CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 09:37:52 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15

Author Topic: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?  (Read 9642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AllanMarcus

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +2/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« on: August 21, 2015, 05:25:09 AM »

OK, I know this subject is fraught with controversy. Please, let's not turn this into a religious war on the efficacy of the USB cleaning.

Michael Lavorgna has a totally idiotic blog post about this topic that is just non-sensical. I've given up on AudioStream. Lavorgna is just too defensive and dogmatic for my preference.

I'm interested in anyone has actually used any of these devices, if you have done the A/B testing (preferably blind), and your thoughts on which might actually work?

Not interested in hearing from people that have not tried any of these devices. Not interested in hearing about cables. I've tried the fancy cables and I cannot hear a difference, but I'm over 50 and never had the best ear.

So, of the following a few questions:


  • Which do you have?
  • Have you A/B tested it and did you hear anything?
  • Did I miss any devices on the list?

And another question. Why aren't DAC manufactures building this functionality into their DACs? Or are they?

Thanks,

Allan

Michael from Audiostream sort of redeemed himself, a little. This article is pretty good, and does point out that none of the USB products will do anything more than help a little.

http://www.audiostream.com/content/usb-accessory-roundup-uptone-audio-usb-regen-audioquest-jitterbug-schiit-wyrd#yczLIMcVpmLhDGdY.97
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 02:28:46 AM by AllanMarcus »
Logged

kothganesh

  • Rebelious Stax Zealot
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +39/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2015, 06:03:38 AM »

I have the Wyrd. To me, it made a difference with the Bifrost Uber, removing some of the graininess...I am now using it with the Yggy but woefully short of data on A/B. Will update when I have more information.
Logged

The Alchemist

  • Tech Admin
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +9000/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
  • CHANGSTAR MODERATOR
    • Alchemy Facebook Page
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2015, 06:21:14 AM »

I use the Bifrost Uber with USB Gen 2 USB but haven't noticed any noise from using USB. However, I haven't had the opportunity to try the Wyrd to see if it makes any difference, but so far I haven't noticed any problems.
Logged
My Bandcamp Alchemy page:
https://jeremydixon.bandcamp.com/

All proceeds are non-profit and go towards financing the production of my album.

songmic

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +11/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2015, 06:22:51 AM »

I'm no fan of iFi, but I must admit the iUSB Power with dual-headed Gemini cable did make a noticeable difference compared to dirty computer USB power when I had been using Stello U3, a USB transceiver that runs completely on USB power. Not sure how the difference could be heard with more recent USB modules, so YMMV.

Note that some of the cleaner/purifier/decrapifiers listed here are simply filters that supposedly reduces noise (e.g. iPurifer, Jitterbug), while others completely block dirty computer power and provides its own cleaner power (e.g. Wyrd, Regen).
Logged
Source: Waversa Systems W SmartHub, Schiit Yggdrasil
Amp: ecp audio L-2 & PS2
Headphone: Sennheiser HD650 & HD800

DaveBSC

  • Best Korean Sympathizer
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +222/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2092
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2015, 06:23:44 AM »

Before trying any of these, if your computer has an open PCI-e slot, start with the JCAT card. Part of the problem with USB for audio is that all motherboard USB ports kind of end up in the same place, and none of these external devices can do anything about that. They can clean up the Vbus line, and the Short Block does a very good job at cleaning up the ground connection, but they can't stop interference from say the wireless controller for your USB keyboard or mouse.

As to why these things aren't built into DACs, it depends on which one you're talking about because they do different things. The Uptone, the Wyrd, and the iFi iUSB (which you missed) are all creating new 5V power for the Vbus line, taking the place of the power supplied by the initial USB port. Obviously it would be impossible for a USB powered DAC to create its own USB power, and there's no need for a self powered DAC to power the Vbus line. Self powered DACs can just power their USB inputs, and depending on the USB solution they choose to use, they can remove the need for the Vbus altogether. You can then simply cut the Vbus line, basically eliminating the need for the iUSB entirely.

The Wyrd and Uptone IIRC also affect the data stream, so they may still provide an improvement even on DACs that don't use the Vbus line, and even with cables were the Vbus line has been cut. The passive filters try to clean the existing Vbus line rather than create a new source of 5V power and some may or may not affect the data stream. The Short Block is a common mode choke, and for it to work, the DAC must NOT require any use of the Vbus line.

Because of the nature of how it works, the JCAT card will likely outperform all of these products, and improve the performance of all USB DACs.

Logged

Armaegis

  • Uphill, both ways
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +76/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 883
  • metallurgist, rocket scientist, swing dancer
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2015, 06:48:37 AM »

Wow that jcat card costs more than my computer  :-DD
Logged
Do you think there may be an acoustic leak from the jack hole? ~Tyll Hertsens

Not sure if I like stuffing one hole or both holes. Tending toward one hole since both holes seems kinda ghey ~Purrin

thune

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Powder Monkey
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +20/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2015, 06:59:51 AM »

I've never tried using something like this USB extender over ethernet:

However, if designed correctly, a set of these (type of) devices should give you galvanic isolation (something none of the other devices do) and the opportunity to inject a clean supply.
Logged

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2015, 08:03:38 AM »


Why aren't DAC manufactures building this functionality into their DACs? Or are they?


Some manufacturers do use filtering, others do even use galvanic separation or some reclocking.

Most designers will just use 'standard' applications of USB receiver IC's.
Some add some components, some make sure impedance matching is correct.
Some designers know how important layout is for any receiver (front)ends others just assume bits will be clocked in well enough and are buffered or reclocked anyway.
The theory is that front ends must work 'harder' and or ground plane noise upsets circuitery further down the road.
Improving the signal quality is supposed to improve that.

Most designers would not even think of adding (to them pointless) extra chips that increase the price and complexity like adding a USB hub (regen/wyrd) as a possible improvement anyway.

Most circuits DO use Vbus filtering but the groundinput can also introduce much nasties which none of these devices address.

So it's a design choice.

Matching technical assests to perceived SQ, brands or test results has proven to be ermmm difficult and fishy at best although some might say the exact opposite.



You mentioned you don't want to hear about cables but think (given your objective approach) those who answer on the actual audible improvements of any of these devices should also include if they hear differences with cables as well e.t.c.
Sort of an indicator of what they can hear which you, admittedly, can't.
Chances are that if these device users hear differences with cables as well as these devices than most likely, as you don't hear differences in USB cables, you are likely not to hear differences with these devices as well... of course YMMV

Can't say anything about possible sonic improvements as I am DAC-deaf (to a certain obvious point).

Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.

AllanMarcus

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +2/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2015, 12:59:19 PM »

Great set of answers.  Many thanks. My MB also has optical (toslink) out, and I've tried that too.  While I cannot hear a difference between my USB and my TOSLink, in theory, is one better than the other?
Logged

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: USB cleaner, purifiers, decrapifiers?
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2015, 01:17:27 PM »

Great set of answers.  Many thanks. My MB also has optical (toslink) out, and I've tried that too.  While I cannot hear a difference between my USB and my TOSLink, in theory, is one better than the other?

In theory, and often in practise, jitter can be measurably higher in TOSlink (compared to well loaded copper spdif).
I have no numbers between USB and TOSlink, as this largely depends on the implementation of USB and if class-1 or class-2.
It also depends on how 'scared' one is of the word jitter as well and if you know WHAT to listen for.
In the light of possible ground loops and galvanic isolation the TOSlink is better but not nearly as good as 'real' fibre optics when it comes to data integrity/timing.
At work we affectionately call TOSlink a 'light sewer' and dare not speak of it in front of fibre-optic cables.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 03:11:42 PM by Solderdude »
Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15