Can't figure out, if one believes they are all the same, why do they participate in a forum whose purpose is to define the differences objectively and get so upset when one is interested in additional tests or interpretation of tests that could relate to what we subjectively hear? I tired to discuss it over on that "objective site" but if you do not believe all DACS and all amplifiers sound the same, you get called a liar and thrown off. Got my eye on the CSS drivers, but a couple SB and Peerless got my eye too. As I am happy with the JDS, my next step is to build another set of speakers. My best guess is high order harmonics and IM with how the tweeter reacts in the breakup zone, doppler distortion. None of them seem to have the "glare" problem I hear through speakers when I listen through my headphones. Old Muse Wolfson from 20 years ago was even worse. The Schiit and Topping did more than the JDS. THOSE I have traced to something that aggravates my speakers in the 3100 range. Not for some magic cure for DAC problems.
#Usb isolator thermocouples Pc
It's smart to physically protect the PC in case of a miss-step with the probe. Would any artifacts added by noise exceed -110 dB or so?Īs I said, I bought these for a digital scope isolation. I would be more interested if he did the test again with a Dragonfly and crappy laptop. He is using a superb, I mean no one can touch, DAC for his test and I would upset if I had one and it was not taken care of inside. A more valid test would be to inject known levels of hash and see how different DACs perform with and without. The problem with tests as Arch' did is just as he says, most don't have a problem so they don't need one anyway. JS ( JDS) suggested their USB implementations is quite robust so it is not a problem and does not need one. I wonder if cascading isolators cause too much propagation delay in the handshake? Just a thought. The Modius uses a USB isolator internally as a prime feature of their Unison interface. That seems to be the same design as the cheap one I have. Note, the AMD chip lists $3, the LT module lists 40.
Just tested with a poured USB hub, and still the PC does not recognize the box. More tests to follow if I can get any that are not masked by the Focus rite as the DACS are both cleaner than it is. IF it is real, it does not do very well on the power side. It has what it claims in an AMD chip on it, ADUM3160. My conclusion: I make no claims about magic sonic improvements, but the LT module works and the Chinese one does not as far as the power line goes. I thought not enough current, but the LT board 5V does not droop, so don't think that is it. Need to figure that out so I can do distortion analysis of the DAC, and not just of the Focusrite. Not making claims on audibility, but just objective measures of one aspect.Ĭurious, my Focusrite I wanted to use for a loopback test does not get recognized with either board, but my other DACs do. Measured with my Fluke as my scope died so can't show fancy pictures of what the noise looks like. Just looking at the 5V line going into the isolator and the 5V coming out:Ĭheap board: 5 to 5.5 mV input. So I bought a $12 e-bay special galvanic isolator and the $80 Linear Technology demo board for the LTM2884 module. One thought was how well they rejected USB power or signal noise. This is not a debate if or what, just a measured test. Guessing on which forum to post this test.Īnyway, looking to see WHY a couple different DACs sound different.
0 kommentar(er)
