empirical audio or lynx aes 16 sound card

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………

I think everyone is in agreement that x-axis, or timing, plagues digital audio, and that it ought to be able to be dealt with. Getting bit perfect transport of bits is very much achievable and so regenerating the clock data ought to solve the problem better than expecting perfect cabling and interfaces.

The key issues in digital audio to resolve are:
1. How do you eliminate jitter just before, or in the DAC chip itself, to avoid jitter creeping back in subsequent transmission steps. Ethernet makes the most sense to me, because of how it works. Its just that not many audiophile firms have the knowledge to exploit ethernet so they faff about with USB, SPDIF, AES/EBU etc.
2. How high does the sampling rate need to be to make quantisation error immaterial?
3. How do you deal with digital filtering at half the sampling rate. Use DSD? Increase the original sampling rate? Upsample before conversion? Use a filter, not use a filter? If you filter, then what sort of filter?

It is pretty clear to me that the Playback guys mean dealing with these three issues as being 2-D, with the first issue being x-axis and the second and third being y-axis. Where they are claiming to be different is in the x-axis, ie in eliminating jitter. A claim many have made before them.

The only thing they are being clear about is that you should do it in the DAC, not separate from it. I think they are saying they are mapping jitter to change the bits, which isn't new, except that it is usually done in a separate stage to the DA conversion. It is not clear to me why doing it in the DA conversion step is such a good thing as it is generally better to keep the DA conversion step as simple as possible.

But until the Playback guys tell us a bit more about what they are actually doing this is just guesswork.

I found it curious that in the poll, the importance of the transport was diminished a very good bit... eg., "...walkman, DVD player, etc could be used with such a DAC and provide equal results.".

yet they don't want to use just any transport inside their own $15K CDP, opting for a far higher grade unit than simple run of the mill sorts. Apart from 'read errors', if their DAc is so adept at fixing/eliminating all other erros, why install such an expensive transport?

Perhaps as said above, many claim a thing... yet not all such claims are found to be valid in the end.

..and we're back to the listening event... and setup, despite the technology as the final axis waiting to be addressed.... regardless the claims made or who is making them.

I agree Blindjim. None of these interfaces eliminate all of the jitter created upstream from them, in my experience.