Linn Forums

tormod · 2010-12-07, 00:16

(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

MnM · 2010-12-07, 02:07

(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

linnrd · 2010-12-07, 04:50

(2010-12-06 11:24)tormod Wrote: JohnC,

I will not enter the user interface part, but the storage part requires some answers.
Linn has by introducing the NAS and raid disks, taking care of 99% of the issue of backup, several disks contain the same data, they will not all stop working at the same time, or what could go wrong:
....

Quality on the files, music or pictures kept stored on a NAS or similar for 100 years or more compared to on a CD.
The nice thing with a electronic storage is that every time you turn on the power, it will refresh all the data, so after 100 years the NAS is the same whereas the CD is no longer readable.
It goes without saying that the NAS has been changed several times over 100 years and used on regular basics.

Tormod

One point you have made requires slight correction. Electronic storage does not "refresh all the data" when you turn it on -- hence the selling point of SpinRite. All you (or your system) can do is check your data for inconsistency and (if well designed) perhaps can correct/compensate for it. Bit-rot is another issue that cannot be corrected for merely by reading data and SpinRite is touted as being able to delay the onset of bit rot by "refreshing the data" as you speak.

I also think the point JohnC makes is a wee bit more subtle than that you allude to. I am sure you have some data sitting on 3.5" floppy discs; I am also reasonably sure that you will have some difficulty accessing some laptops to read this data today. I will not even bring up the spectre of slightly older legacy media such as 5.25" and 8" floppy discs, cartridges (a la Zip/Omega and SyQuest) and tape reels. This is a serious issue from an archival standpoint; libraries who switched to electronic backups of newspapers and journals are having considerable problems reading the media because the software used to read the media was DOS-based and cannot now easily be used. Microfiche and microfilm, on the other hand, is still no different to read than it was before and the same machines are still being manufactured for that purpose. So while data integrity is not the big issue (as I am sure that archival tapes and other media are still intact) it is the ability to read this data that is at issue.

In a sense JohnC is able to read his vinyl not because vinyl is less prone to data loss but, rather, because there is still equipment that reads vinyl. If we stop making equipment that can drag rocks through canyons none of the information, although still intact, on vinyl will be accessible.

grahamd · 2010-12-07, 10:30

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 · 2010-12-07, 10:51

(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

tormod · (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 12:31 by tormod.)

(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

grahamd · (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 12:49 by grahamd.)

(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

bassato · (This post was last modified: 2010-12-07 13:17 by bassato.)

(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

grahamd · 2010-12-07, 13:38

(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

tormod · 2010-12-07, 16:03

(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