Double Wide AES/EBU

Isn't AES/EBU segregated? Coax, BNC and Optical are prone to Jitter where as the AES is not because it skips the whole clocking process??!! Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding, hence most people consider it as superior connection. And so is i2S, it skips the whole clocking process just like AES. i2S is not proprietary but its less used these days, Audio Alchemy really elaborated this connection. Double wide can also be used with BNC, although COAX and BNC hold a 75 Ohm Value BNC is considered a Superior connection. Feel free to correct me.

No, a "double-wide" AES/EBU connection does not segregate clock from data. Although I'm not particular familiar with the dCS equipment, and it's conceivable to me that some of its many possible configurations may involve a proprietary variant of AES/EBU that does do that. But aside from that possibility, which strictly speaking would not be AES/EBU compliant, all that is segregated is the left channel from the right channel. And that is certainly the case with the Musical Fidelity unit. I2S, on the other hand, does segregate clock from data.

None of these approaches "skip the whole clocking process." What is skipped in I2S is the need for the DAC to extract the clock from the single signal that contains both clock and data in the case of an AES/EBU or S/PDIF connection. That extraction process can contribute to jitter.

"Coax" (short for coaxial cable) is a type of cable; "BNC" is a type of connector. Coax cable can be used with BNC, RCA, or other types of connectors, and carries an unbalanced signal. AES/EBU is usually used with XLR connectors, in the form of a balanced signal pair, but may also be transmitted as an unbalanced signal via BNC connectors and coaxial cable (mainly in some professional applications).

As far as the original question is concerned, the "double-wide" configuration allows the design to essentially be dual mono, and allows a given data rate to be communicated between transport and DAC at a clock frequency that is lower by a factor of 2. Perhaps there are some other potential advantages, as well. As usual, though, I'd expect that the quality of a particular implementation will be more important than the design approach that is used.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks AL, I thought as much. Yeah dual mono was my impression too. I did some extended reading about it and apparently it separates the right and left digital signals. There is a series of copying on a single cable in order to separate right and left and the double run does not go through this process. Common sense and knowledge tells me a double wide should sound significantly better than single wide AES. Sounds very exiting and expensive, most high end manufacturers use this configuration, but the million dollar question "Is it worth it?" I am curious in trying this configuration but my wallet will be on "Jenny Craig" diet plan and if I don't hear a significant improvement I would be pissed.

Back in the days a single wire AES was limited to 24/96, dCS used dual-aes to transmit 24/192 signal, split into two separate channels - 24/192 left and 24/192 right.

Nowadays Single AES does 24/192 just fine.

I had a chance to listen to a system yesterday with single wide and double wide configuration, I have pretty sensitive hearing and I can barely distinguish the two configurations if there is any. Minimum of $6k to $7k in the hole for components of that caliber (front end only) and then working down to the rest of the components to complement the front end is just not going to happen. My guess was right. If there is a difference between the two configurations it is so minor hardly audible. I am pretty happy with what I have. I have only tried 96k signal into my DAC I am going to try 192k down the road and see what the hype is all about.