ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,928
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 10, 2020 10:43:35 GMT -6
Since I’m clocking with word clock, I should be fine right? Clocking a D/A with word and feeding it spdif at the same time? Technically not sure how that would work. Since spdif also contains it's own clock, you'd have to buffer the audio streams and realign them to the word clock.. it can be done, but you'd have some latency and chance for missing bits. Have you tried unhooking the word clock while playing through the converter to see if it's actually getting clocked by the word input? It should drop out if it is. If it doesn't, then it's likely selecting the spdif stream as the clock source automatically. Most interfaces will let you choose clock source via internal software.
|
|
|
Post by cyrano on Feb 10, 2020 11:13:23 GMT -6
COAX will always be better than TOSLINK in any situation. Optical has one immense advantage: perfect electric isolation. No ground loops. Just sayin' Besides, modern optical receivers might just have jitter reduction.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 10, 2020 11:39:28 GMT -6
COAX will always be better than TOSLINK in any situation. Optical has one immense advantage: perfect electric isolation. No ground loops. Just sayin' Besides, modern optical receivers might just have jitter reduction. Most SPDIF receiver ICs mux the optical and coax inputs. Optical usually needs an external buffer to help with the hysteresis of the optotransistors. Since coax has a standardized impedance, reflections are usually not an issue, whereas with optical, we have issues like those seen in this thread.. Cheap TOSLINK cables with random inclusions, cracks, poor polishing, poor mating, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Feb 10, 2020 20:00:56 GMT -6
Issues with digital cables can result in data errors but not in worse (or better) sounding 0's and 1's.
However there are some in the Hi-Fi 'Voodoo' world who will attempt convince you otherwise especially when trying to sell you a $500 optical cable.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 10, 2020 21:46:05 GMT -6
I select word clock in class nailed and it locks.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 10, 2020 23:10:06 GMT -6
First-I don't at all think you're "hearing things". The problem with discussions like this is that people with the "a 1 is a one...0 is a zero" are equating a real time digital stream with a CRC'd file transfer. It's not. Anyway--my valuable input is that whichever digital cable (or clocking scheme) makes for a "wider" soundstage is the one with more errors. The better clocking will "narrow" the image, like analog. I'd have always called it "focusing" on the phantom center and pin pointing placement--but, if I had to assign a subjectively negative word, it would in fact be "narrower". Bad digital makes things wider by the time difference in left and right, which the cheapest analog mixer nails easily by being...analog.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 10, 2020 23:14:22 GMT -6
First-I don't at all think you're "hearing things". The problem with discussions like this is that people with the "a 1 is a one...0 is a zero" are equating a real time digital stream with a CRC'd file transfer. It's not. Anyway--my valuable input is that whichever digital cable (or clocking scheme) makes for a "wider" soundstage is the one with more errors. The better clocking will "narrow" the image, like analog. I'd have always called it "focusing" on the phantom center and pin pointing placement--but, if I had to assign a subjectively negative word, it would in fact be "narrower". Bad digital makes things wider by the time difference in left and right, which the cheapest analog mixer nails easily by being...analog. So, the one that sounds better is the worse one. Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 11, 2020 8:40:46 GMT -6
First-I don't at all think you're "hearing things". The problem with discussions like this is that people with the "a 1 is a one...0 is a zero" are equating a real time digital stream with a CRC'd file transfer. It's not. Anyway--my valuable input is that whichever digital cable (or clocking scheme) makes for a "wider" soundstage is the one with more errors. The better clocking will "narrow" the image, like analog. I'd have always called it "focusing" on the phantom center and pin pointing placement--but, if I had to assign a subjectively negative word, it would in fact be "narrower". Bad digital makes things wider by the time difference in left and right, which the cheapest analog mixer nails easily by being...analog. So, the one that sounds better is the worse one. Good to know. It's called Haas effect. The tiny delay makes your brain think that the sound is further away so you think the sound is wider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 9:22:16 GMT -6
So, the one that sounds better is the worse one. Good to know. It's called Haas effect. The tiny delay makes your brain think that the sound is further away so you think the sound is wider. yep same as a guitar preamp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 9:49:14 GMT -6
Needed a second optical cable, so I got a new one...just hooked it up...and I SWEAR things sound much wider. I'm not trying to promote that some cables sound better than others - I'm just wondering if maybe the cable I had had some issues or something. But I guess a digital cable doesn't have differing levels of qualities - they either work or not, right? Is there some kind've thing like "packet loss" they can suffer? (I have zero idea, so don't make fun of me lol) It probably just goes to show how fallible the human listening experience is...today I would swear it sounds better...probably just in my head. Guess I could switch back and forth...but that would take getting up lol. cables do matter bro. i thought it was some marketing mumbo jumbo too. believe it or not, by swapping out my regular USB to klotz, it made big difference in my recording chain. now i didnt even know about optical ones but i will make sure pay for the highest quality in future
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 11, 2020 9:52:00 GMT -6
Youre welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2020 15:08:19 GMT -6
So, the one that sounds better is the worse one. Good to know. It's called Haas effect. The tiny delay makes your brain think that the sound is further away so you think the sound is wider. I’m familiar. I just don’t know if I believe that’s what’s going on. It’s not like a phasey faux stereo thing and it’s not dramatic. But I hear the center more prominently and the stereo panning stage seems more defined. If that’s the Haas Effect and loving the Haas Effect is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2020 15:11:24 GMT -6
If it’s the Haas Effect shouldn’t I be hearing a mono signal sound more like a stereo effect? That is - if I’m understanding correctly. You are saying that clock errors are making one side slightly out of time with the other? And maybe we are describing the same thing. Maybe the field isn’t “wider” but it’s more defined.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 11, 2020 15:35:13 GMT -6
If it’s the Haas Effect shouldn’t I be hearing a mono signal sound more like a stereo effect? That is - if I’m understanding correctly. You are saying that clock errors are making one side slightly out of time with the other? And maybe we are describing the same thing. Maybe the field isn’t “wider” but it’s more defined. It'll sound a little more smeared on a mono source, perhaps as if it's "blurred" if I were to use a sight analogy for audio.. Perhaps sound slightly chorus-y if it's bad enough. Stereo sources will just sound slightly wider for the most part. You might be able to experiment with it you can split a stereo track to two mono tracks and then nudge one of them by as small of a timespan as you can and see if you can hear a change. I know I can hear a difference of less than a millisecond when I play around with it. I typically use about 21ms to create a nice wide pseudo-stereo effect.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 11, 2020 15:40:19 GMT -6
When I "think" I hear jitter it reminds me of a record player, like you can hear the pitch modulating like the spinning of a disk. I haven't tested it with a control though.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,928
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 11, 2020 16:22:46 GMT -6
It’s all an optical illusion 🤔
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 11, 2020 17:37:53 GMT -6
"wider" vs "more defined"= dancing about architecture.
More defined SPECIFICALLY in the center and "10 and 2" pannings should be better clocking. What I was saying is that digital errors can't collapse the stereo field. They can ONLY make it "wider"--which many audiophiles perceive as better because it's wider--see hyper expensive clock sales in that market.
The only thing that matters is the translation. If you get happier with how it translates, it's better.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2020 18:25:46 GMT -6
"wider" vs "more defined"= dancing about architecture. More defined SPECIFICALLY in the center and "10 and 2" pannings should be better clocking. What I was saying is that digital errors can't collapse the stereo field. They can ONLY make it "wider"--which many audiophiles perceive as better because it's wider--see hyper expensive clock sales in that market. The only thing that matters is the translation. If you get happier with how it translates, it's better. Actually - the two and ten positions are what I meant by more “defined”. I can hear placement a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 11, 2020 19:56:51 GMT -6
AES/EBU/SPDIF is better than word clock provided modern chips are used with it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2020 20:19:29 GMT -6
Here’s another question...if I select Apollo as my interface, then mirror the spdif, I can connect from Apollo coax spdif to Convert AES. But the digital volume in Console can still control the sound. Is there any degradation if it is maxed and then I control with the Convert?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2020 20:21:41 GMT -6
Btw - I can’t get it to clock via just that connection. Have to use WC.
|
|
|
Post by cyrano on Feb 27, 2020 17:12:05 GMT -6
Optical has one immense advantage: perfect electric isolation. No ground loops. Just sayin' Besides, modern optical receivers might just have jitter reduction. Most SPDIF receiver ICs mux the optical and coax inputs. Optical usually needs an external buffer to help with the hysteresis of the optotransistors. Since coax has a standardized impedance, reflections are usually not an issue, whereas with optical, we have issues like those seen in this thread.. Cheap TOSLINK cables with random inclusions, cracks, poor polishing, poor mating, etc. Many years ago, yes. These days, even the cheap cables are perfect. Unless you need really long cables, like 1 km. Also today, amateurs sometimes offer gear that's far beyond what the "Pro" audio manufacturers offer. Have a look at this: www.tindie.com/products/Beni_Skate/automatic-spdif-opticalrca-audio-switch/Far too many that sell Chinese products at a steeply "upgraded" price. It's very easy to believe and rather hard to know.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 27, 2020 18:10:12 GMT -6
I’m clocking with WC and using the optical cable for the digital connection. Spent an hour on the phone with Ryan West trying to get the aggregate device thing to work. Never could.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 27, 2020 18:11:27 GMT -6
Most SPDIF receiver ICs mux the optical and coax inputs. Optical usually needs an external buffer to help with the hysteresis of the optotransistors. Since coax has a standardized impedance, reflections are usually not an issue, whereas with optical, we have issues like those seen in this thread.. Cheap TOSLINK cables with random inclusions, cracks, poor polishing, poor mating, etc. Many years ago, yes. These days, even the cheap cables are perfect. Unless you need really long cables, like 1 km. Also today, amateurs sometimes offer gear that's far beyond what the "Pro" audio manufacturers offer. Have a look at this: www.tindie.com/products/Beni_Skate/automatic-spdif-opticalrca-audio-switch/Far too many that sell Chinese products at a steeply "upgraded" price. It's very easy to believe and rather hard to know. Boy - wish I had found that sooner. Been sooo many times I could’ve used one of those.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 27, 2020 18:26:20 GMT -6
I totally get why they’re finicky and prone to breakage. I don’t get why a given cable could cause a stream of 1s and 0s to be altered in such a way as to become a different stream of 1s and 0s that sounds different. I would speculate that if enough 1s and 0s are dropped there would be some kind of signal degradation that would be audible- distortion, loss of frequency response, etc. Significant loss may result in a collapse of the stereo field similar to what happens with low-rez mp3s. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm pretty sure I am because I know nothing about digital engineering), but I thought digital was all or nothing. Either you have a signal or you don't. The threshold is set to an over/under correct? Not like a sine wave that has fluctuations in amplitude?
|
|