Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Digital Drive

RE: high performance = higher-quality signal transfer = better SQ

72.211.237.239

13th Duke of Wymbourne

In Reply to: RE: high performance = higher-quality signal transfer = better SQ posted by Leo loves music on April 27, 2025 at 13:38:17

I understand that 'high performance'is banded around in audio circles as there really aren't any definitive benchmarks. I see its use to mean 'I like this product so it must be good', which is a recommendation but not definitive.
Disclaimer, I have never experimented with CD transports but I know how they work and this is one area of audio where, if there really is a difference in SQ between transports there must be an answer. The ones I've identified are:
1. Is the data being sent correctly, or the same, in both cases?
2. Is there a difference in jitter between the cases?
3. Does one conduct more electrical noise into the external DAC, or is the DAC more susceptible to the noise from one connection compared to the other?
IMHO, there is no 'high quality signal transfer' in the case of SPDIF. The data is either received correctly of not, there is no 'more correct'. In your case, unless the original signal level is so marginal it is not being decoded I would expect the data to be the same and the recieved jitter level to be dominated by the SPDIF receiver in the DAC that acts as a filter to incoming jitter. Anyway, congrats on your result and there is no worry that we'll all run out and copy you as you've 'painted' over the solution:)
Edit - after posting I saw Abe's responses that probably hold the answer.

Edits: 04/27/25

Follow Ups:

RE: high performance = higher-quality signal transfer = better SQ - Leo loves music 18:51:18 04/27/25 (6)
I find it rather surprising that modern CD players frequently omit isolation transformers, a feature present even in older units such as the Rotel RCD-855. The most notable difference following the modification was the enhanced resolution and lower distortion.

Edits: 04/27/25
- RE: high performance = higher-quality signal transfer = better SQ - AbeCollins 19:33:49 04/27/25 (5)
  " The most notable difference following the modification was the enhanced resolution and lower distortion."
  Any properly functioning SPDIF interface should sound better vs one that is borderline broken.
  
  Edits: 04/27/25 04/27/25
  - RE: high performance = higher-quality signal transfer = better SQ - Leo loves music 19:45:52 04/27/25 (4)
    I have both Cambridge CXC V2 and Tascam CD-200. Here are my observations:
    1. Optical Toslink sounds OK. But just OK. Don't expect any magic.
    2. Coax sounds pretty bad. No resolution. Also distortion which I can't listen for longer time.
    That is why I put both into storage for more than several years.
    After mod:
    1. Tascam CD-200. I got the resolution I want. But I need warmth and bass. I know I get the SPDIF polarity reversed. I will try the other way to see if I can get warmth and bass.
    2. Cambridge CXC. I got resolution, warmth and bass. However the output is lower than I expected.
    After mod, in both cases, the distortion is gone.
    This is not a fool at all.
    
    Edits: 04/27/25 04/27/25
    - Your stock SPDIF output was essentially broken.... - AbeCollins 20:19:06 04/27/25 (3)
      ...so yes, your "High Performance mod" should sound better.
      I'm specifically commenting on your Cambridge which shows the stock SPDIF output level significantly lower than the SPDIF spec calls for. You can plainly see the very low amplitude in your own scope images. Not rocket science or my opinion. I calls 'em as I sees 'em ;-)
      Whatever SPDIF repair / mod you performed on the Cambridge SHOULD sound better than the stock output which was essentially broken.
      Good luck.
      
      Edits: 04/27/25 04/27/25
      - RE: Your stock SPDIF output was essentially broken.... - Leo loves music 20:26:32 04/27/25 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Your stock SPDIF output was essentially broken.... posted by AbeCollins on April 27, 2025 at 20:19:06
        
        I am pretty happy with the result of Cambridge CXC except the digital output is lower than my calculation.
        
        Please note, I have Linn LP12 turntable setup. My CD play is no worst than turntable which means a lot.
        
        Sometimes, music can bring you to tears.
        
        Some audiophile gear can do that too..... - AbeCollins 20:48:18 04/27/25 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Your stock SPDIF output was essentially broken.... posted by Leo loves music on April 27, 2025 at 20:26:32
        
        ...in more ways than one ;-)
        "Sometimes, music can bring you to tears. "
        I've had various gear over the years. Some that were Class A Recommended brought me to tears after emptying my wallet. It wasn't due to SQ.
        P.S. Nice Siglent scope BTW. I have an oldie Tektronix.
        
        Edits: 04/27/25 04/27/25 04/27/25
        
        RE: Some audiophile gear can do that too..... - Leo loves music 02:19:40 04/28/25 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Some audiophile gear can do that too..... posted by AbeCollins on April 27, 2025 at 20:48:18
        
        @AbeCollins
        @13th Duke of Wymbourne
        Here are the problems of Cambridge CXC I try to fix:
        1. No output isolation transformer.
        2. Poor driving capability.
        3. Not true 75ohm.
        I measured the rising edge.
        1. Mine is 32ns
        2. Cambridge 38ns
        3. Tascam 60ns
        The slower rising edge, the worse jitter.
        
        Edits: 04/28/25

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: