I used both a Halide Bridge and a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha USB before I upgraded from d-Premier to 250. The Alpha USB was so clearly superior that I laughed out loud the first time I switched from the Halide (which itself is very good for the price).
After the upgrade to the 250, I gave up the Alpha USB and have been using a direct Ethernet connection. I honestly don't remember if I did a side-by-side comparison of Ethernet vs. Alpha -- I really wanted the simplicity of one fewer box in my rack!
For more on the Alpha and how good it is:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac...out-15327/
(16-Jan-2015, 06:29)flohmann Wrote: [ -> ]I used both a Halide Bridge and a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha USB before I upgraded from d-Premier to 250. The Alpha USB was so clearly superior that I laughed out loud the first time I switched from the Halide (which itself is very good for the price).
After the upgrade to the 250, I gave up the Alpha USB and have been using a direct Ethernet connection. I honestly don't remember if I did a side-by-side comparison of Ethernet vs. Alpha -- I really wanted the simplicity of one fewer box in my rack!
For more on the Alpha and how good it is: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac...out-15327/
thanks for sharing, very interesting read. I was actually eyeing the Berkeley Alpha USB for a while now and this is indeed encouraging.
Thanks, Flohmann.
Another unit that comes highly recommended is the new Audiobyte Hydra-Z DDC. Price is lower than the legendary Berkeley Audio DDC as well. Looks like a serious product.
http://audiobyte.net/products/hydra-z
Does anyone have a notion that there is any sound quality to be gained by using one of these devices, if for nothing more than a reclocker / master clock going in to the D200? I'm thinking by way of the AES or SPDIF ports, not USB (wishing to avoid the kluge conversions back and forth). Would you expect the Aurenders clocks and ps are as significant as a Berkeley or Audiobyte DDC?
Kenreau
(16-Jan-2015, 19:23)kenreau Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a notion that there is any sound quality to be gained by using one of these devices, if for nothing more than a reclocker / master clock going in to the D200? I'm thinking by way of the AES or SPDIF ports, not USB (wishing to avoid the kluge conversions back and forth).
I've been wondering about that, too. Off the top of my head, I can't see how the USB input could be improved upon for accuracy of data delivery, since it doesn't require the Devialet to recover the audio sample clock as does AES/EBU or S/PDIF. Also there is much more robust error detection in USB. But - speculating wildly - it may be that the USB input is more prone to inject noise into the Devialet ground plane?
(16-Jan-2015, 19:33)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been wondering about that, too. Off the top of my head, I can't see how the USB input could be improved upon for accuracy of data delivery, since it doesn't require the Devialet to recover the audio sample clock as does AES/EBU or S/PDIF. Also there is much more robust error detection in USB. But - speculating wildly - it may be that the USB input is more prone to inject noise into the Devialet ground plane?
I thought that there was no reclocking of SPDIF signal at the target, and that this was the reason for the 'weakness' of using SPDIF as an interconnect format (leading to the problem of poor jitter performance due to the SPDIF cable, either it's quality or excessive length, etc).
ie; it works a bit like the way synchronous USB DAC's did before the arrival of asynchronous USB architecture and the input buffering/reclocking.
if my assumption is correct, then the timing/jitter performance is derived from:
a) the USB-SPDIF converters own clock if SPDIF input used to Dev
b) the DEV USB reclocking if using the USB input on the Dev
in this case the perceived performance of the SPDIF solution could be expected to be better than the USB solution if the SPDIF had a great design.
Or not ?
As an aside, I do prefer the Audiophilleo to the DEV USB sound. I don't think this is expectation bias as I was expecting to sell the Audiophilleo, and now I can't
(16-Jan-2015, 22:08)krass Wrote: [ -> ] (16-Jan-2015, 19:33)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been wondering about that, too. Off the top of my head, I can't see how the USB input could be improved upon for accuracy of data delivery, since it doesn't require the Devialet to recover the audio sample clock as does AES/EBU or S/PDIF. Also there is much more robust error detection in USB. But - speculating wildly - it may be that the USB input is more prone to inject noise into the Devialet ground plane?
I thought that there was no reclocking of SPDIF signal at the target, and that this was the reason for the 'weakness' of using SPDIF as an interconnect format (leading to the problem of poor jitter performance due to the SPDIF cable, either it's quality or excessive length, etc).
Yes, that's my understanding too.
(16-Jan-2015, 22:08)krass Wrote: [ -> ]ie; it works a bit like the way synchronous USB DAC's did before the arrival of asynchronous USB architecture and the input buffering/reclocking.
I see what you're saying. I believe with S/PDIF, the samples are delivered at the audio sample rate which the DAC has to recover and lock to using a PLL (which is of course subject to stability and jitter problems). But with USB, the time between individual samples depends entirely on the USB clock which is in principle independent of the audio sample rate (so in turn I can't see a mechanism for jitter at that level). Also with USB there has to be some buffering because the samples never arrive in a nice, evenly-spaced way that matches the DAC's sample rate.
As I understand it, with synchronous USB, the DAC then has to rate-adapt/re-clock the samples to match its own internal clock, which could perhaps present some problems because it has no control over the overall rate (measured over a long-ish period) at which the source sends the samples. But with asynchronous USB the DAC provides feedback to the source which then has to deliver the samples at the right overall rate to match the DAC's internal sample rate clock over a long period.
(16-Jan-2015, 22:08)krass Wrote: [ -> ]if my assumption is correct, then the timing/jitter performance is derived from:
a) the USB-SPDIF converters own clock if SPDIF input used to Dev
b) the DEV USB reclocking if using the USB input on the Dev
In case (a) there's also the S/PDIF clock recovery circuit in the Devialet to consider, isn't there? In case (b) with asynchronous USB there shouldn't need to be any re-clocking inside the Devialet.
(16-Jan-2015, 22:08)krass Wrote: [ -> ]in this case the perceived performance of the SPDIF solution could be expected to be better than the USB solution if the SPDIF had a great design.
Or not ?
From a timing/jitter point of view I'd expect an asynchronous USB input to be superior in principle, but I may have misunderstood what's going on, and there are probably other factors than timing (as I alluded to) that could affect the perceived sound quality.
As always, discussing the technical aspects is fun/interesting but reality can be surprising when one actually listens!