empirical audio or lynx aes 16 sound card

You can run a long AES/EBU cable from either of these. Long cables are not exactly a great thing but the higher voltage of AES/EBU is the better way to go - even better than a long toslink.

I found the Empirical Offramp 3 with Superclock 4 to sound a touch better than the Lynx aes16. The Lynx sounding a little flatter, the Offramp a little more vivid.

IMO, the answer is it depends on one thing: If you are using a DAC that doesn't do 2-dimensional jitter reduction, then I recommend using the EA converter. If you use a DAC that does 2-D jitter reduction, then it doesn't matter whether you use USB (with or without the Empirical Audio converter) or AES out of the sound card.

I have a 30 meter Opticis USB cable from my PC to my rig. I also have an 80 foot AES cable, plugged into Lynx AES16, from PC to rig. And I have an EA Turbo2 that I can use to convert USB to AES, if needed.

Until recently, I used a Meitner DCC2se dac. It sounded better when I ran USB through the EA Turbo2 compared to when I ran AES from the Lynx directly into the dac. In fact, the sound with USB+Turbo2 was equal to using my Meitner CDSDse transport. So I ended up getting rid of the transport because I never used it. I believe the USB+Turbo2 sounded better because it had lower jitter than Lynx+AES.

Moving forward to present day, I now have a Playback Designs MPD-5 dac. The PD dac uses 2-D jitter reduction, so it doesn't matter what kind of digital signal you use. Whether I use Lynx+AES or USB+Turbo2 or USB directly into the dac, it always sound the same. To me this is a game changer. There is no need for expensive converters or worrying about which signal to output from your PC. My strategy was to save the money that I would have spent on an expensive converter and put it toward a better dac that doesn't need the converter.

That must be a very good DAC. But a claim to be completely immune to jitter is a very big one, and one that has many times before been made, only to prove to be untrue.

I would be very interested to hear more about the so-called 2-D jitter reduction. I read what is said on their site and it is pretty obtuse, but you get that with web sites - it doesn't mean they are not onto something.

Reading between the lines, they seem to be using the same jitter reduction process as used in a number of DACs, but maybe with a twist. I am guessing they are doing the over-sampling trick used by Bel Canto and Benchmark, where you upsample to a very high rate and then downsample just before the DAC chip. While this more or less eliminates jitter it simply maps jitter to broadband noise - ie jitter turns up as bit errors. The sound is at first impressive but ultimately sounds unnatural, particularly timbres of real instruments.

The process can also add errors due to any imprecision at the very high clock rates used. What they appear to be hinting at is that they do the same thing as say the Benchmark but then fix the bit errors. This is conceptually possible since the original jittery signal can be used as a reference, since it is likely to be bit perfect. But there is a "so what" here. Eliminating jitter is theoretically possible without using this particular strategy. There are many such strategies, and using ethernet for bit transport is probably the most promising of them. The tough thing is implementing it in real time, and the ethernet products we know like the Logitech products are not at all perfect. So far, I don't think anyone has done it, including Wavelength with their asynchronous USB, but it would be a massive breakthrough if someone did.

I wouldn't throw around the "must be a 2-D DAC" mantra too much. All they are saying is the DAC should attempt to eliminate jitter - that is all they mean by 2-D. Therefore there are a lot of 2-D DACs out there. Their implication that no other DAC attempts to deal with timing issues is not a fair comment. The only interesting thing, is their implementation - if it does indeed work as completely as they claim.

From your comments Big-amp, they have had some success. Experience to date makes me remain a skeptic about the claims of complete elimination of jitter, for the moment at least - but I now want to listen to one of these DACs, if I can get my hands on one at this end of the world.

Antipodes - I'm also not sure what 2-D means. So, I don't know whether you characterize it correctly. As you said, they don't provide a good explaination on their web site, so it may or may not be similar to what the other dacs are doing. Yes, there may be other good solutions out there. Also, I agree -- is it really "no jitter"???

In any event, the proof has been in the pudding. When I use Lynx+AES, USB+Turbo2, USB direct into the dac, or coax from a transport it always sounds the same. Eliminating this issue of which connection type is best, let's someone choose the dac on the merits of its sound. IMO, the is quite natural (YMMV); much improved over my old Meitner dac.

It's interesting to read posts by people who blindly want to buy dacs simply because they have USB ports, without realizing that USB implementations are not all created equal and they may be settling for a dac that doesn't have the sound that they seek. I think the EA Turbo implementation is an excellent solution -- it allows someone to use the dac of their choice and also achieve low jitter out of their PC. Personally, I prefer the PD dac because it is an elegant solution in that it has the sound that I seek and doesn't require a converter.

Here’s the inherent issue when asking untold numbers of card carrying audio nuts a question. One usually attains an untold number of answers…. Plus from 3 to 30 more unasked for solutions which might be pertinent or not..

I found this online in a Q&A session with some ‘in the know sorts’ which are all answering the exact same questions.

Of that lot, Andreas Koch of Playback Designs made a statement regarding the 2D item mentioned above here…

>> "As we all know, audio is represented in a y/x-axis system: the y-axis for amplitude and the x-axis for time. Mostly because of analog audio's sensitivity problems in the y-axis, digital audio was introduced. But digital audio not only quantizes the y-axis, it does so as well on the x-axis. Sounds like we got more than we wanted—true and too bad. A typical state-of-the-art DAC converts between quantization levels in the digital y-axis and the analog y-axis and is completely transparent and open as to what happens on the x-axis (time domain). Sounds like we forgot the quantization on the x-axis."<<

Read more at:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue41/ca_koch.htm

Links at the bottom of that page let you see what Bel Canto, Wavelength, Emperical, Weiss, and other’s have to say.

I think another mention of it is made by another designer… somewhere… at some point.. Read through it and see it’s kind of long, but definitely interesting.

If a DAC can speak to these X & Y axis items and according to andreas remarks virtually eliminate the rhetoric surrounding which drive, transport, feed, or digital source to the state of being inconsequential, while producing audiophile sound quality AND further, be AFFORDABLE, it would change the face of digital audio IMO.

Irrespective of A.K.’s input, how amplitude and timing are addressed, in whomever’s DAC, the litmus test is as always, how does it sound to you? In your own rig/setup… with the most appropriate caveat being, “Can it be had affordably?” It matters very little if it does sound fantastic, but is then financially out of reach of the masses.

I also found quite curious the one major thing all agreed upon as the main obstacle DACs & digital audio face.... "jitter".

Each and everyone of these designers has by their own hands attempted to resolve this problem. The how of it varies. The end product varies too.

But then one must ask other questions given the resultant sonic performances are quite varied... Was jitter eintirely removed? How was the analog output stage outfitted? Waht about that power supply

to point out just a couple.

Personally, I like what the BC D3 does in my own setup. Apart from the fact that the whole of electronically recorded music is ‘artificial’ and illusionary at best when replayed, I find little in tone or timber qualities which sounds artificial using my setup. So there’s that for fake sounding DACs. After all, isn’t artificial just another term for fake? A bit harsher a term perhaps yet within the original context, valid.

I will say as to the resultant sound of any DAC, how it is integrated into one’s system, and with what associated appliances, means at times, a world of difference in the sound quality.

I’ve connected mine as a preamp with SS, Hybrid, & tube amps, and found the latter best of that lot. Definite diffs were noticeable with each combo for sure. Adding a decent preamp provided a still better experience. Swapping in and out some pc’s made other changes or gains appear.

AS to the Ops implementation a call to either Empirical and/or Lynx should answer the Q about distance and cabling interfaces.

Then, there’s ONLY the Q of which flavor?

….and we’re back to the business of setup yet again, and the room, other components, preffs wallet, and ears of Rodvujovicsr.

G’ luck, Rod………