Synchro mesh application

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 393 times.

jhrlrd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 58
Synchro mesh application
« on: 2 Jun 2018, 03:07 am »
what would the effect of the SM be on a DAC such as the PS audio
Direct stream, being that it converts the input signal to DSD?
I have one now hooked up and it doesn't seem to affect the sound either way.
Or maybe my SM is old and needs the mods. Not sure if the DS has input isolation

paul79

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 814
Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #1 on: 2 Jun 2018, 04:44 pm »
I would try to compare other digital sources using the same SPDIF input on the DAC if you can. I have never known a DAC that didn't benefit from a better digital source in front of it, and I really doubt the PS DAC is the exception.

If you do find differences in the digital sources in comparison, then upgrading the SMR would be a good plan. The upgraded SMR is much better.

jhrlrd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 58
Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #2 on: 3 Jun 2018, 06:41 am »
Thanks for the ideas Paul. When I went to the ps audio website to
Check if the DS has galvanic isolation, I came across a statement
To the effect that jitter prior to the Ds doesn't matter, it's impervious
To lousy cables or transports through its own jitter reduction circuit.
It goes on to state that cables still matter, just not as much
as other DACs.

paul79

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 814
Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #3 on: 3 Jun 2018, 03:24 pm »
If it is immune as they say, then why would the cable matter?
A for example for you is the Chord Dave. It's early claim was that it was immune to source jitter and noise, but that turned out not to be true for me and many others. It has galvanic isolation as well, but the better source you pump to it the better it sounds.

The upgrades to the SMR do not cost much, and I truly think you would love the results.

audioengr

Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #4 on: 3 Jun 2018, 04:56 pm »
Quote
To the effect that jitter prior to the Ds doesn't matter, it's impervious
To lousy cables or transports through its own jitter reduction circuit.

In their dreams.  The only DAC that may actually achieve this is the latest Benchmark.

Steve N.

paul79

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 814
Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #5 on: 3 Jun 2018, 09:37 pm »
Interesting Steve.

I guess my question then would be, if Benchmark is achieving this, is the sound actually transparent to the source material, or colored? Just curious as to how they may be doing this.

audioengr

Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #6 on: 3 Jun 2018, 11:58 pm »
Interesting Steve.

I guess my question then would be, if Benchmark is achieving this, is the sound actually transparent to the source material, or colored? Just curious as to how they may be doing this.

They are using a different technique than a resampler.  It relies I believe on a clock that can be pulled slightly higher and lower than the average frequency.  This allows a FIFO to be filled and emptied without overruns or underruns.  My old Pace-Car reclocker did this in one of its modes.

The problem is that most clocks that can be pulled (usually voltage or digitally controlled oscillators) typically have much higher jitter than free-running oscillators. This is why I abandoned the idea.  However, the same design could be executed with 12 separate custom clocks, 6 higher and 6 lower than any expected frequency from a source.  Expensive, but this would allow free-running clocks and achieve low jitter.

Steve N.

ketcham

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Synchro mesh application
« Reply #7 on: 3 Jul 2018, 04:34 pm »
Greetings Everyone,

I visited Steve's place about a month ago to have my Diamond SX updated and will post about that on another thread.  He was kind enough to replace for free a few older chips with new ones.  This reflects his attention to detail and provide the best to all his customers. 

I purchased his new SM for the purpose of converting my TV toslink to coax and feed into the Diamond SX.  I already have a LPS but according to both Steve and Paul79, not all LPS are created equal.  I was unaware you need a rapid responsive LPS for optimal benefit.  While toslink fed into a quality toslink capable dac, I am unable to make a true A to B comparison because the dac changed too.  The benefit was however impressive.  My wife for simplicity streams internet music through GOOGLE TV which now for me is enjoyable AND only a subtle difference than what I believe is the current gold standard of Ethernet to I2S implementation by Steve. 

I believe Steve has been very innovative this last year on both fronts.  SM to COAX with BNC adapters is superior to my non-updated Ethernet input.  Those with Ethernet input SX dac, you need to have it modified to current standards.  I had one of the first Ethernet modules and even had it modified October, 2017.  The current modifications are far superior. 

From reading threads here and talking with Steve, my estimation is both the SM and Ethernet input have similar measurements regarding exceedingly low Jitter.  This is probably why I am having a hard time discerning any audible differences. 

Because of these benefits, I ordered Steve's BNC reference cable and compared to the very reputable Antipodes Reference COAX/BNC adapter cable.  BNC is far superior input and out of the gate the difference was not subtle.  Both cables are of similar but obviously not exact design, which places emphasis on the BNC connection and if possible avoid the adapter to or from RCA, if able.

For those who own the SM and SX, the modifications are nominal and I personally have not had this level of benefit for the price.

I did not add in my subjective thoughts regarding sound quality.  This is intentional.  I find our impressions subjective and of limited utility.