PDA

View Full Version : Companion to SB2?



WSLam
2005-06-21, 04:25
Will this be what we should all be looking at for Jitter-correction?

http://www.monarchyaudio.com/DIP.htm

Has anyone tried this?

PhilNYC
2005-06-21, 04:31
I've heard mixed reviews on the DIP. But a friend (the one who introduced me to the SB2) uses an Apogee Big Ben and has had great success with it:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/bigben.php

WSLam
2005-06-21, 08:38
Hi Phil,
Where are these mixed reviews? I can only find the good ones. Would love to read a more balanced view.

ws

robinbowes
2005-06-21, 08:41
I've heard mixed reviews on the DIP. But a friend (the one who introduced me to the SB2) uses an Apogee Big Ben and has had great success with it:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/bigben.php

<cough>

I should hope so at £1495 list price!

R.

pfarrell
2005-06-21, 09:18
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 08:41 -0700, robinbowes wrote:
> PhilNYC Wrote:
> > uses an Apogee Big Ben and has had great
> > success with it:
> > http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/bigben.php
>
> <cough>
>
> I should hope so at £1495 list price!


Apogee makes serious stuff. Most aimed at
professional recording studios. Some for
audiophiles. There stuff is well regarded, but
as you note, not cheap.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

julian2002
2005-06-21, 11:01
i tried the monarchy dip (not the 24/96 version though) with my sb 1 and audio synthesis dax-2 to see if i could improve it's jitter performance. unfortunately it made not a jot of difference - either subjectively - or objectively in the form of lighting the dax-2's crystal lock light which only comes on with low jitter sources.
happily with the sb2 it lights the crystal lock all on it's own so i suspect that jitter performance is good.
i also tried a behringer ultramatch with similar results. i've heard good things about the big ben and genesis digital lens but haven;t heard either.
cheers


julian.

Robin Bowes
2005-06-21, 11:20
Pat Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 08:41 -0700, robinbowes wrote:
>
>>I should hope so at £1495 list price!
>
> Apogee makes serious stuff. Most aimed at
> professional recording studios. Some for
> audiophiles. There stuff is well regarded, but
> as you note, not cheap.

Yeah, I'm aware of that - I just didn't appreciate how much they were
until today.

R.

--
http://robinbowes.com

cliveb
2005-06-21, 11:54
i tried the monarchy dip (not the 24/96 version though) with my sb 1 and audio synthesis dax-2 to see if i could improve it's jitter performance. unfortunately it made not a jot of difference - either subjectively - or objectively in the form of lighting the dax-2's crystal lock light which only comes on with low jitter sources.
Just to make sure I've understood you correctly, you're saying that the SB1's digital output has sufficiently high jitter that your DAX-2 refused to lock? And when you added the Monarchy DIP "Jitter Buster", it was still too jittery for the DAX-2? The emperor appears to be naked once again.

fuzzyT
2005-06-21, 12:06
cliveb wrote:

> Just to make sure I've understood you correctly, you're saying that the
> SB1's digital output has sufficiently high jitter that your DAX-2
> refused to lock? And when you added the Monarchy DIP "Jitter Buster",
> it was still too jittery for the DAX-2? The emperor appears to be naked
> once again.

methinks it was not jitter preventing the lock, but value (and perhaps
drift) in the base frequency. both are time errors, but different.

best not to worry so much about this emperor, but more your own
pleasure. a recommended course is to stop thinking and just listen,
tinker if you please and don't be too quick to judge what might change
your experience. might be either much less or much more than you might
have presumed.

--rt

PhilNYC
2005-06-21, 13:22
Hi Phil,
Where are these mixed reviews? I can only find the good ones. Would love to read a more balanced view.

ws

I'm mostly referring to people I have communicated with who have tried it in their systems...nothing on the level of a formal review (who writes bad reviews these days?). Some swear by it, others have said it made little difference, or that the differences were not necessarily better. In any case, it's probably a case of try-before-you-buy...

styx
2005-06-21, 13:46
Here (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=6536&highlight=jitter+measurements)'s some interesting info. A thorough Sterophile type jitter measurement would be nice, though ;)

seanadams
2005-06-21, 20:54
cliveb wrote:

> Just to make sure I've understood you correctly, you're saying that the
> SB1's digital output has sufficiently high jitter that your DAX-2
> refused to lock? And when you added the Monarchy DIP "Jitter Buster",
> it was still too jittery for the DAX-2? The emperor appears to be naked
> once again.

methinks it was not jitter preventing the lock, but value (and perhaps
drift) in the base frequency. both are time errors, but different.


Agreed. Squeezebox1 did have issues with frequency precision due to a bug in its DSP which (being a 3rd party component with limited support) I could not readily fix.

In Squeezebox2 we are doing all the DSP work ourselves, and the clock circuitry is driven by separate fixed xtal circuits instead of an adjustible PLL. There's more info in our faq, but basically this means a) WAY better precision for avg freq and b) reduced jitter because the clocks are now generated directly. I'm glad the indicator LEDs on Big Ben etc reflect the improvement.

Concerning jitter: I tested with an analyzer that could not measure as low as our output. I'd love to test Squeezebox2 with a $50,000+ analyzer like they use for telco equipment, just so we could put a definitive spec on it, but I don't have ready access to such equipment. :)

WSLam
2005-06-21, 21:35
Good to have the CEO responding personally! =)

Why not submit it to Stereophile for a review? You could really boost your sales as a high end product if stereophile does a review for you like they did for the airport express.

seanadams
2005-06-21, 22:18
Good to have the CEO responding personally! =)

Why not submit it to Stereophile for a review? You could really boost your sales as a high end product if stereophile does a review for you like they did for the airport express.

Is it expensive enough for Stereophile? :)

kjg
2005-06-21, 22:31
seanadams wrote:

>WSLam Wrote:
>
>
>>Good to have the CEO responding personally! =)
>>
>>Why not submit it to Stereophile for a review? You could really boost
>>your sales as a high end product if stereophile does a review for you
>>like they did for the airport express.
>>
>>
>
>Is it expensive enough for Stereophile? :)
>
>
>
Art Dudley did review a $50 AC outlet last year. I'd guess a Squeezebox
could sneak in under the radar ;-).

WSLam
2005-06-21, 22:48
AE is only retailed for $129! =)
http://stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/505apple/

julian2002
2005-06-21, 23:35
sorry, i should perhaps clarify..
audio synthesis dac's have 2 methods of locking onto the incomming signal.
a normal way which has never failed to lock onto a signal (including the sb1)

a higher quality 'crystal' lock which only seems to lock onto low jitter high quality sources from dedicated transports (and the sb2).

none of the jitter reduction methods i've tried have produced a switch from normal to crystal. the only way to do that was to switch from an sb1 to an sb2.

i am aware of the timebase errors present in the sb1 however i and a few others had a poke about in the sever code to try to compensate - someone with a big ben (which shows the frequency) gave me some numbers which produced a 44.1 signal and this didn't make any difference.

hope that clears things up.
cheers


julian

fuzzyT
2005-06-22, 08:09
seanadams wrote:

> Is it expensive enough for Stereophile? :)

Oh, it's not the cost of the unit that matters, it's the size of the
print advert you purchase from them. =)

--rt

pfarrell
2005-06-22, 08:45
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 11:09 -0400, ron thigpen wrote:
> seanadams wrote:
>
> > Is it expensive enough for Stereophile? :)
>
> Oh, it's not the cost of the unit that matters, it's the size of the
> print advert you purchase from them. =)

I see that :-) indicating at least a little tongue in cheek.

Like all good magazines, they have a chinese wall between editorial and
advertising sales. And the editor, John Atkinson, is a pretty decent
guy. I know he took a fair amount of heat when he rated the Benchmark
DAC-1 as a serious audiophile tool.

It can't hurt for Sean to send him an email asking if he'd want a review
copy. If I was sending it, I'd probably include a CD with the latest
server and another CD with some FLAC'd files of music well reviewed
in recent issues.

But I see a more serious problem. I think the SqueezeBox makes a lot
of the "CD transport" gear obsolete. Not the $100 players, but the
$5,000 ones. And there is a chance that the SB2's quality will
make a lot of $1000 DAC's obsolete. Next, you'll be saying that
the $500 interconnect wires are not needed.

Pretty soon Stereophile will be losing a huge percentage of
their advertisers.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

cliveb
2005-06-22, 09:16
It can't hurt for Sean to send him an email asking if he'd want a review copy.
I think it can. Stereophile only does sighted tests, and there is no way they will be able to acknowledge that a $300 device in a box that looks like a clock radio can possibly sound as good as <insert well-regarded digital device here>.

Before getting the SB2 reviewed by any of the high-end magazines, the innards need to be transferred to a big, sexy, heavy, shiny box. And the price needs to have a zero put on the end. Then there's a chance it'll get a fair hearing.

WSLam
2005-06-22, 11:06
I have no interest in defending Stereophile.
But they did give a fair review imo to the Airport Express. And the measurements it did to me, are indeed quite interesting.

Fabrice Rossi
2005-06-22, 12:33
WSLam a écrit :
> I have no interest in defending Stereophile.
> But they did give a fair review imo to the Airport Express. And the
> measurements it did to me, are indeed quite interesting.

Yes, at least, they provide some measurements. Many other audio review
rely only on sighted subjective "tests" (I refuse to call this test).
One example among others: What Hifi.

Fabrice

PhilNYC
2005-06-22, 13:53
Is it expensive enough for Stereophile? :)

lol! If not Stereophile, I think Soundstage.com has a testing facility that might be suitable...

PhilNYC
2005-06-22, 13:58
But I see a more serious problem. I think the SqueezeBox makes a lot
of the "CD transport" gear obsolete. Not the $100 players, but the
$5,000 ones. And there is a chance that the SB2's quality will
make a lot of $1000 DAC's obsolete. Next, you'll be saying that
the $500 interconnect wires are not needed.


This would only be an issue if there were a lot of CD transport makers out there. But I've been looking for a high end transport to add to my product line (I'm a dealer), and there just aren't that many out there anymore.

(I am not of the opinion that the SB2's internal DAC performance is on-par with any $1000 DAC that I've heard. It is certainly better than I expected from a $300 unit, but units like the Benchmark DAC1 and Stello DAC are IMHO a clear step up. On the other hand, I have been floored by how good the SB2 has been as a transport...compared to my reference transport, it is pretty darn close)...

PhilNYC
2005-06-22, 13:59
I think it can. Stereophile only does sighted tests, and there is no way they will be able to acknowledge that a $300 device in a box that looks like a clock radio can possibly sound as good as <insert well-regarded digital device here>.

Before getting the SB2 reviewed by any of the high-end magazines, the innards need to be transferred to a big, sexy, heavy, shiny box. And the price needs to have a zero put on the end. Then there's a chance it'll get a fair hearing.

Sam Tellig has written in Stereophile about a $20 interconnect that is "just about good enough for most audiophiles"...