master / slave digital cable for 440Pro

master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Printable Version

+- Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com)
+-- Forum: Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Chat)
+--- Forum: Devialet Expert 400/800, Original d'Atelier, Expert 210/440/1000 Pro (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Expert-400-800-Original-d-Atelier-Expert-210-440-1000-Pro)
+--- Thread: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro (/Thread-master-slave-digital-cable-for-440Pro)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - ray1234 - 11-Mar-2024

(10-Mar-2024, 20:56)chrisc Wrote: If the AES input is being used on the master amp, it is correct to assume that the recommended connection type would be RCA on the master to XLR on the slave?

It doesn't matter if the AES on the master amp is used, the only way to connect master/slave is RCA to XLR or RCA to RCA, there is no XLR to XLR connection possible, because the Devialet configuration app does not have that choice.

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - chrisc - 15-Mar-2024

RCA (on the master) to AES (on the slave) does not operate (no signal from slave)
See Configurator - perhaps this is the reason?
How is the link moved from RCA to AES on the slave?

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Klaus - 15-Mar-2024

(15-Mar-2024, 06:54)chrisc Wrote: RCA (on the master) to AES (on the slave) does not operate (no signal from slave)
See Configurator - perhaps this is the reason?
How is the link moved from RCA to AES on the slave?

As far as I can remember, the following is to be done:
·         "chain in" - the option "share sources from companion" must be deactivated
·         Then click on the "AES/EBU" symbol with the mouse
·         The connecting line should now change

With this kind of coupling, a "share sources from companion" is not possible, as far as I know.
Greetings from Austria

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - chrisc - 15-Mar-2024

Yes, 100% correct

Thank you

[Image: ahhMRGN.jpeg]

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Klaus - 15-Mar-2024

(15-Mar-2024, 12:49)chrisc Wrote: Yes, 100% correct

Thank you

[font='Segoe UI Web (West European)', 'Segoe UI', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Glad I was able to help, [/font]
[font='Segoe UI Web (West European)', 'Segoe UI', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Klaus[/font]

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - markush - 18-Mar-2024

There are still new findings! It was long time thought the ground lift connection of RCA to XLR was the best sounding option. But a user tried the iFi SPDIF iPurifier2 (a better power supply than the default is recommended, or going battery pack to enable a complete isolation between master & slave) a found an even better sound quality. Which is reasonable as the iPurifier2 has several signal cleaning and reclocking features.

Has anyone also already tried this?

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Pim - 19-Mar-2024

(18-Mar-2024, 23:19)markush Wrote: There are still new findings! It was long time thought the ground lift connection of RCA to XLR was the best sounding option. But a user tried the iFi SPDIF iPurifier2 (a better power supply than the default is recommended, or going battery pack to enable a complete isolation between master & slave) a found an even better sound quality. Which is reasonable as the iPurifier2 has several signal cleaning and reclocking features.

Has anyone also already tried this?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone would hear a difference, but since the only re-clocking you would make is to the Slave and then the Master staying as is, I can't see how that technically would be an advantage.

Can you ask the user whether the centre stage has moved a bit? I can only imagine that the timing would be out a bit, which moves the perceived left / right balance.

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - thumb5 - 19-Mar-2024

Surely any delay in the re-clocker (likely measured in nanoseconds, maybe tens of nanoseconds) would be completely insignificant compared to changes in path length between the speakers and your ears as you move your head...no? For example, a head movement of 1 mm towards or away from a speaker would change arrival time by about 3 microseconds which I'd guess is much longer than the propagation delay of the clock signal through the iPurifier2 - but of course, it depends how it's designed.

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Vivialet - 19-Mar-2024

as I am this user I can also answer your question :>)
I started with a normal Cinch to AES connection, then added the groundlift which was a good improvement.
As I had the ifi SPDIF iPurifier2 already I tried it in a Cinch to Cinch connection which was the worst sounding connection before.
With the ifi the improvement is similar to the ground lift but more of it. I think that the re-clocking makes only a small part of this improvement, but the ifi adds a galvanic isolation.
The sound center was always shifted to the master, most with cinch, less with AES, even less with grtoundlift.
Now with the ifi the center is exactly between the speaker, deeper soundstage, simply better SQ. More details on the slave side.

RE: master / slave digital cable for 440Pro - Pim - 19-Mar-2024

(19-Mar-2024, 12:04)thumb5 Wrote: Surely any delay in the re-clocker (likely measured in nanoseconds, maybe tens of nanoseconds) would be completely insignificant compared to changes in path length between the speakers and your ears as you move your head...no? For example, a head movement of 1 mm towards or away from a speaker would change arrival time by about 3 microseconds which I'd guess is much longer than the propagation delay of the clock signal through the iPurifier2 - but of course, it depends how it's designed.

Yep. That makes sense