Linn Forums

Current time: 2014-10-23, 15:24 Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Linn Forums / Linn / Linn DS v / Why Linn DS

Post Reply 
Why Linn DS
2010-12-07, 00:16
Post: #21
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-06 22:49)molix Wrote:  I do not have a Linn DS player. Two months ago I got my hands on a ex-demo Akurate Kontrol with an inbuilt DAC. My Oppo DVD-player works as a digital source, connected to the AK digitally through spdif. It sounds fantastic. And it gives me the freedom to connect any digital source to my system.

Some day I will upgrade to DS, but with my new setup it's no hurry .o)


molix,

Are you sure about this, Akurate Kontrol with a built in DAC?

Tormod
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 02:07
Post: #22
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-06 22:11)tormod Wrote:  A DS receive files in a digital format and convert them to analogue, so do the other ones, how you do things does not change the definition on what you do.

The DS is vastly different you say, not so much as you would like it to be, I would say, but that does not change the quality on the sound.

Right you are
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 04:50 (This post was last modified: 2014-02-23 17:30 by linnrd.)
Post: #23
RE: Why Linn DS
⠃⠽⠑ ⠈⠇⠇

Boring stuff->Linn Blacks->More boring stuff
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 10:30
Post: #24
RE: Why Linn DS
Furthermore a DS plays music in a completely different way to a DAC connected to a computer via toslink, spdif, FireWire, or USB.

A DS pulls and plays audio from the server at the rate of the DAC clock. THe DAC and the server are in the same clock domain.

In the other scenario, the computer reads the audio and then pushes it at the DAC - two clock domains with an inherent engineering problem synching between them.

Graham
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 10:51
Post: #25
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 00:16)tormod Wrote:  [quote='molix' pid='99766' dateline='1291672195']
molix,

Are you sure about this, Akurate Kontrol with a built in DAC?

Tormod

A preamp normally has a collection of inputs, a volume control, and an analogue output.

Any preamp with a digital input is a DAC plus other stuff.

Or a DAC is a preamp minus some stuff.

Graham
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 12:28 (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 12:31 by tormod.)
Post: #26
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 10:30)grahamd Wrote:  Furthermore a DS plays music in a completely different way to a DAC connected to a computer via toslink, spdif, FireWire, or USB.

A DS pulls and plays audio from the server at the rate of the DAC clock. THe DAC and the server are in the same clock domain.

In the other scenario, the computer reads the audio and then pushes it at the DAC - two clock domains with an inherent engineering problem synching between them.

Graham

grahamd

I think you have to do some reading to catch up on the DACs, here is a link to Daniel Weiss 202 DAC.
After reading this tell me what the DS can do that the 202 can’t. And please explain the difference and how it would influence the sound quality.

http://www.weiss-highend.ch/dac202/docum...manual.pdf

Tormod


(2010-12-07 10:51)grahamd Wrote:  
(2010-12-07 00:16)tormod Wrote:  [quote='molix' pid='99766' dateline='1291672195']
molix,

Are you sure about this, Akurate Kontrol with a built in DAC?

Tormod

A preamp normally has a collection of inputs, a volume control, and an analogue output.

Any preamp with a digital input is a DAC plus other stuff.

Or a DAC is a preamp minus some stuff.

Graham

I know the Kisto and the Kinos have a built in DAC, I was not aware that the Akurate Kontrol had one.

Tormod
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 12:49 (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 12:49 by grahamd.)
Post: #27
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 12:28)tormod Wrote:  
(2010-12-07 10:30)grahamd Wrote:  Furthermore a DS plays music in a completely different way to a DAC connected to a computer via toslink, spdif, FireWire, or USB.

A DS pulls and plays audio from the server at the rate of the DAC clock. THe DAC and the server are in the same clock domain.

In the other scenario, the computer reads the audio and then pushes it at the DAC - two clock domains with an inherent engineering problem synching between them.

Graham

grahamd

I think you have to do some reading to catch up on the DACs, here is a link to Daniel Weiss 202 DAC.
After reading this tell me what the DS can do that the 202 can’t. And please explain the difference and how it would influence the sound quality.

http://www.weiss-highend.ch/dac202/docum...manual.pdf

Tormod

Well, as I said, it's a matter of clock domains. No DAC/Computer configuration is able to place the DAC and the Server in the same clock domain in the same way as a DS. That is the defining feature of the DS solution in opposition to the DAC-based solution.

A quick look at your document suggests that this DAC is no different to any other in this respect. Maybe I'm missing the exact section that you wanted me to look at. Could you direct me to the exact section that describes this extra feature.

Graham
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 13:00 (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 13:17 by bassato.)
Post: #28
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 12:28)tormod Wrote:  I think you have to do some reading to catch up on the DACs, here is a link to Daniel Weiss 202 DAC.
After reading this tell me what the DS can do that the 202 can’t. And please explain the difference and how it would influence the sound quality.

http://www.weiss-highend.ch/dac202/docum...manual.pdf

regarding recent publications on the weiss one has to come to the conclusion, that it seems to belong to todays best devices for digital playback around in terms of audio quality.

unregarding quality, there is still one immense difference to the linn ds products: in non technical terms a weiss plays what the computer sends/pushes him to play, a ds gets a playlist and then pulls the according data from whatever storage. the way it works is simply the other way round. and i assume that therefore no extraordinary effort has to be taken to reduce jitter between two seperate devices since all jitter relevant parts are in one device within a linn ds and can therefore be handled much easier and even more precise. graham may please correct me if i'm wrong with this...

manfred

system can be found in profile
Location: near Düsseldorf GER
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 13:38
Post: #29
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 13:00)bassato Wrote:  regarding recent publications on the weiss one has to come to the conclusion, that it seems to belong to todays best devices for digital playback around in terms of audio quality.

unregarding quality, there is still one immense difference to the linn ds products: in non technical terms a weiss plays what the computer sends/pushes him to play, a ds gets a playlist and then pulls the according data from whatever storage. the way it works is simply the other way round. and i assume that therefore no extraordinary effort has to be taken to reduce jitter between two seperate devices since all jitter relevant parts are in one device within a linn ds and can therefore be handled much easier and even more precise. graham may please correct me if i'm wrong with this...

manfred

manfred,

Exactly correct. As you point out, with this topology it becomes easy to take particular control of the audio clock. In a DS we try to place the actual clock hardware as close to the DAC as possible and then use highly accurate low voltage differential signaling to transmit that clock to the digital electronics (which is best kept at a distance from the analogue electronics).

Graham
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2010-12-07, 16:03
Post: #30
RE: Why Linn DS
(2010-12-07 12:49)grahamd Wrote:  
(2010-12-07 12:28)tormod Wrote:  
(2010-12-07 10:30)grahamd Wrote:  Furthermore a DS plays music in a completely different way to a DAC connected to a computer via toslink, spdif, FireWire, or USB.

A DS pulls and plays audio from the server at the rate of the DAC clock. THe DAC and the server are in the same clock domain.

In the other scenario, the computer reads the audio and then pushes it at the DAC - two clock domains with an inherent engineering problem synching between them.

Graham

grahamd

I think you have to do some reading to catch up on the DACs, here is a link to Daniel Weiss 202 DAC.
After reading this tell me what the DS can do that the 202 can’t. And please explain the difference and how it would influence the sound quality.

http://www.weiss-highend.ch/dac202/docum...manual.pdf

Tormod

Well, as I said, it's a matter of clock domains. No DAC/Computer configuration is able to place the DAC and the Server in the same clock domain in the same way as a DS. That is the defining feature of the DS solution in opposition to the DAC-based solution.

A quick look at your document suggests that this DAC is no different to any other in this respect. Maybe I'm missing the exact section that you wanted me to look at. Could you direct me to the exact section that describes this extra feature.

Graham


grahamd/bassato

I will agree with you in the part where you say the DS is different, but not because the DS is pulling the data from a play list.

It is like this:
One part of the DS is pulling the DATA from the NAS from a play list, and one part of the DS send the DATA to the DAC part of the DS.
It equals a MAC setup with a DAC; iTunes pull the data from the hard disk from a play list, and send it to the DAC.

So to the methodical way of doing it;

By pulling the data you do not need to care about jitter from separate devises. The method bye pulling the data has a goal, and that is to reduce jitter, to that you must agree.

Her is what Daniel Weiss says about jitter in the DAC202, a different solution to the same problem:

In the DAC202 we employ a two-stage PLL circuitry, which very effectively suppresses jitter. A common problem with most PLLs used in audio circuitry is that they suppress jitter only for higher frequencies. Jitter frequencies that are low (e.g. below 1 kHz or so) are often only marginally suppressed. It has been shown that low frequency jitter can have a large influence on the audio quality though. The DAC202 suppresses even very low frequency jitter components.
This means that the DAC202 is virtually immune to the quality of the audio source regarding jitter.

My point grahamd, the solution to a problem could be different.

If you took a DAC202 and a DS and did the measurements between them and concluded one superior of the other in terms of jitter than I will accept this. By saying we do it different therefore we are better is not an accurate statement.

And by the way grahamd tell me what have you listen to in term’s of you competitors, horses for horses of cause.
If not I can recommend a setup with a Mac Mini dedicated as a music server, setup recommendations by Amarra, iTunes, Amarra and a DAC202 firewire.
Try some HR files up to 24bits/192kHz.

Tormod
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: