[lokie]

I have been looking at optical lately as i was told that my usb/spdif converter was limiting resolution. I never really thought the Toslink mini on my Mac Mini was a viable option due to jitter in that port.

Having said that, I can't stand the idea of a usb cable to usb/spdif converter to a spdif cable... yuk! So, I'm going to give the SillFlex cable a shot and see what happens. Sure would be a more elegant hook up and save me about $600.

Has anybody heard anything about the reduced jitter coming out of the new Mini Toslink ports on the '011 Mac Mini's, as outlined in the below thread/link? I currently have a '09 mini that I was going to open up and put in an SSD and 8gigs of RAM. I was wondering if it would be possible to upgrade the Toslink to the new lower jitter versions. Or maybe it's lower jitter due to other factors other than the port itself??

    [hurl]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1323911432&read&keyw&zzjitter+of+new+mac+mini+optical+line+out+improved[/url]

[Crimson]

Not too sure about jitter numbers of the '11 vs the '09 Minis. Just be aware that the optical out is still limited to 24/96 even though Apple says otherwise. I've only been able to get higher than 24/96 out through the USB and FireWire ports.

[wilsynet]

My guess would be that the move to the Sandy Bridge architecture in the 2011 Mac Mini is responsible for the improved jitter numbers.

[lokie]

Just be aware that the optical out is still limited to 24/96 even though Apple says otherwise. I've only been able to get higher than 24/96 out through the USB and FireWire ports.

Yes, I understand that as my DAC only does 18/96. So I think I should be good with the optical unless I'm missing something (besides the jitter issue).

My guess would be that the move to the Sandy Bridge architecture in the 2011 Mac Mini is responsible for the improved jitter numbers.

That doesn't surprise me.

[jrebman]

I don't disagree with Wilson, but I think the cleaner power supply also has to do with improved jitter specs.  I've not experienced it myself, but have heard that some 24/96 toslink transmitters can often go to 24/176.4, and I know that the standard toslink reciver that came on my AudioGD NFB-2 did support 24/176.4, but I just upgraded that to the new series of high speed toslink recivers, so it should be good for 24/192 now, though I don't have a capable transmitter for that yet.

I soon hope to confirm this with my Mach2 mini, but I believe the power supply is quite important in the quality of the t9oslink connection's performance.  The mach2 mini will now be powered by a Pi Battery Buss, and I plan to run a comparison between a glass optical connection and a usb to Audiophilleo AP2 to my Metrum Octave and I'm honsestly not sure which one will sound best, but whichever does, that will be the one I stick with.

-- Jim

[JCarney]

Going the optical route with the Silflex cable is a great way to go. I'm doing that very thing with my MM, and am just pleased as could be with the combo. Going optical eliminates so many issues. I think you went the right route.

JCarney

[simon wagstaff]

I just did a google search and found many posts "speculating" on the potentially higher jitter using the toslink out of a mac mini, but no actual data.

I am using the toslink out and decibel for playback software using "memory mode" and am quite happy with the sound.

[timind]

I tried three different configurations with my Mac mini feeding the PS Audio DLIII.
First was toslink straight into the DLIII. Results were ok.
Second was inserting a Monarchy DIP between the Mac and the DAC. Toslink into the DIP with SPDIF/coax out to the DAC. Results are noticeably better. Sounds like what I had hoped for.
Lastly, I tried feeding Mac USB out to the DLIII. Results were ok. It was hard to distiguish the difference between this and running toslink straight into DAC. 
I tried two different DIPs as I unexpectedly won an auction for a DIP so compared. My experience, YMMV. But at the price of a used DIP, well worth the experiment.

[wgscott]

I have been looking at optical lately as i was told that my usb/spdif converter was limiting resolution. I never really thought the Toslink mini on my Mac Mini was a viable option due to jitter in that port.

Having said that, I can't stand the idea of a usb cable to usb/spdif converter to a spdif cable... yuk! So, I'm going to give the SillFlex cable a shot and see what happens. Sure would be a more elegant hook up and save me about $600.

Has anybody heard anything about the reduced jitter coming out of the new Mini Toslink ports on the '011 Mac Mini's, as outlined in the below thread/link? I currently have a '09 mini that I was going to open up and put in an SSD and 8gigs of RAM. I was wondering if it would be possible to upgrade the Toslink to the new lower jitter versions. Or maybe it's lower jitter due to other factors other than the port itself??

    [hurl]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1323911432&read&keyw&zzjitter+of+new+mac+mini+optical+line+out+improved[/url]

I have the SillFlex cable and also a Halide Bridge.  Currently, the SillFlex is in a box and the Halide Bridge is in my system.

When both work, they sound very similar.  However, I have found all optical cables, even the SillFlex (which is the best one I have tried), do have some trouble with 24/96 signal transmission from my 2010 mini to my Peachtree Nova DAC, even when using the high-jitter input.

I am not sure if it is jitter or what.  But the connection from the USB/SPDIF converter is more robust.

Like you, it grieves me to use a USB port instead of an optical connection.  But the reality is it seems to work better, at least in my system.

[lokie]

Toslink on the other hand is like the lowest form of SPDIF known to man. It has the highest jitter typically from 3300pS to 6800pS and has the worst error rate of any known SPDIF tranport type.

USB with async on the other hand is capable of going to 192K (Toslink though some are capable of 192K is only specd to 96K) with really low jitter when done with async protocol and done correctly. Even if you use off the shelf crap like some companies do you can get below 100pS of jitter really easily. In most cases with some of the stuff I have designed and tested it's below 50pS and some even below 10pS. You could never get close to that with SPDIF as it is always moving and the receiver would be required to match that speed. Which means it cannot use a fixed oscillator for that. Anything that is not fixed has tons of jitter... hey that is what jitter is right? the movement of a clock from a fixed state.

A quote from Gordon Rankin recently on the Asylum. A USB DAC and USB Converter manufacturer so take it FWIW.

[Crimson]

A quote from Gordon Rankin recently on the Asylum. A USB DAC and USB Converter manufacturer so take it FWIW.

Just more food for thought. The proof is in the pudd......sound. It's all about what sounds best to you.

[skunark]

Recent review of a 2011 mac mini with a jitter measurement.  http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/internet-audio/373-mac-mini-2011.html ...

They claim a 15ps measurements on jitter..  There's clearly better products on the market, but that is pretty good, much better than any other optical output out there.     Might be useful to have that electrical isolation between a computer source and DAC.

[JohnR]

That's interesting, thanks for the link 

Somewhat related, I've wondered for some time now why nobody ever mentions the receiving device when discussing jitter.

[JohnR]

Just more food for thought. The proof is in the pudd......sound. It's all about what sounds best to you.

The actual original phrase is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." NOT "the proof is in the pudding." So in this case, you could just say "the proof of the pudding is in the listening."

 

[Crimson]

The actual original phrase is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." NOT "the proof is in the pudding." So in this case, you could just say "the proof of the pudding is in the listening."

 

Chalk it up to these fast-paced modern times.

And didn't the original phrase have something to do with Pink Floyd? 

[jaywills]

Don Quixote.

[jMelvin]

For the past year I've been very happy with my Tranquility DAC, though in December I purchased the (very affordable) Bifrost for the sole purpose of listening to hi-res material at the native sample rate. Since then I've experimented with USB vs Toslink thinking the lower jitter, async, 24/192 capable USB would surely sound better. Not in my system! I was very surprised to say the least. Interesting the Schiit boys themselves feel their S/PDIF is better than USB on the Bifrost. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.