Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How to improve Jitter issue via USB/ETHERNET ?
#11
@PeppaPig If the new CI board had a proper reclocker like the one in Mutec MC3+USB, not just standard clocking for adding back a clock to asynchronous (USB, ETH) streams, the actual jitter inside your Devialet would be low and under good control. Without this, the amplifier is still more dependent on the quality of incoming streams.
Several of us use a Mutec and the AES/EBU input to improve signal purity before it enters the amp. Even with the CI installed the use of the Mutec connected to AES/EBU has better sound quality.

It is, however, very important to emphasise that streaming to the AIR input from for example Roon/AIR on the CI is very high quality. Adding a Mutec plus the necessary streamer, power supplies and cables can quickly approach $2000. If you add Mutec's REF10 word clock and go 'all out' as @Confused and others have done we're talking maybe 5-7000 USD extra!
*
Devialetless!
Roon, ROCK/Audiolense XO/Music on NAS/EtherRegen/RoPieee/USPCB/ISORegen/USPCB/Sound Devices USBPre2/Tannoy GOLD 8
250 Pro CI, MicroRendu(1.4), Mutec MC-3+USB
Reply
#12
Thanks every body. So it seems jitter is not a noticeable issue in Devialet.

I saw Devialet claims when in dual mono mode it further reduce jitter, how dual mono mode can reduce jitter? Does anyone know why?
Reply
#13
(15-Mar-2018, 00:02)PeppaPig Wrote: Thanks every body. So it seems jitter is not a noticeable issue in Devialet.

I saw Devialet claims when in dual mono mode it further reduce jitter, how dual mono mode can reduce jitter? Does anyone know why?

I have seen Devialet advise lower distortion figures for the dual mono units, but I have never seen Devialet quote jitter or phase noise values.  Furthermore, jitter relates to clock accuracy, and I cannot see how this would be any different between single and dual mono units.

Have you actually seen jitter figures from Devialet somewhere?  I would be fascinated to see them.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
#14
I had some thoughts regarding the 'bits are bits' debate.

Take two highly regarded 'network end point' devices, the microRendu and the sMS-200.  These take an Ethernet feed and output via USB, we seem to be agreed these are 'bit perfect' devices, bit are bits.  Then take the updated versions that appeared on the market last year, the sMS-200 became the sMS-200Ultra and the microRendu was offered a '1.4' upgrade.  Both of these upgrades related to improved internal clocking, and not much else.  This is Sonore's description of the change to the microRendu with the 1.4 upgrade:

This update is a revision to the original microRendu's main board updating it from from version 1.3 to version 1.4. The new version 1.4 main board shares among other thing one of the key components in the upcoming ultraRendu. The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged.

So basically the only change is to the clock for the CPU and the USB circuit.  Much the same is true of the sMS-200Ultra, which is basically the original sMS-200 with the addition of SOtM's sCLK-EX clock board.

http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english...m/sclk-ex/

OK, now we have to go 'subjective', but almost universally the sMS-200Ultra and microRendu 1.4 have been found to offer better sound quality than their predecessors.  There is no difference is leakage loops, grounding or noise here.  The only difference is in CPU and data clocking.  So maybe the better clocks reduce noise?  Maybe better clocking in whatever feeds an asynchronous USB system reduces the workload on the control clock in the DAC, and helps improve the accuracy there.  OK, lots of "maybes" here, I do not claim to know definitive answers.  Just something to think about.  If anyone does have the definitive answer, I would love to know!
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
#15
(15-Mar-2018, 10:14)Confused Wrote:
(15-Mar-2018, 00:02)PeppaPig Wrote: Thanks every body. So it seems jitter is not a noticeable issue in Devialet.

I saw Devialet claims when in dual mono mode it further reduce jitter, how dual mono mode can reduce jitter? Does anyone know why?

I have seen Devialet advise lower distortion figures for the dual mono units, but I have never seen Devialet quote jitter or phase noise values.  Furthermore, jitter relates to clock accuracy, and I cannot see how this would be any different between single and dual mono units.

Have you actually seen jitter figures from Devialet somewhere?  I would be fascinated to see them.

No. I haven’t seen any data from them. Devialet advertising always too much ...
Reply
#16
I find the video linked below a very valuable explanation on HighRes and Digital in general that gives a good knowledge base for further discussing what some of the effects (like jitter/digital sound) we hear are caused by.
Remarkable to me in this video was the fact that the human ear can distinguish differences in time up to 7 microsec and he ties the connection to why higher sampling rates satisfy this fact. For me jitter plays into that too.

It's from Hans Beekhuyzen's channel that was meantioned several times in this forum. If you're interested in MQA you can also view part2 of this video. I think he has a very nice way to explaine many technical terms in plain language on his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg

Jitter in general can have many reasons and it can add up in a audio chain or a device itself. It's nothing that can be eliminated at one point and not be cared about anymore.
There is nothing without jitter in the digital world. In audio the limit is our perception and I think we're technically just not at the threshold so we can't hear it anymore. It might have to do with the timebased resolution (the 7us) we are capable of to distiguish.


My personal believe is that jitter can't be elliminated only by implementing a really good clock (e.g. inside and/or outside the Devialet) but a precise clock is indispensible to reduce jitter.
Also important causes for jitter are the jitter of the source, noise (e.g. on power line), vibrations, cables, EMF and more. There's no way to say jitter doesn't effect a Devialet because it's build that good. It's the other way round. A Devialet is build that good that it demonstrates very clear the amount of jitter still in the system no matter where it originates from.

gui
"Oh, you can buy the other. But then it is a cost intensive learning process"
berlin
Reply
#17
(15-Mar-2018, 10:41)Confused Wrote: This update is a revision to the original microRendu's main board updating it from from version 1.3 to version 1.4. The new version 1.4 main board shares among other thing one of the key components in the upcoming ultraRendu. The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged.

@Confused
It's not clear from their promotion text that 'nothing' else is changed. The rest of the design might be the 'same' but they could've changed one or two components on the new board's design that have nevertheless a 'big' impact on the performance. So I'd conclude we don't know what else is changed. But it is also my believe that precise clocking is most important.

My understanding of better clocking is that for a defined time sector there have to be matching bits or bytes. If a bit doesn't fit into this sector in time it is either reconstructed or put into another time sector. This would alter the signal although the bit is not lost but put at another time in the row (so to speak)...still bit perfect?!?
Just my view.

gui
"Oh, you can buy the other. But then it is a cost intensive learning process"
berlin
Reply
#18
(15-Mar-2018, 12:08)yabaVR Wrote:
(15-Mar-2018, 10:41)Confused Wrote: This update is a revision to the original microRendu's main board updating it from from version 1.3 to version 1.4. The new version 1.4 main board shares among other thing one of the key components in the upcoming ultraRendu. The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged.

@Confused
It's not clear from their promotion text that 'nothing' else is changed. The rest of the design might be the 'same' but they could've changed one or two components on the new board's design that have nevertheless a 'big' impact on the performance. So I'd conclude we don't know what else is changed. But it is also my believe that precise clocking is most important.

My understanding of better clocking is that for a defined time sector there have to be matching bits or bytes. If a bit doesn't fit into this sector in time it is either reconstructed or put into another time sector. This would alter the signal although the bit is not lost but put at another time in the row (so to speak)...still bit perfect?!?
Just my view.

gui
With regard to the 'nothing' else is changed question for the microRendu 1.4, actually we do know, because this was discussed in the Sonore thread on CA.  The following is a quote from 'Barrows', who is the design & build consultant for Sonore.

The 1.4 micro just has the new clock, the Ultra, in addition, features no switching regulators and better board layout (for lower noise) because of the larger size of the board. 

This is something that I knew in my head, but was not clear in my earlier post. In summary, the microRendu 1.4 just has the new clock taken from the ultraRendu, whereas the ultraRendu itself has a new board layout & quieter regulators.

Facts & clarity are good! Shy
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
#19
(15-Mar-2018, 13:01)Confused Wrote: With regard to the 'nothing' else is changed question for the microRendu 1.4, actually we do know, because this was discussed in the Sonore thread on CA.  The following is a quote from 'Barrows', who is the design & build consultant for Sonore.

The 1.4 micro just has the new clock, the Ultra, in addition, features no switching regulators and better board layout (for lower noise) because of the larger size of the board. 

This is something that I knew in my head, but was not clear in my earlier post.  In summary, the microRendu 1.4 just has the new clock taken from the ultraRendu, whereas the ultraRendu itself has a new board layout & quieter regulators.

Facts & clarity are good! Shy
Sorry, slightly off topic. @Confused, did you upgrade your mR from version 1.3 to 1.4 and if yes, what was the improvement/change to the sound? Is it worth £165 (approx) cost?
Reply
#20
(15-Mar-2018, 13:42)Greg Wrote: Sorry, slightly off topic. @Confused, did you upgrade your mR from version 1.3 to 1.4 and if yes, what was the improvement/change to the sound? Is it worth £165 (approx) cost?

No, I did not upgrade mine.  In fact, the only person I can think of on this forum that did is @ogs
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)