CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Head Amps, DACs, Sources, Portable Equipment Discussion => Topic started by: Judeus on June 01, 2015, 08:59:13 AM
-
http://uptoneaudio.com/products/usb-regen
Anyone heard of this? There seems to be a lot of hype about it over on the computer audiophile forum.
-
Similar to Schiit Wyrd in functionality.
Both do not offer galvanic separation but do reclock (USB hub chip) and use low noise voltage regulators to supply the load with a clean 5V.
Don't know which of these would have lower output jitter induced by the chip/clock generator.
Wyrd is bigger in size and cheaper and has a power supply with a real transformer (so less common mode garbage from mains).
Uptone Regen is smaller in size, more expensive and has a SMPS (arguably inducing more common mode garbage from mains).
My preference would be for the Schiit for financial, esthetic and power supply reasons (don't own any Schiit nor think/feel I would need it).
Would like to see some measurements of jitter reduction in DAC's when using a known jittery DAC with and without these devices used in synch and asynch mode.
Maybe someone already did and posted it somewhere ... would like to see a link for this.
-
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/uptone-audio-regen-listening-impressions-24078/
some pretty insane claims in this thread. The designer John Swenson said that the product is similar to the ward but superior in its designed purpose of reclocking the packets.
-
I know what John S said .... I would say that too if I sold it. 8)
Don't see Schiit talking Schiit like that.
Also do not see John S. not backing it up with some measurements showing superiority with competitive products..
Subjective reports are just what they are ...
I hope someone gets out their measurement kit and ends this 'mine is better' debate with hard evidence :)p17
-
Well I did a couple of measurements with both synchronous and async devices before though to note that both are relatively inexpensive. In my experience, subjectively it works but not for everything. Curious about the Uptone and frankly might be a purchase many months down the road.
ODAC
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/c2/900x900px-LL-c2b857df_comparoWyrd.png)
Async Stoner Acoustics DAC
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YDdiYDRV7aQ/VIw4veaO91I/AAAAAAAAAuM/UKEvPp6ebAI/s1600/Jitter-UD120.gif)
-
That's better than most audiophile "tweaks". It's at least measurable.
Not sure if any of that is actually audible though...
-
The Wyrd doesn't seem to do much for jitter.
If anything I would say jitter on the ODAC became worse (judging from the wider 11kHz spike) with the Wyrd.
What is apparant is that (RF) noises are reduced using the Wyrd but doesn't remove all of them.
They (Wyrd & Regen) are still directly connected to the source (PC ?) and thus all the common mode garbage still comes though unattenuated over the 'ground' connection and loops aren't broken.
Of course, this is also very dependent on the audio chain behind the DAC and how sensitive that part is to common mode noises.
At least the DAC gets fed with a decent 5V which won't hurt in any case.
-
I was one of the first Regen (green light version) owners, and it has made a positive impact on my Gungnir.
(Regen powered by their SMPS and/or iFi iPower 9V)
better clarity in terms of bass definition and some detail extraction improvement.
music was also slightly "louder/clearer" despite never changing amp volume knob. a commonly reported audible change others at CA reported.
the Wyrd + Gungnir squashed depth of sound stage a tad. (ie. backing vocals brought forward).
Regen did not squash the depth at all.
also note, impact of Regen could also be due to better impedance matching and NOT using a cable between Regen and Gungnir USB port, instead using a USB hard/port adapter.
looking forward to the Regen (amber version) which apparently adds some resistor between power and ground pins, or lifts the ground somehow etc.
won't attempt to repeat the engineering explanations of John S here, and would recommend folks read the CA thread.
-
The Wyrd doesn't seem to do much for jitter
If anything I would say jitter on the ODAC became worse (judging from the wider 11kHz spike) with the Wyrd.
Am I missing something? I don't see an 11khz spike with the Wyrd + ODAC, but I do see fewer symmetrical sidebands with Wyrd.
-
The 'noise' band is thicker post wyrd, but yes the spikes are down.
-
Aren't the sidebands and the width of the spread at the base more important?
-
Am I missing something? I don't see an 11khz spike with the Wyrd + ODAC, but I do see fewer symmetrical sidebands with Wyrd.
Sorry 12kHz...
Without the wyrd the 12 (thus not 11) kHz spike is narrow and exactly at 12kHz.
Assuming what we see is an average over a certain time period this means that the 12kHz is mostly stable at 12kHz (so doesn't jitter to the left or right)
On the ODAc + Wyrd you see most of the freq is exactly 12kHz (masked by the grid) but part of the (what should have been exactly 12kHz) seems to be fractionally higher.
So it 'jitters' between 12kHz and slightly higher.
The base width doesn't seem to change though... the stoner seems better than the ODAC (if measurement conditions were the same).
So if the base width is an indication of LF jitter amount the Wyrd doesn't seem to 'improve' anything in that aspect.
In amount of noise ... yes.
This too is very dependent on the analog circuits behind the DAC, the situation and the source as well as mains quality amongst a few other things.
What works for person A may not do anything for person B.
The stoner shows a substantially lower amount of noise with the wyrd so seems to do its job there.
No difference in jitter.
-
Sorry 12kHz...
Without the wyrd the 12 (thus not 11) kHz spike is narrow and exactly at 12kHz.
Assuming what we see is an average over a certain time period this means that the 12kHz is mostly stable at 12kHz (so doesn't jitter to the left or right)
On the ODAc + Weird you see most of the freq is exactly 12kHz (masked by the grid) but part of the (what should have been exactly 12kHz) seems to be fractionally higher.
So it 'jitters' between 12kHz and slightly higher.
I see that now. Totally missed it before.
The base width doesn't seem to change though... the stoner seems better than the ODAC (if measurement conditions were the same).
So if the base width is an indication of jitter amount the Wyrd doesn't seem to 'do' anything in that aspect.
In amount of noise ... yes.
Not all of that is noise though. The sidebads which are symmetrical on either side of the center frequency represent high frequency jitter while the spread of the base represents low frequency jitter.
-
I used a Schiit Wyrd through a noisy EMI DAC and it didn't do anything to help it. I also didn't notice any immediate differences otherwise. Not saying it does nothing, but I don't see any reason to purchase one and this other device I don't see any advantages to either.
-
I can't remember the source of the noise or whether it was more of measurement artifacts but I would not nitpick with the noise too much since the more obvious reduction in sidebands seems to correlate(or at least I feel so) with my favourable impressions of using such devices.
Personally I find isolation of common mode crap a little less priority though to note, in the environments we listen in especially those with PCs, pumps, multiple fans, more of that crap may(or not) find its way into the system and thats where common mode isolation comes in handy.
Also with the Geek Out, EMU0404 I find zero change in the performance with the Wyrd in the system whether subjectively or in measurements. I use with the GO more as utility though.
Wonder if SMPS noise of the Uptone would be measureable, I had no problem doing with the EMU0404 before I switched it out of a LPS.
-
A newbie non-engineer here so apologies in advance. I'll introduce myself on the original thread one of these days.
But this thread got me curious because I've been thinking of purchasing a Wyrd.
I know you folks are saying that certain frequencies are changing in intensity but I see a lot of chatter about timing in the audiophile press. are they two separate things altogether? If not, can somebody explain to me what it means?
And can it be applied to devices like the Wyrd? I hope I get this across correctly but let's say for e.g., if the wavelengths are different in intensity with and without the Wyrd, is the intensity AND number of waves hitting our ears going to change?
-
No one really knows what exactly is going on with what measurement other than the jitter spectrum. That is why the product is called Wyrd.
-
I was one of the first Regen (green light version) owners, and it has made a positive impact on my Gungnir.
better clarity in terms of bass definition and some detail extraction improvement.
music was also slightly "louder/clearer" despite never changing amp volume knob. a commonly reported audible change others at CA reported.
the Wyrd + Gungnir squashed depth of sound stage a tad. (ie. backing vocals brought forward).
Regen did not squash the depth at all.
Just got in a Uptone Regen Amber today. While I can't speak to it doing most of the above (I've only had a couple hours with it), I can say that "music was also slightly "louder/clearer" despite never changing amp volume knob" is spot on with my DS Gungnir Gen 2.
I don't know if it's clearer, but it is definitely louder. So much so that I purposefully searched the forums to see if anyone else mentioned hearing it. It's almost on the order of removing an inline attenuator from the signal chain as far as magnitude of difference.
Can anyone venture a guess as to why that switching from Wyrd to the Uptone Regen might cause that volume difference? I don't know what I was exactly expecting when I bought the damn thing, but I certainly wasn't expecting that.
-
No measurable or logical explanation. It's WYRD isn't it?
Maybe less USB packets being lost or lately assembled or re-transmitted (because of error) resulting in better jitter characteristics, thus allowing peaks in the sound-waves being more naturally concentrated and focused rather than fuzzed out.
Note: The explanation above is purely audiophool speculation and BS. Worthy only as marketing drivel.
-
Can anyone venture a guess as to why that switching from Wyrd to the Uptone Regen might cause that volume difference? I don't know what I was exactly expecting when I bought the damn thing, but I certainly wasn't expecting that.
Honestly that seems fishy to me. Almost makes me wonder if they tamper with the packets, bumping the amplitude value.
-
What about the Ifi Iusb3? $400. :spank:
-
I'm surprised John Swenson/uptone didn't actually implement a digital isolator in the regen given his audiostream Q&A: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits#RTURtoFKAg24LT5h.97
This (and price) make the beezar doodlebug seem like a more interesting option for usb cleansing (just wish they had a black/silver chassis option). Mcandmar (on HF and bottlehead) has posted with vs. without doodlebug measurements that are worth a look: http://www.head-fi.org/t/703334/doodlebug-usb-isolator/165#post_10535926 Equally interesting, his pupdac + doodlebug vs. odac + doodlebug measurements: http://www.head-fi.org/t/636683/pupdac-step-by-step-build-thread/255#post_10536044
-
I'm surprised John Swenson/uptone didn't actually implement a digital isolator in the regen
That's because the available USB isolators have a limited speed so you can't 'clean' anything above 24/96.
On top of that it will most likely add jitter.
From what I understand from all of this magic is that he also isn't a firm believer in ground loops being that problematic.
You can electrically isolate higher speeds but you will have to 'decode' the USB signals (in both directions) and separate the data lines and power supply.
This requires a DCDC converter or multiple and isolated windings in a power supply.
The Wyrd and uptone are 'just' USB hubs that can handle 480Mbs where also the power line is separated.
The ground is not so no isolation.
Swenson claims his USB input is better at 'loading' the USB source, he has better power supply and lower jitter clock and a 'more optimal' PCB design.
It is also smaller in formfactor.
A USB hub chip (I thought they used the same chip) doesn't ALTER the contents of the signal in ANY way.
The only thing the Wyrd and Regen are supposed to do is provide a cleaner electrical 'eyepattern' signal where the clock, which is embedded in the data signal, is lower jitter and the +5V line to the load is cleaner.
The theory is that the receiver input of the DAC recieves a signal that is 'better' in terms of accuracy and stability so the USB receiver has to 'work' less to 'clean-up' the electrical waveforms representing the clock+data.
This, in turn, should generate less 'ground plane noise' which would ultimately 'help' in creating a higher recovered clock stability and less 'disruptive groundplane noises' at the pin where the clock goes into the physical DAC chip as well as a 'cleaner' analog ground.
The analog ground and digital ground may have nice 'separated' ground planes and separated power supplies but the actual ground planes are always tied together somewhere near the DAC chip. Mostly through a ferrite bead or small inductor.
This means that lower frequency (<1MHz) still make it to the analog ground plane.
In essence these wonder boxes could actually help with DAC's that have a poor layout, poor design or use components that do not 'reject' jitter that much.
As mentioned a few times before... I would really like to see (well performed) scope shots with really high Gs/s scopes and specialised FET input probes (with an extremely low input capacitance) that can show without a shadow of a doubt that the clock signal into the DAC chip or the timing of a (yet) unfiltered ladder DAC chip will show reduced jitter at these specific points.
Would be nice if that jitter (not J-test signal) can also be analysed as well in amplitude and frequency domain.
Just to verify what most brains seem to be able to pick up that easily.
-
Just to note that there are USB isolator that will run on USB 2.0 speed. Audio byte Hydra series
-
Just to note that there are USB isolator that will run on USB 2.0 speed. Audio byte Hydra series
USB 2.0 full speed =/= high speed.
Full speed = 12Mbps, 24/96 max
High speed = 480Mbps, up to whatever sample rate you want pretty much
Again: there is no available galvanic isolation devices that operates at USB 2.0 high speed. If a manufacturer is claiming galvanic isolation at USB 2.0 high speed, then they are using optoisolators at the I2S clocks, which (a) isn't really 100% isolation of the interface, and (b) have plenty of their own inherent jitter.
"Galvanic isolation" was a USB 1.1 audio buzzword. It should be put to bed now.
-
Audio byte Hydra series
This device isn't a simple USB isolator nor a hub that do not 'decode' the signal first.
It decodes incoming USB signals, isolates the signals electrically, processes it and and then reclocks (to remove the added jitter again) and makes the signal avaliable again in a number of 'formats', amongst them USB.
You could even apply 'trickery' to audio contents in ARM processors but assume they don't.
Yes, it provides galvanic separation.
That could be beneficial in certain circumstances where the amplifier(s) or other connected gear has issues with specific types of groundloops.
Most people are no bothered by groundloops though.
Not all groundloops come through PC power supplies, they may well come from other connected devices.
-
Here's a 480mbps isolator:
http://intona.eu/en/products
-
Here's a 480mbps isolator:
http://intona.eu/en/products
Are there any pictures of the internals? I'd like to see what they're actually doing in that little magic box.
-
Here's a 480mbps isolator:
http://intona.eu/en/products
When it becomes available (not yet on the market ?) AND you really need galvanic isolation (or ground-loop braking) you could use one in front of the Wyrd/Regen,
Maybe, if they did their re-clocking with 'audiophile approved' components it could be 'enough'.
May probably become a modders paradise.
It probably will be their own development.
Most likely decoding/isolation/encoding.
-
I had significant improvement to the sound(better clarity) by placing the Corning USB 3.0 Optical at the input port of the Schiit Wyrd. Although it's not full galvanic isolation, the Corning does optical data transfer instead of copper wires which reduces signal interferences.
-
I had significant improvement to the sound(better clarity) by placing the Corning USB 3.0 Optical at the input port of the Schiit Wyrd. Although it's not full galvanic isolation, the Corning does optical data transfer instead of copper wires which reduces signal interferences.
Relevant link - http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html?_sm_au_=iHVF37QPMPsJbN1j (http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html?_sm_au_=iHVF37QPMPsJbN1j)
On a side note, where did you find an a to b corning usb cable? I can't seem to find one, but maybe my google-foo has become weak.
-
That's because the available USB isolators have a limited speed so you can't 'clean' anything above 24/96.
On top of that it will most likely add jitter.
....
Trying to wrap my mind around this. I recognize I am asking for a free education here so please feel free to disregard if you don't have the time or inclination to address this...but I would love to understand.
I can see from the datasheets that something like the adum3160 in the doodlebug is relatively low speed as isolators go and maxes out at 12mbps (full speed). If my entire music catalog is less than or equal to 24/96, what is the downside of running usb through such an isolator? Why would it add jitter? The measurements I linked above, and others that I have seen posted (admittedly none made on real test equipment), seem to show that the doodlebug improves the output of the pupdac and odac at the very least. Is the issue that a 12mbps isolator is incompatible with higher frequency xmos and cmedia usb receiver chips?
-
Relevant link - http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html?_sm_au_=iHVF37QPMPsJbN1j (http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html?_sm_au_=iHVF37QPMPsJbN1j)
On a side note, where did you find an a to b corning usb cable? I can't seem to find one, but maybe my google-foo has become weak.
I have to get a male A to Male B adapter for corning to work
-
Ah, I just looked it up, but a USB3.0 type B connector is not backwards compatible with USB2.0 type B, so you're better off with the more common A to B converter.
-
Ah, I just looked it up, but a USB3.0 type B connector is not backwards compatible with USB2.0 type B, so you're better off with the more common A to B converter.
here's what I used:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjAwWDYwMA==/z/HGsAAMXQDK1Rwn1S/$(KGrHqN,!rMFGlb1RbFnBRwn1RqmzQ~~60_35.JPG)
-
I can see from the datasheets that something like the adum3160 in the doodlebug is relatively low speed as isolators go and maxes out at 12mbps (full speed). If my entire music catalog is less than or equal to 24/96, what is the downside of running usb through such an isolator? Why would it add jitter? The measurements I linked above, and others that I have seen posted (admittedly none made on real test equipment), seem to show that the doodlebug improves the output of the pupdac and odac at the very least. Is the issue that a 12mbps isolator is incompatible with higher frequency xmos and cmedia usb receiver chips?
When you don't have anything above 24/96 then using it is not a problem.
That is if you need the galvanic isolation or are bothered by groundloops originating from the PC.
If the latter is the case I would rather address that.
The ADuM has very small transformers (for data and clock lines) in it which provides the galvanic separation.
Some solutions use optocouplers, this one small HF transformers.
These are bandwidth limiting components (otherwise it would go higher in data rate)
That is the issue, not the other components around it. It is the limit of the IC.
On the receiving end of the transformer (so INSIDE the IC) there is electronics that has to decide (on skewed flanks of the clock) what the '1' to '0' levels are.
That decision level MAY not be as accurate/stable and so the clock thus may 'jitter' more.
Jitter is specified as 3ns max. but the spectrum and type is not measured.
The question is how much and what kind of jitter is 'added' and how susceptive the USB receiver behind it is to this 'jitter'.
Jitter in the data lines is irrelevant (as represented in different voltage levels) MUST be viewed separate from the recovered clock.
The point where the 'value' of the data is determined is not on the rising nor falling edges of the USB signal but nicely inbetween those points.
So in the middle 'horizontal' part of the eye pattern with a high margin of immunity to signal levels it is decided whether the data represented a '1' or a '0'.
The timing of this is governed by the (recovered) clock.
Any small jitter of that clock at the decision point of the data bit 'value' determination is completely irrelevant.
The recovered clock can show jitter depending on HOW synchronisation of the transmitting and receiving side of the data transfer is done.
When you de-jitter afterwards there are no downsides IMO.
My personal views on this jitter and isolation business I will keep to myself.
The RMAA reports say absolutely nothing in this case.
I see RMAA is used a lot to provide 'proof'.
It isn't any proof, perhaps only that there may be less 'nasties' introduced in the analog plane (which is looped) but that may not even be the case.
I wouldn't trust ALL RMAA measurements.
After all they are only as good as the ADC, circumstances around the PC setup and if the guy doing the tests knows the limits of RMAA.
RMAA is fun if you stay well above the limits of the soundcards and can provide some (useful) info at times by lack of better analysers around.
-
Thanks so much solderdude! Exactly the soft of explanation I was hoping for :)p5