being used to serve data to a dac, the question is answered amply by looking at how the dac performs.
Click to expand...
What if it is also feeding noise to the DAC, as in Spacey's example? Is it still fit for purpose?
 
Robert said:
There is no problem associated with referring to computers as being fit for purpose.
If the computer is being used to serve data to a dac, the question is answered amply by looking at how the dac performs.

I asked before but cannot recall any answer being posted, but where are the things which you (and Mark) identify as being problems worthy of solution manifesting themselves on the analogue output of the dac?

You both seem to be adept at listing a range of potential problems but I see no evidence - none at all - demonstrating any relevance to performance.
Click to expand...

All audio equipment is 'fit for purpose'. It plays music. Stacey's LAT cable was fit for purpose, but apparently it didn't sound as good as a shorter, stock one.

What makes things play music better is how well designed they are to do their job. You know as well as I do what external factors electronic components are sensitive too. We've been round the houses more than once with you on this.

Your issue is: 'but does it 'manifest' outside the digital domain?' I've said consistently - and demonstrated - computers vary with respect to noise and jitter. Lower cannot be worse.

How much better - if at all better - depends largely on the DAC, partly on the rest of the system, and partly on the listener: ranging from 'surprisingly audible' to 'barely improved' and even 'no better'. I've never heard a lower-noise/jitter transport sound worse.
 
jkeny said:
What if it is also feeding noise to the DAC, as in Spacey's example? Is it still fit for purpose?
Click to expand...

Feeding noise to the dac isn't the problem.
How the dac deals with that noise is potentially the problem.

What is appearing on the analogue output of the dac when the noise is present, and at what level?
You don't listen to the noise going in, you listen to signal coming out having been processed by the dac.

That's the only question which requires an answer, and the only one relevant to the question of the transport/computer being fit for purpose.

item said:
All audio equipment is 'fit for purpose'.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of your proposed solutions to the problems associated with computer audio.

In terms of a transport, fit for purpose can encompass a whole raft of solution if the dac has sufficient immunity to departures from technical perfection on the input.
That's the nub of the argument here. I'd contend (and can demonstrate) that most modern dacs are sufficiently immune to the quality of input such that the problems you highlight are simply not relevant. I've not yet seen any evidence from you or JK to support your viewpoints.

Anecdotal stuff along the lines of '8 out of 10 listeners said their ears preferred it' means very little where you've taken no measures to exclude say, the listener having a bad day, getting out of the wrong side of the bed or simply shifting seat position by a few inches. All are just as plausible - arguably a lot lore plausible - than blaming differences on a bit of jitter or noise in the computer.
 
jkeny said:
Oh, btw, I believe the ferrites on that LAT cable are more than likely the problem with it's interaction with the Invicta!
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, i have a Mini USB to USB cable which has ferrite rings. When i use it for a USB caddy drive, it won't show the drive on any computer, but it'll work fine on a USB powered scanner... strange but true.
 
Robert said:
Feeding noise to the dac isn't the problem.
How the dac deals with that noise is potentially the problem.

What is appearing on the analogue output of the dac when the noise present, and at what level?
You don't listen to the noise going in, you listen to signal coming out having been processed by the dac.

That's the only question which requires an answer, and the only one relevant to the question of the transport/computer being fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

So, Spacey's laptop brick was fit for purpose but the DAC he was feeding was not. So if a DAC has a different sound through it's different inputs, it too will be unfit for purpose. Is that what you are saying?
 
I suspect that brick was faulty, i could hear it physically squealing (if i put my ear near it) and is what possibly finished off the laptop. Also the Zodiac DAC's are not galvanically isolated.
 
spacey said:
No, that brick was faulty, i could hear it physically squealing.
Click to expand...

Some SMPS can produce a high pitched whine because of their switching frequency mode of operation but it doesn't mean they are faulty. it still charged your laptop batteries & powered it, I presume? Other than that I see no purpose for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top