# Audiophilleo 1 and 2 USB to S/PDIF transport



## Currawong

So we don't pollute other thread, I'm starting up a thread to discuss the Audiophilleo products here.
   
  I recently bought the Audiophilleo 1 and, while it is almost double the cost of the 2, the gadget nut in me wanted to play with the various features. Regardless, I intended it as an "end game" device, that I would never consider upgrading from. Their full disclosure about how they obtained the measurements and invitation from people to duplicate them gave me some confidence that it should be a good product. 
   
  Early impressions, compared to the Audio-gd Digital Interface is that is an improvement with my Audio-gd Reference 1, resulting in more clarity and less "glare". Whereas I preferred the Parasound DAC1600HD for its natural presentation over the Reference 1 before, the Audiophilleo has, so far, given the Ref 1 a leg up over the Parasound, though I need to have another go with it connected to the Parasound instead, though a brief listen didn't have me feeling it was as effective on it as it is with the Ref 1. I suspect this is more Kingwa having been on the long road to perfecting the digital input on his DACs and their full capability not having been realised, going by the effect of the upgraded DSP and better converters I've used over time.  I am sure there are DACs that this converter wouldn't be useful with, such as the Cambridge Azur 840c I used to have, which was unaffected in the slightest (IMO) by whatever source component or connected I used with it.
   
  More later...


----------



## Sid-Fi

Hi Currawong, I would be very interested if you could expound a little on the difference between DI & PSU combo versus Audiophilleo. I have been leaning towards a DI and PSU, but recently starting reading up more on the Audiophilleo and find it to be a more attractive option for the same reasons you mention here.
   
  Your comments make it seem like it is a small or marginal improvement over DI while other reviews I have read described it as a pretty significant improvement. Any further insight would be appreciated!


----------



## FauDrei

I've also gave in and ordered Audiophilleo2... It is much more expensive than any other USB/SPDIF converter I've had so far (if we exclude the mods), but the tech base of this toy just marks almost all checkboxes that I reckon ideal converter should have. Good to hear from Curra that he experiences improvement in his setup... and it does not hurt that his setup is similar to mine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  We'll see...
   


sid-fi said:


> Your comments make it seem like it is a small or marginal improvement over DI while other reviews I have read described it as a pretty significant improvement. Any further insight would be appreciated!


 

 Sid, you should take into consideration that different DACs have different SPDIF input, digital filtering and jitter rejection implementations. I suppose the most dramatic improvement will be with DACs with lesser quality implementations of those parts. As for Curra's comments - I'm not sure for Parasound, but RE-1 has DSP-1 module which, while not perfect, does a solid job as digital filter and jitter reductor which could explain marginal improvements with RE-1.
   
  Take note though that RE-1 level "marginal improvement" is far far more than f.e. DacMagic "marginal improvement".


----------



## endless402

good to see someone else providing comments about the audiophileo
   
  i'm happy with my audiophileo 2
   
  i'm waiting for more asynch usb dac choices at the 2K range, wasnt that impressed with the w4s dac2 sound.
   
  which usb cable are you using btw?


----------



## K3cT

Definitely interested. I hope they decide to make the promo price of the Audiophilleo 2 permanent.


----------



## Currawong

An audiophile would say that the differences are dramatic. A regular person would say the sound was more clear.  I think much of the effect would depend on the DAC being used. A DAC very sensitive to the transport, IMO such as a Northstar M192 MK1, would probably sound dramatically different. With something like the Cambridge, there might be no difference.  It could be argued that spending the money on a better DAC would be in order instead. For me, a "better DAC" would be like the Ref 1 but with a more developed digital input, so it amounts to the same thing getting the Audiophilleo.


----------



## Alexdad54

Quote: 





currawong said:


> An audiophile would say that the differences are dramatic. A regular person would say the sound was more clear.  I think much of the effect would depend on the DAC being used. A DAC very sensitive to the transport, IMO such as a Northstar M192 MK1, would probably sound dramatically different. With something like the Cambridge, there might be no difference.  It could be argued that spending the money on a better DAC would be in order instead. For me, a "better DAC" would be like the Ref 1 but with a more developed digital input, so it amounts to the same thing getting the Audiophilleo.


 

 Being rather inexperienced with DAC's I was wwondering if the MHDT Havana, in your opinion, might benefit fromt the Audiophilleo 2 or is it more on the Cambridge's level as you decibe above? I am currently using an Audio-GD DI and am also interested in direct  comparisons form those who have heard both.
  cheers,
 Dave


----------



## Sid-Fi

@ FauDrei
   
  Thanks for the comments. I think your definitely right about the impact varying depending on the quality of the usb implementations built into different dacs. I am using an Audio-gd NFB-10WM and based on Currawong's comments and many others, I expect there is plenty of room to improve on the standard usb section it has, especially considering so many find the DI & PSU to be a large improvement. By the way, I read through the thread on stereo.net and appreciated your posts there.
   
  @ Currawong
   
  Thanks for elaborating. I think Audiophilleo2 will definitely be a very nice upgrade for me. I am using straight usb from my PC to NFB-10WM. Going from that to one of the best solutions should be very nice. I recently added power conditioning with a Furman AC-215a and noticed nice benefits from that. I think the Audiophilleo will be a more significant improvement.
   
  Thanks again.
   
  Dave


----------



## axw

Does any of you have experience with Audiophilleo power supply upgrades or tweaks? Some folks report improvement.

 My first candidate is this PSU. Alternatively, a cheaper, non-fancy linear PSU but plugged using this.

 Soldering a 5V PSU directly into the USB cable does not look like a good idea - any thoughts?


----------



## elwappo99

Currawong,
  I also have a Ref1, and was looking to upgrade sources. Does your Digital Interface use an external power supply?


----------



## PhaedrusX

Quote: 





currawong said:


> An audiophile would say that the differences are dramatic. A regular person would say the sound was more clear...


 


  and only one of these statements would offer anything remotely insightful. guess which one?
   
  on topic: from the product page, i see that this comes with a "JitterSimulator." could you run this and report what differences you hear, preferably as a "regular person"? I've always wanted to know what jitter sounds like.


----------



## Currawong

Love how the forums put the quotes in the wrong order...anyway...
  
  Quote: 





elwappo99 said:


> Currawong,
> I also have a Ref1, and was looking to upgrade sources. Does your Digital Interface use an external power supply?


 

 If you mean the Audio-gd one, yes, the original power supply. 
   


  Quote: 





axw said:


> Does any of you have experience with Audiophilleo power supply upgrades or tweaks? Some folks report improvement.
> 
> My first candidate is this PSU. Alternatively, a cheaper, non-fancy linear PSU but plugged using this.
> 
> Soldering a 5V PSU directly into the USB cable does not look like a good idea - any thoughts?


 

 I'm definitely getting that to experiment with. Possibly more than one actually, as I'm thinking of getting an Apogee Duet 2 and using it to test a few things.
   


  Quote: 





phaedrusx said:


> and only one of these statements would offer anything remotely insightful. guess which one?
> 
> on topic: from the product page, i see that this comes with a "JitterSimulator." could you run this and report what differences you hear, preferably as a "regular person"? I've always wanted to know what jitter sounds like.


 

 Ha! True, but I think you know what I'm getting at.   I'm not using the remote at the moment, but once I've set up my new apartment I plan to set up remote control and experiment with the features. 
   
   
  Quote: 





alexdad54 said:


> Being rather inexperienced with DAC's I was wwondering if the MHDT Havana, in your opinion, might benefit fromt the Audiophilleo 2 or is it more on the Cambridge's level as you decibe above? I am currently using an Audio-GD DI and am also interested in direct  comparisons form those who have heard both.
> cheers,
> Dave


 

 Personally, since the Havanna is NOS, which means, by design, it will have a lot of distortion, I would suggest upgrading your DAC (Ever noticed NOS DACs never have THD and other measurements posted?). I don't believe in fixing an inherently flawed design this way. I do recall you or somebody else posting about their experiences with the DI on the Havana though.


----------



## elwappo99

Sorry to keep bugging you, but could you give a little more info on the audiophilleo vs Audio-gd DI? Nothing formal, just few more details off the top of your head.  I'm leaning towards the Audio-gd over the Audiophellio 2.


----------



## Currawong

I will in a week, with any luck. All my gear is being moved to a new apartment this week, starting tomorrow.


----------



## elwappo99

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I will in a week, with any luck. All my gear is being moved to a new apartment this week, starting tomorrow.


 


  Ohh, I had no idea  Best of luck with the move, I eagerly await your impressions.


----------



## Sid-Fi

I just pulled the trigger on the Audiophilleo2 tonight. I'll be pretty slammed with finals over the next week and a half, but will definitely post some preliminary impressions to try and convey the magnitude of improvement it brings to my Audio-gd NFB-10WM, which I am currently using through USB direct from my PC (WyreWorld Ultraviolet cable). I think it will make a big difference and am really looking forward to it.


----------



## upstateguy

subscribed


----------



## Alexdad54

> Personally, since the Havana is NOS, which means, by design, it will have a lot of distortion, I would suggest upgrading your DAC (Ever noticed NOS DACs never have THD and other measurements posted?). I don't believe in fixing an inherently flawed design this way. I do recall you or somebody else posting about their experiences with the DI on the Havana though.


 
  Thanks Currawong, a new DAC is actually in my plans. I think I post you refer to was about my experiences with the new EE Minimax DAC with the DI and the dropout problem I had which prompted me to start looking for alternatives to the DI.. It seems the problem was related to the  ESS 9018 chip in the Mimimax being too sensitive to the jitter that the DI relays. Thus my interest in the Audiophilleo 2, especially for use in with future DAC choices. Good luck with the move and looking forward to your comparisons.
  D


----------



## Nada

Ive got a mates Audipophilleo2 (AP2) feeding a REF7 at the moment and its running off battery power with a $4 DIY mod using four AA NiMH batteries
   
  I also have a DI with the Audio-gd power supply but it doesn't have the upgraded TXCO clock.
   
  When using USB as source I like the AP2. Its a bit clearer with sharper imaging. I can hear deeper into subtle layers. The effect is subtle even with good gear. I hear it better with these speakers http://www.sgraudio.com.au/products/convex/cx4f.html  that image really well and with no preamp getting in the way
   
  But the DI's performance improves markedly taking a SPDIF feed eg cleaning up a CD or DVD players coaxial digital out or SPDIF out of a motherboard.
   
  The DI should go better again  upsampling SPDIF to 96kHz with the upgraded clock.
   
  Anyone tried that?


----------



## Currawong

Did you find much improvement running off battery power?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Did you find much improvement running off battery power?


 

 Ditto.


----------



## Nada

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Did you find much improvement running off battery power?


 
  Well I had to admit that for $4 (not including batteries - he already had them) it was a radical value for money upgrade. I must admit I was disappointed that such an expensive item could be improved with some rechargable batteries but my fantasy that the Audiophilleo was so well designed it could turn v-bus power into clean voltage is probably just a fantasy.
   
  Three users with their systems have heard the same improvement. I doubt its a placebo effect.
   
  So I guess you want to know what I heard?
   
  Well at this level of refinement its hard for me to put in words. It was like the goodness just went up another little level. The smoothness, clarity and sharpness all went into better focus. Before I couldnt imagine it could sound better and then the brain has to readjust its standards. This raises for me the question of where the limit is? Im not sure but its fun....That impossible perfectionistic striving just  got another chunk of positive reinforcement. Is this healthy? Im definitely not sure but....
   
  .. what if we could get an Audiophilleo MarkII with separate ultra clean rechargable battery feeds to the USB receiver, clock and SPDIF generator.
   
  Then how about an Audiophilleo I2S for skipping the SPDIF debacle altogether.
   
  Then for the Ref7 the SuperAudiophilleo putting out ultra upsampled I2S at the maximum rate the PCM1704 takes of 768kHz to bypass the entire DSP processing . Then the SuperAudiophilleo II which will put out eight discreet I2S into each individual PCM1704 chip at 768kHz with only 1ps jitter running on a super TXCO clock.
   
  Then lets run the thing off an atomic clock with .00004ps jitter..........
   
  or perhaps back in the moment just get this instead : http://www.exadevices.com/


----------



## axw

Quote: 





nada said:


> Well at this level of refinement its hard for me to put in words. It was like the goodness just went up another little level. The smoothness, clarity and sharpness all went into better focus. Before I couldnt imagine it could sound better and then the brain has to readjust its standards. This raises for me the question of where the limit is? Im not sure but its fun....That impossible perfectionistic striving just  got another chunk of positive reinforcement. Is this healthy? Im definitely not sure but....


 

 Very true. Are we addicted from dopamine shots that each another upgrade brings? Audiophilleo is a strong kick then alone, even without power modding


----------



## Currawong

I think I'll have to stop by my local electronics store this weekend and get some parts.  I'm going to try the power supply for the Digital Interface and battery power. All my audio gear is still in boxes unfortunately.


----------



## tamahome77

The audiophilleo 1 is an improvement over the new audio-gd DI or the old RE-3 with V5 dsp-3 chip or both?


----------



## Sid-Fi

I just got my Audiophilleo2 in. Unfortunately I'm slammed studying for finals next week so I won't be able to do any critical listening comparisons for a week or so. For now, I'll say that 24/192 files are sounding great and drop a few cell phone pics of the unboxing.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





tamahome77 said:


> The audiophilleo 1 is an improvement over the new audio-gd DI or the old RE-3 with V5 dsp-3 chip or both?


 

 Both IMO. 'Tis a shame, as the Ref 3 is the most convenient piece of digital kit I own.


----------



## Nada

The Audiophilleo is an example where design theory actually gives the expected results. The correct implementation of asynchronous USB is predicted to give lower jitter then adaptive with all other things being equal.
   
What I heard with the AP2 was a sweetness and smoothness and clear imaging that is apparently what a low jitter asynchronous device with excellent clocks and square wave can produce. The Audiophilleo is an outstanding SPDIF design in my little experience.
   
The question I cant get out of my mind is that theory predicts that an asynchronous USB to I2Sdevice will be even better!
   
SPDIF I understand is an inherently flawed format as the timing signal is mixed in with the data in a way jitter is bound to be produced by the SPDIF reciever in the DAC.
   
Has anyone tried a direct I2S fed into their DAC?
   
Those with a Ref7 should be able to feed I2S into the DSP-1 as its clearly marked for that?
   
Anyone?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





nada said:


> .. what if we could get an Audiophilleo MarkII with separate ultra clean rechargable battery feeds to the USB receiver, clock and SPDIF generator.
> 
> Then how about an Audiophilleo I2S for skipping the SPDIF debacle altogether.


 

 The latest Empirical Off-Ramp already does both battery power and I2S. Compatible DACs besides Empirical's own Overdrive are pretty rare (Northstar, Perpetual, some of the Stellos, maybe M2Tech?) but they are out there. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really understand the appeal of the Audiophilleo, not when the OR4 starts at $800, and the Wavelink HS sells for $900, with built in battery power. Where is the money going with the Audiophilleo?


----------



## axw

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The latest Empirical Off-Ramp already does both battery power and I2S. Compatible DACs besides Empirical's own Overdrive are pretty rare (Northstar, Perpetual, some of the Stellos, maybe M2Tech?) but they are out there. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really understand the appeal of the Audiophilleo, not when the OR4 starts at $800, and the Wavelink HS sells for $900, with built in battery power. Where is the money going with the Audiophilleo?


 

 For me it's the other way around: OR4 costs $300 more and it is not clear if it is worth the money over Audiophilleo. Empirical does not publish OR4 jitter measurements, as there are available for Audiophilleo -- and that does not help. On A-GD NFB-7, USB-powered Audiophilleo via SPDIF is substantially better than Evo via AES/EBU powered by a high quality linear psu. This tells me that for Audio-GD dacs at least, jitter reduction is way more critical than connection interface and that power supply is not that much of an issue for Audiophilleo, since even on usb power it already betters another asynchronous usb interface at the same price tag. But you are correct that it should have an option to plug an external psu.
   
  Btw, did you see any credible reviews claiming OR4's (using SPDIF) *sonic *superiority over Audiophilleo? Or maybe did you happen to compare the two directly?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





axw said:


> Btw, did you see any credible reviews claiming OR4's (using SPDIF) *sonic *superiority over Audiophilleo? Or maybe did you happen to compare the two directly?


 

 No, unfortunately I haven't seen the two of them together or had the opportunity to test them myself. The Audiophilleo does seem to be considerably better than any other bus powered converter like the Bridge or Diverter, and that is an impressive achievement. What I would really like to see is the Audiophilleo vs. the Legato at 16/44, and vs. the OR4. The Off-Ramp with super or ultraclocks, the Hynes regulator upgrade, and either the Monolith or a B-P-T battery supply is the most expensive converter currently out there, but I suspect that it's the best of the best.
   
  Edit: better at least than the original 24/96, adaptive mode Diverter. A comparison test vs. the new 24/192, asynch Diverter would also be very interesting.


----------



## Currawong

I haven't had a look at the latest from Empirical and others, so it doesn't surprise me that manufacturers are going in the direction of battery power etc. Considering the costs mentioned, with a bit of DIY, that would make the Audiophilleo 1 great value if it can match the others.
   
  While it doesn't make my Ref 1 match the clarity of the Esoteric K-01 I tried the other week, I am very pleased with the results. I did give it a shot with the Parasound DAC1600HD. Interestingly, the BNC to RCA adaptor included is obviously, by the plug, a 50 Ohm adaptor, not a 75 Ohm one, but I'm not sure how much of an effect that would have on the results.  Using the Reference 3 to feed both DACs, it was honestly splitting hairs trying to tell apart both. The Parasound has a more natural reproduction of instruments, yet is detailed with a wide soundstage (using the balanced output) and the Reference 1 has a slightly harder presentation. This is, as I understand, PCM63K + PMD100 versus PCM1704UK + DSP. Internally, both DACs are similar in concept, consisting of 3 separate transformers and considerable capacitance in the power supply and a fully balanced design. However, with the Audiophilleo attached directly, whereas I didn't feel there was any significant difference with the Parasound, the Reference 1 has taken a leap forward, losing what I'd describe as some glare and becoming yet more clear, without any discernible tonal changes.
   
  Interestingly, blessingsx, who owns a bunch of Parasound DACs, made a comment elsewhere to the effect that (he thought) anyone who could hear a difference between optical and USB was full of it. Having now tried the different inputs on the Parasound and not felt there was any difference, I think that the design gives the same result as the Cambridge 840c I used to own that sounded the same regardless of what was feeding it -- straight optical from my MacBook Pro, DI or Ref 3.  So the irony here is that the Parasound, seemingly unaffected by input quality, cannot be improved from what it is, yet the arguably slightly flawed digital input of the Reference 1 can be improved upon to make it the greater (if, in the end with at least an Audiophilleo 2, close to 4x the cost) DAC.
   
  My plans for the Parasound, incidentally, were to put it in the living room "family" system. Just in time for this today, Apple released an Apple TV update allowing one to limit output to 16 bit, which works perfectly with the Parasound.  I might have otherwise thought to attempt to, say, include the Reference 3 in that system, but now I know there wouldn't have been any point.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Interestingly, blessingsx, who owns a bunch of Parasound DACs, made a comment elsewhere to the effect that (he thought) anyone who could hear a difference between optical and USB was full of it. Having now tried the different inputs on the Parasound and not felt there was any difference, I think that the design gives the same result as the Cambridge 840c I used to own that sounded the same regardless of what was feeding it -- straight optical from my MacBook Pro, DI or Ref 3.  So the irony here is that the Parasound, seemingly unaffected by input quality, cannot be improved from what it is, yet the arguably slightly flawed digital input of the Reference 1 can be improved upon to make it the greater (if, in the end with at least an Audiophilleo 2, close to 4x the cost) DAC.


 

 That is interesting. I wonder if the digital receiver chip is the limiting factor with the Parasound (CS8412, right)? That was not a low jitter receiver by any stretch. EAD used their "digital flywheel" tech to try and clean up the incoming jitter, and Spectral had some type of similar system in the SDR-2000.


----------



## endless402

this just goes to show that you cant make generalizations about how each piece of equipment sounds like. you have to try it on your own equipment to find out.
   
  took me a long time to get to my current setup through experimenting with different usb to spdif converters and cables.


----------



## sk3383

There seems to be a lot of false information circulating around the forums with regards to USB to SPDIF transports.
   
  Many forum members believe the following:
   
  1) Asynchronous is better than Synchronous/Isochrnous transfer methods
  2) USB powered devices are inferrior in comparisn to battery powered and/or external linear power supplies
  3) The transport with the lowest jitter measurement will have the best performance
   
  Members are putting a lot of emphasis on the above, believing that if a transport has some or all of the characteristics it will be "the best"
   
  It is simply not the case. USB to SPDIF transports could boast asynchronous transfer, battery powered and less than .0001 ps of RMS jitter and it could sound like crap in your system. Having these features does not tell you how a transport will "sound"
   
  While asynchronous communication, external battery supplies and low jitter measurements have been "proven" to increase "performance", none of these things tell you how the transport will perform in YOUR system
   
  It should be mentioned that all transports have jitter, for example CD players/transports. In reading through the forums its clear that not everyone seems to understand that jitter has always existing in audio transports, its not something new to USB. Do you ever hear discussions about the jitter measurments of CD players....
   
  There are many highly regarded CD transports that do not have the lowest measured jitter in their price range, however still consistantly "score" better marks, or have more recognition of being world class.
   
  What it comes down to is...design, implementation, and system synergy.
   
  If a manufacturer decides to use USB power, with a design thats meant to work with "dirty power", designed to clean and restore the signal. Do you think it will be less effective than battery power?
   
  If a manufacturer decides to use a non asynchronous transfer method, say for instance the transport has been designed to specifically work synchronously. Do you think they cannot design it to work as effectively as an asynchronous implementation?
   
  If a manufacturer designs their transport, which gets amazing reviews....then people find out it was voiced with 500 ps of RMS jitter. Does it make it inferrior to a device that boasts 5 ps of RMS jitter. Does jitter indicate how a device will sound in your system?
   
  In truth all of these things matter and none of these things matter. It all comes down to design and implementation. Remember not all transports will sound good mated with your DAC in your system, no one will have the same results.
   
  People who go around comparing devices like the Audiophilleo, Diverter, M2Tech, Bel Canto, Offramp, Stello, Blue Circle, etc  based solely on specs, not actually hearing these devices. Then posting in the forums spreading information like its fact when there is no truth behind what they are talking about.
   
  Even then, its entirely possible that a Bel Canto will sound better than an Audiophilleo in your system and vice versa. There really is no "best" transport.
   
  Its all about finding the a transport that mates well with your system, your DAC especially.
   
  There is no way that anyone can prove that transport A is better than transport B because it will perform differently in different systems and each persons idea of the "perfect sound" is not the same as everyone elses.


----------



## sk3383

FYI...
   
  I currently own the M2Tech hiFace, Halide Design Bridge and just recently got a used Bel Canto USB Link.
   
  Sonically they all sound different. Not night and day different, but they each have strong suits and weak points, advantages and disadvantages. I am sure that any of these devices would mate well, given the right system/synergy.
   
  I am very fond of each of these transports but havent found the perfect one for my system yet, quite interested in trying the Audiophilleo but only if the Sonicweld Diverter 192 doesnt work out for me.


----------



## axw

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sk3383* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Many forum members believe the following:
> 
> ...


 
   
  What are you trying to achieve by such writeup? Deconstruction of collective wisdoms? Personally, I would appreciate substantial contributions rather than subjectivizations of everything -- this is neither helpful nor interesting.
   
  "Low jitter -> better sonics" has been confirmed empirically by multiple members of this forum; it is known how exactly jitter affects sound or "what jitter sounds like". 
   
  Transports are comparable, some of them measure and sound better than others. No magic and no wonderful synergies here, just physics and some math. Some DACs are more sensitive than others and this is also not quite magic, but digital filtering capabilities. 
   
  Yes, apart from jitter, there's also the problem of SPDIF signal quality, influenced by power supply, which is also measurable if you dare to.


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





sk3383 said:


> I am very fond of each of these transports but havent found the perfect one for my system yet, quite interested in trying the Audiophilleo but only if the Sonicweld Diverter 192 doesnt work out for me.


 

 Having tested a near-finished prototype, I believe that the Diverter v2 will work out for you just fine.  The v1 wasn't bad, but the v2 is vastly improved in every way.  Can't wait to receive the production version, which should be really soon, according to Josh.  About time.


----------



## Currawong

I think the point of sk3383's post was that you can't generalise with what specs are good or bad.
   
  DaveBSC: The Parasound uses a PMD100.  The Reference 1 with its DIR9001 and DSP succeeded the DAC 8 which used the PMD100.   This reminds me of a discussion I read about the Berkeley Audio Alpha where someone said to the effect that the parts cost of one was very low, so you're paying for whatever magic is in their custom DSP.  What it all boils down to for me is: The focus on digital transport quality popular lately isn't misguided and I nailed it when I guessed that it was the right target to aim for to improve my system.
   
  I know someone asked about the effect of the jitter simulator.  I've only had a quick try of it, but couldn't immediately notice any effect.


----------



## sk3383

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I think the point of sk3383's post was that you can't generalise with what specs are good or bad.


 


 Exactly. I started out writing something very basic and ended up with a story book. Just a bit disspointed in how the head-fi community gets so easily influenced by false information. I wish I could articulate my words a little bit better but I am terrible at putting my thoughts and knowledge down on paper.


----------



## sk3383

Quote: 





warp08 said:


> Having tested a near-finished prototype, I believe that the Diverter v2 will work out for you just fine.  The v1 wasn't bad, but the v2 is vastly improved in every way.  Can't wait to receive the production version, which should be really soon, according to Josh.  About time.


 


 warp08,
   
  I just recently purchased mine, looks like Josh is about a month away. Very excited to hear his transport.


----------



## sk3383

Quote: 





axw said:


> What are you trying to achieve by such writeup? Deconstruction of collective wisdoms? Personally, I would appreciate substantial contributions rather than subjectivizations of everything -- this is neither helpful nor interesting.
> 
> "Low jitter -> better sonics" has been confirmed empirically by multiple members of this forum; it is known how exactly jitter affects sound or "what jitter sounds like".
> 
> ...


 

  
   
  axw, your statements have a lot of truth behind them.....
   
  Not trying to deconstruct collective wisdoms. I am not sure exactly what I was trying to accomplish with that post, I think I was trying to enlighten members maybe, possibly help them look at things from another perspective ("outside of the box" so to speak)
   
  Lower jitter -> better sonics = TRUTH. But having the lowest jitter measurements is not the end game.
   
  Its all in the implementation and design, Device(A) can post the best measured jitter but not sound half as good as Device(B) that has a much worst measured jitter.
   
  Transports are comparable, *YES*, DAC input sensitivity does play a major role. There are attenuators that can assist with input sensitivity issues but not neccessarily resolve issues completely or even very well for that matter.
   
  Power supply, filtration, etc. plays a huge part in the SPDIF transport.
   
  I guess the point I was trying to make, was to inform people that measurments, chipsets and protocols used dont necessarily equal the best sonics. Its a combination, primarily design and implementation, then you can look at measurements and protocols used, etc.
   
  Sites like the Audiophilleo that post a comparisn graph basically showing that their transport is #1 to me is just poor representation of good sonics. Gullable people who have no idea will fall for that marketing ploy and its unfortunate, a bit upsetting. Thats not to say their Transport isnt top notch, just that it may not be "the best" in your system.


----------



## tamahome77

That's right man it's all about design, implementation and synergy.  I totally agree with all of that.  In the end just trust your ears and don't fall into the hype easily. It's nice that audiphilleo has a 30 days risk free trial.  Just buy it, try it, and return it if you don't like it.


----------



## PhaedrusX

Quote: 





axw said:


> ..."Low jitter -> better sonics" has been confirmed empirically by multiple members of this forum; it is known how exactly jitter affects sound or "what jitter sounds like"...


 
   
  i must still be in the dark regarding all of this.
   
  so what does jitter sound like?
   
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> ...I know someone asked about the effect of the jitter simulator.  I've only had a quick try of it, but couldn't immediately notice any effect.


 

 and therein lies the rub.
   
   
   
  also: collective wisdom is highly overrated. one hard fact, and it all comes tumbling down. just ask Copernicus.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





sk3383 said:


> Exactly. I started out writing something very basic and ended up with a story book. Just a bit disspointed in how the head-fi community gets so easily influenced by false information. I wish I could articulate my words a little bit better but I am terrible at putting my thoughts and knowledge down on paper.


 

 I have more bad days than good when writing. 
   
  Anyhow...yes, there is more than jitter. It was the designer of the diverter that suggested that a device sending out a digital signal could be likened to an analogue amp (output stage) that was trying to send a perfect square wave. Optical output through a scope (can't find the link to the pic presently) looks rather round instead of square, which is far from ideal.  That's not jitter (a timing error), that's just bad output as I understand it. What I don't understand well enough is what happens on the input with such bad waveforms except that with some DACs, using optical, for example, results in a poorer sound in some manner or another.
   
  I'm thinking of getting that scope attachment for the iPad and seeing if I can't test a few things with it.


----------



## axw

Quote: 





sk3383 said:


> Not trying to deconstruct collective wisdoms. I am not sure exactly what I was trying to accomplish with that post, I think I was trying to enlighten members maybe, possibly help them look at things from another perspective ("outside of the box" so to speak)
> 
> Lower jitter -> better sonics = TRUTH. But having the lowest jitter measurements is not the end game.
> 
> Its all in the implementation and design, Device(A) can post the best measured jitter but not sound half as good as Device(B) that has a much worst measured jitter.


 
   
  Reports in this thread are so far only consistent that Audio-GD dacs hugely benefit (from digital transport improvements in general and) specifically from Audiophilleo, but nobody says this must be so for devices from other dac vendors. Especially the ones like Anedio or Antelope with emphasis on de-jittering. But then it does not matter also for Parasound, my old Lavry DA-10 was nearly transport resistant, too.
   
  Nonetheless, this discussion is touching several important points.
   
  1) Should the measurements of digital transports be somehow standardized and should their makers publish selected jitter specs? Because the very good point you are making is that various jitter numbers may indeed be confusing or simply belong to marketing (dis)information. Anedio seems to say exactly this (quoting):_ We have intentionally left our jitter specification blank [..]  to measure it reliably down to the picosecond level remains exceedingly difficult, and even if it could be done, a single number is inadequate. _While I understand that single number is inadequate because there are several jitter types and consequently measurement methods, as an end user I would like to see some objective facts and benchmarks. It's frustrating to choose from dozens of usb->spdif devices that all claim "low jitter". HiFace Evo lists this as the first feature in their product description and what? it does not even come close to Audiophilleo. Knowing some consistently measured numbers would greatly help.
   
  2) What other parameters of the SPDIF signal potentially affect sound and how to measure them. Noise that does not qualify as any of the several jitter types? Perhaps amplitude or electric properties like impedance?


----------



## Currawong

My theory so far, after having gone through a few DACs is: If your DAC seems to sound different depending on which input and/or source you use, then it might benefit from something like the Audiophilleo.  If it seems to sound the same whatever input and/or source is used, then very likely it wont (or the differences are so small you aren't noticing them, so same net result).


----------



## Ultrainferno

I was liking it until I saw the price


----------



## Sid-Fi

I have really happy with my Audiophilleo2 and have been wanting to post a review of my findings here, but haven't found the time yet. For now, I would like to share a quick experience I had when I contacted their support email address. 
   
  While I have been very happy with the AP2, I have been getting a very small quick pop in the sound every 45-60 seconds or so. They were so small and brief that I put off looking into power management settings in my bios as listed on the support page on their website.
   
  Long story short, I finally got around to sending an email at about 10pm describing the issue and asking if they had any recommendations on what settings to look for in my bios. I was surprised to see that Phillip wrote me back personally within a minute or two and was researching my motherboard's manual! About five or six emails later at this late hour, all the small occasional pops are gone.
   
  This is pretty phenomenal to me that the designer of the product is writing back and forth with me and reading up on my motherboard and offering suggestions personally between 10-11pm. Fantastic. 
   
  A quick update on impressions as well...I hadn't been able to shake the feeling of not being able to feel fully immersed in my music from my computer despite having a pretty decent (even if mid-fi) setup with my balanced NFB-10. This was a pretty annoying issue as I have really expanded my high resolution library and felt like I was still missing something and strongly suspected the USB source as the main culprit.
   
  In short, the Audiophilleo2 has solved this problem nicely for me. While I think the stock NFB 10 USB implementation was good enough to sound pretty good and to not hear any obvious jitter at all, it didn't quite sound organic and musical either through my PC and Ultraviolet cable. The Audiophilleo2 has made my music sharper, improved low level detail, and most importantly to me has really given it a nice organic and musical feel. I'm feeling much more immersed in my music now and have been very pleased.


----------



## Currawong

I tried switching back to the Ref 3 instead of the Audiophilleo and it was apparently clear the improvement I've gained, so I'm very pleased with the results. Sid-Fi, I think you nailed the description very well.  I feel it will likely be a good upgrade for the other high-end Audio-gd DACs but with other DACs YMMV.


----------



## Nada

Quote:


sid-fi said:


> Phillip wrote me back personally within a minute or two and was researching my motherboard's manual! About five or six emails later at this late hour, all the small occasional pops are gone.


 

 Please can you share the setting changes you did to clear the clicks? Ive had occassional clicks myself.
   
  The AP@ works really well with the sound signature of the Ref7 too. Its very smooth and coherent.


----------



## pompon

Quote: 





> I tried Anedio with Audiophilleo2 and it's a pretty big upgrade from the internal usb.
> Important ... use USB hub with powersupply with the audiophilleo ... it's a good improvement.
> 
> Originally Posted by *axw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


----------



## pompon

I found AP2 was giving less organic sound than my Xonar Essence ST soundcard. It was more detailled but thin in the bass region and not having the dynamic of the Xonar soundcard.
   
  I put a simple USB hub (with generic alimentation) between computer and AP2 and the dynamic problem and the bass region was filled. This setup (hub + ap2) is a true winner for me.
  I will have to try to feed the hub with a battery or something like that.
   
  If you have opportunity to try that ... try ... it's not expansive at all.
   
  My final setup is 30 foot usb from computer to hub. Hub to AP2 direct connexion (adapter) and AP2 to DAC direct connexion and it's sound wonderful.
  I am using the specific driver with AP2


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I found AP2 was giving less organic sound than my Xonar Essence ST soundcard. It was more detailled but thin in the bass region and not having the dynamic of the Xonar soundcard.
> 
> I put a simple USB hub (with generic alimentation) between computer and AP2 and the dynamic problem and the bass region was filled. This setup (hub + ap2) is a true winner for me.
> I will have to try to feed the hub with a battery or something like that.


 

 The best hub I've seen is the Vaunix Lab Brick. Its pretty expensive, but the USB output should be way cleaner than anything else. You could also power it with something like a Hynes PSU or battery power if you want to pull out all the stops.


----------



## tamahome77

Pompom which usb hub are you using?  Dave, any other comparable alternatives to the Vaunix usb hub?  A bit pricey


----------



## axw

Pompon, many thanks for sharing!
   
  Quite amazing, that despite multiple jitter reduction features in Anedio, Audiophilleo still brings a notable improvement! Did you maybe have a chance to compare with any of AGD NFB sabre dacs? Such comparison would tell a lot. And what other DACs have you tried with Audiophilleo?
   
  As to usb hubs, for best results they'd need to be powered with linear than switching psu-s, I suppose? I am using linear psu from Aqvox with great results..


----------



## tamahome77

Today I went out to my local computer store and picked up the Vantec 3.0 usb hub with it's own wallwart power supply.  After testing a few songs, I'm having some troubles discerning the differences between having the hub present and absent with the ap2.  This was done with my audio gd reference 1 (V2/v3 ?? dsp), c2 amp acss, and HD650 headphones. 
   
  I thought my audio-gd reference 3 (V5) converter faired really well against the ap2 with the ap2 being able to pick up more details and painting a more accurate picture of the my music but at the same time I feel the ap2 is slightly thinner sounding compared to the reference 3.  The improvement is not enormous but noticeable detail wise.  If you own a reference 3 with V5 dsp converter already and have some extra cash lying around to upgrade, you have my recommendation on the ap2.  But I won't lose sleep over not owning the ap2 because the reference 3 v5 is already a very good quality converter that more or less satisfies my audio needs imo.  I'm not going to compare it with the musiland 01usd, teralink or the hiface because I feel they're just a big leap behind the ap2/re3.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Nada,
   
  Sorry for the delayed reply. Here are the settings I changed to get rid of the clicks. It actually took changing these settings and switching to a different usb port as well to permanently get rid of them. For whatever reason, one of the usb ports on my PC tower was more problematic. Also, I have a Intel Core I7 and Asus Sabertooth motherboard, so these may or not apply to you.
   
  Dave
   
  -edit- Just realized the settings did not paste when I posted this, so adding them now.
   
  [size=11.0pt]1.       [/size][size=11.0pt]Disable “c1e support”  under “advanced->cpu configuration”[/size]
  [size=11.0pt]2.       [/size][size=11.0pt]Disable “CPu TM”[/size]
  [size=11.0pt]3.       [/size][size=11.0pt]disable “Intel Speedstep” [/size]
  [size=11.0pt]4.       [/size][size=11.0pt]disable “intel c-state tech”[/size]


----------



## borrego

Nada and axw, would you mind doing the Hex Inverter 74AHC04 / 74VHC04 chip upgrade I mentioned in the Audio-gd DI thread and compare the result to the AP1/2? I am tempted to try the AP2 but it is still $500. I am not sure if it would give an obvious upgrade to the DI with the faster hex inverter chip.
   
  Thanks!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> [size=11.0pt]1.       [/size][size=11.0pt]Disable “c1e support”  under “advanced->cpu configuration”[/size]
> [size=11.0pt]2.       [/size][size=11.0pt]Disable “CPu TM”[/size]
> [size=11.0pt]3.       [/size][size=11.0pt]disable “Intel Speedstep” [/size]
> [size=11.0pt]4.       [/size][size=11.0pt]disable “intel c-state tech”[/size]


 

 This isn't a specific issue to your motherboard. When using any type of USB audio streaming, you do not want the CPU constantly shifting its clock speed and voltage.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Agreed. I just meant the bios settings might not match for someone else, especially if they have an AMD processor or different bios etc.
  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This isn't a specific issue to your motherboard. When using any type of USB audio streaming, you do not want the CPU constantly shifting its clock speed and voltage.


----------



## DigitalDirect

@pompom...
   
  The most generalized and rigorous way  to express phase jitter in *clocks* is in terms of *x ps RMS integrated from m Hz to n Hz*... for example, 15 ps from 10 Hz to 100 kHz. Specifying the bandwidth is critically important to make a valid comparison. These numbers are derived from measurements made in the *frequency domain*, using devices known as phase noise analyzers. The FFT is the key measurement technique. The $40K Symmetricom 5120a is an example; the $90K Agilent E5052. These prices give you a clue as to why not every company has these numbers readily at hand. But, these instruments are commonly available and the best manufacturers use them on a daily basis. Many designers do not understand the importance of phase noise and cannot be expected to bring out state-of-the-art products as a result.
   
  Think of phase noise as the degree to which there are frequencies present at farther and farther offets from the intended frequency. For example, if 1000 kHz away from a 12.2896 MHz carrier there is -50 dB, in one product, but only -130 dB in another product, the second has much lower phase noise and other things being equal, will be a better clock.
   
  Accurate clocks are as we all know critical for optimal A/D and D/A conversion. Furthermore, it is the opinion of some of the leading designers and recording engineers that the very low frequency offsets, meaning 0.1 Hz to, say, 100 Hz, are extremely critical with respect to realism, presence, air, and soundstaging.
   
  My own experience is that with reference-grade gear, this is certainly true. Some DACs allow external word clocks, such as the Grimm CC-1, to be used, and with some, but not all, DACs, the increase in realism is extraordinary. The Grimm has very low phase noise in all parts of the spectrum. To get better phase noise, one has to go to very expensive but capable DACs such as the $20K TAD C-2000, which uses ovenized crystal-controlled oscillators.
   
  Another type of jitter measurement relates to the clock period and is measured in the *time domain*. Think of this as determining when the edge of a clock signal actually takes place, compared to when it should take place. The overall jitter measured has various underlying subtypes (random, deterministic, data driven, etc.) which all, unfortunately, add up in the wrong way. A less measurement expensive device, such as a WaveCrest DTS (various models are available used for $1-2K), can make reasonably repeatable and sensitive measurements. The results are expressed as *x ps RMS period jitter (y ps peak-peak). *Devices under 50 ps RMS jitter should sound very well; the best devices, according to recording engineers and other folk with oversized ears and a lot of experience, are down around 2-3 ps jitter (the MSB DACs, for example).
   
  The time domain jitter specs for S/PDIF are complicated by the fact that this signalling format mixes clock and data in the same serial bit stream. Thus, one must extract the clock, which in turn, requires a very high quality phase-locked-loop or PLL, and then measure the jitter. Building PLLs that are suitable for this is very difficult.
   
  In either the phase noise or the period jitter technique, it's important that the measurements be taken at the S/PDIF output connector, because there's many a slip between the clocks and the outside world. Advertising copy that talks about "theoretical jitter" of such and such, well, draw your own conclusions.

 Take a look at the phase noise plot... The Trimble (green) has integrated phase noise of only 16 *femto*seconds, or 0.016 ps, from 10 Hz to 100 kHz. This clock is a special-purpose, single-frequency device that is designed for GPS applications, so, sorry, you can't put one in your DAC. The Grimm CC-1 is the blue trace, and it shows 260 femtoseconds over the same range; the Audiophilleo has 610 femtoseconds.
   
  So, sure, one can measure jitter down to handsful of femtoseconds. What James was referring to in his excellent survey of jitter measurements on the Anedio Web site was more along the lines of eyeballing FFT spectra, measuring the jitter spurs, and then doing a simple calculation to get an idea about the jitter. The noise floor of the D/A process pretty much limits this approach to 1 ps; grosser values in practice. Some audio analyzers can do jitter measurements, but if you read the fine print, their accuracy is typically 1-2 nanoseconds (1000-2000 picoseconds).
   
  And that, boys and girls, is that.


----------



## Currawong

That's quite interesting.  Can't complain if the AP1 is better than advertised in this case.  It would be interesting to see a comparison of all the high-end clocks in this way.
   
  Since I haven't (at least initially) noticed any difference using the jitter simulator in the AP1, I can only conclude that the result of the improvements it makes with my DAC have to do with some other aspect of the digital signal. Maybe it's simply that the output circuit is superior in some way.


----------



## DigitalDirect

We'll be getting in several additional clocks this week and next. The products range from the $500 Black Lion Audio Micro Clock Mk 2 to high-end products such as those from Antelope and Esoteric.
   
  The output stage of the Audiophilleo1 and 2 doesn't have any transformer; it drives the S/PDIF connector directly with ECL circuitry, which contributes to the fast rise times, and helps to keep jitter low.

 With the JitterSim feature on, the phase noise is radically higher; you should notice a considerable degradation in sound quality. With this feature turned on, the jitter is something like 13 nanoseconds RMS integrated between 1 Hz and 100 kHz. These levels are possibly high enough to serve as rodent repellants. I just ran over to my reference system, and using the Bel Cantoo DAC 1.5, with Audiophilleo1 on its S/PDIF 1 input, turning the JitterSim on resulted in instant head pressure. There is a lot of vague distortion across the entire audio spectrum. Turning JitterSim off, instant improvement and relaxation. The extent to which your DAC can suppress jitter will determine how badly the sound is degraded, so that's a variable. In systems with limited resolving power, possibly the effects are not as noticeable.
   
  The blue trace is the phase noise of the Audiophilleo1/2 using the 2.8 MHz clock; the magenta trace is the same clock but with lots of added jitter. In this case, higher dB is worse, meaning the phase noise is way higher. My limit to listening to it was about 15 seconds.


----------



## Nada

and what happens when that superb SPDIF from the Audiophilleo gets turned into I2S by the SPDIF receiver in the DAC?
   
  The best SPDIF receivers claim 50PS jitter dont they?
   
  Let me know if Ive got the logic wrong here but it seems to me that its kind of absurd trying to get SPDIF great cause its bound to get all messed up again isnt it?
   
  You can see Im technically incompetent in this but Im more interested in how it sounds. I think the Audiophilleo sounds great but I havent heard direct I2S devices as a valid comparison.


----------



## DigitalDirect

To the extent that the conversion clock is extracted from the incoming S/PDIF (which it is in all but the most expensive $20K up DACs) the low phase noise is very helpful. Everybody else follows along from the extracted clock regardless of the internal pathways for the data.


----------



## Nada

that response is like a politicians avoidance of a tough question to me
  so if its OK i will ask the question again
  why bother spending so much effort and money to get spdif really good when its going to be messed up with >50ps jitter on entering the dac?
  SURELY ITS BETTER TO GET A DIRECT I2S DEVICE?
  Personally I dont know the answer to that but I want to find out without wasting time and money


----------



## tamahome77

Just paired the audiphilleo 2 with my assemblage 3.0 dac & audio-gd c-2 amp and I'm really impressed with the improvements so far.  Really brought out the potential of the assemblage.


----------



## shamu144

Thank you for your most educative post even though I feel this is really getting too technical for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But at least it is nice to see my ears agree with your results, with noticeable improvements brought in my system by the AP2. 
   
  I agree It would definitely be nice to see standardize jitter measurements among manufacturers.
   
  May I ask you why do you use the range 10Hz to 100kHz for those frequency domain jitter measurements... Wouldn't be the 20Hz to 20kHz be more representative for the human audibel range... Is that related ? I though the SPDIF signal travelled at much higher frequencies (in the range of Mhz). Sorry for my dumb questions, just trying to make sense of what I read 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> Take a look at the phase noise plot... The Trimble (green) has integrated phase noise of only 16 *femto*seconds, or 0.016 ps, from 10 Hz to 100 kHz. This clock is a special-purpose, single-frequency device that is designed for GPS applications, so, sorry, you can't put one in your DAC. The Grimm CC-1 is the blue trace, and it shows 260 femtoseconds over the same range; the Audiophilleo has 610 femtoseconds.


----------



## Currawong

tamahome77 said:


> Just paired the audiphilleo 2 with my assemblage 3.0 dac & audio-gd c-2 amp and I'm really impressed with the improvements so far.  Really brought out the potential of the assemblage.




Good to hear. You might consider OPAMP-rolling that DAC too. It's possible you could still get a bit more with some of the newer OPAMPs available.


----------



## Currawong

I finally found the page about digital transports I was looking for and what I'd forgotten -- the shape of the S/PDIF square wave and its possible relationship to the differences we hear between transports.


Edit: I also had another go with the jitter simulation built in. I felt with the jitter simulator engaged that instruments lost a tiny bit of detail and were a bit smoother when they are more "sharp" and clear with it off. However, the difference wasn't enough that I'd call myself a reliable enough judge to be sure of what I was hearing.


----------



## drez

Hi Currawong
  Interested in the Audiophilleo transports, do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on the difference between running from USB power, running via a USB power adapter, how much power this unit takes from USB, what the rated DC input is etc.  Have reached a few dead ends after doing some legwork through this thread as well as audiophilleo site.
  Thanks


----------



## pigmode

What wire/connector is recommended for using the Audiophilleo 2, spdif or BNC?


----------



## Currawong

S/PDIF is a connection specification. I gather you meant "RCA".  
   
  75 Ohm BNC is recommended, using the female-to-female adaptor included directly to the DAC.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote:


currawong said:


> I think I'll have to stop by my local electronics store this weekend and get some parts.  I'm going to try the power supply for the Digital Interface and battery power. All my audio gear is still in boxes unfortunately.


 

 The Audiophileo should function best from battery power, as oscillators are very sensitive.  You could get comparable results from a really good power supply, but it would likely cost you more than it would to make a battery supply.


----------



## Nada

ipodpj said:


> The Audiophileo should function best from battery power, as oscillators are very sensitive.


 

 Ive heard the AP2 sound better running on batteries compared to USB power. It was an affordable mod using 4xAA Ni MH spliced into a USB cable power feed. It was  definite though minor improvement which made it great value considering the cost of the AP2.


----------



## Currawong

I found an Eneloop thing with USB power output that uses a couple of AA batteries, so I might give it a go. I do have a jerry-rigged USB cable with the power split already.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





currawong said:


> S/PDIF is a connection specification. I gather you meant "RCA".
> 
> 75 Ohm BNC is recommended, using the female-to-female adaptor included directly to the DAC.


 


   
  Thanks. If Anedio doesn't come out with their USB/SPDIF device soon, I may give this a try.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Thanks. If Anedio doesn't come out with their USB/SPDIF device soon, I may give this a try.


 
  You may also want to consider John Kenny's latest Hiface based converter. It barely resembles the M2Tech device now, and already has a complete battery and recharging system built in, no need to hack any USB cables and roll your own battery supply.


----------



## Currawong

What I've ended up doing is getting the USB Isolator and using the Digital Interface PSU to power it. With the Stax SR-009s, which have quite a lot of treble, I was feeling fatigued listening with prior. Nothing I could pinpoint, but the aggressive detail the AP 1 bought I feel has now turned into something less aggressive, but still very detailed and open using the DI PSU to power it.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





currawong said:


> S/PDIF is a connection specification. I gather you meant "RCA".
> 
> 75 Ohm BNC is recommended, using the female-to-female adaptor included directly to the DAC.


 

 75 ohm impedance is really not the norm, even though most people think they are using a direct 75 ohm connection between the cable and connectors.  There are usually so many areas of impedance mismatching between the connectors, cable, and PCB that I've found a 50 ohm coaxial cable to often work best.


----------



## Currawong

Posted in another thread, I found this: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews/item/289-audiophilleo1-2-usb-spdif-convertor


----------



## axw

Thanks!  I was always wondering how good Squeezebox Touch is compared to those top USB transports and this provides an answer. I won't be getting one..


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





currawong said:


>


 


   
  Apparently there's an upgrade going on in Japan....


----------



## lostinla

My AP2 arrived a couple of days ago and I'm enjoying the clarity and detail. So, how do I do the battery power? I'm currently using a Cardas clear usb cable - not about to cut into that, but I do have a Belkin gold USB cable I'm prepared to have a dabble with. I did a brief search on you-tube .... not found anything worth while yet. Any suggestions?


----------



## bobeau

Thinking about the AQVOX unit... has anyone compared this against battery power?
   
  It also needs to be said that Philip at Audiophilleo is coming out with a battery pack upgrade for the unit.  It will require sending the AP in for a new casing and the normal USB driven PS will be disabled.  
   
  That said, I'm not so sure I'm up on using a battery if the improvement is subtle relative to a good linear PS.  One less thing to worry about.


----------



## hawkhead

Have you got a link for that ?
   
  TIA
  
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> What I've ended up doing is getting the USB Isolator


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Thinking about the AQVOX unit... has anyone compared this against battery power?


 

 Just want to say received the AQVOX unit a couple days ago.  In my setup (a Win7 workstation) the improvement is pretty obvious to my ears.   There's a bit of a hotness in the upper mids, a bit of bloominess in the bass, that seems to vanish with a newfound clarity.  Well worth the cost.  Of course YMMV.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





hawkhead said:


> Have you got a link for that ?
> 
> TIA
> 
> ...


 

 http://www.olimex.com/dev/usb-iso.html
   
  It doesn't use a PSU,  so you'll need your own battery power or PSU to go with it.


----------



## Audioexcels

So I'm a little confused here and have derived these conclusions thus far:
   
  1) Battery option seems to do best with this device...but that means more money so why not buy the Jkeny MKIII?
   
  2) Reading about the PC sound card having better sound than this device w/exception of a "hub" system setup for it was not exactly what I had expected to hear especially when sound cards are generally given the nod when it comes to them vs. anything like this device.
   
  3) Then there's the review that says it is cleaner/clearer and not as smooth than the Jkeny MKIII.  Whenever I hear the words clean/clear vs. smooth, I automatically think smooth=veiled, clean/clear=more transparent.
   
  4) If one has an already excellent dac, there is no need for this type of device or any other nice clocking type device.  What was mentioned is when you cannot hear much of a difference between one transport and another, you don't need to have a device like this.  Then what do you need, a cheap sound card or cheap USB converter, etc.?  From other places I have read, the same aforementioned dacs that have been said to hear no difference between transports have been found in reviews where one transport was superior to another.  Seems like an unclear answer here.
   
   
  In sum, all of this and many other reviews suddenly become more prone to big question marks?????  What exactly is considered a truly good transport, especially when sound cards have been tossed into this thread, some consider a transport to have no sound difference when used with X dac, etc. etc.
   
   
  I have heard some solid differences between different transports, but at the same time, I don't know that I can say with 100% certainty what exactly I am hearing that is different between them.  Maybe a little different soundstage, maybe a little different tonality, maybe, maybe....So confusing since I have been seeking a SOLID set and let be transport for a long long time now and cannot help but be interested in all these newest/latest gadgets that come around, get their wonderful reviews, but not without some confusion or inconsistency involved IMHO.
   
   
  Anyone want to shed light on this or at least let me know I have any sanity left?))


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Anyone want to shed light on this or at least let me know I have any sanity left?))


 

 It's a confusing subject, no question. There is a theory that says that a high quality DAC will be able to equal out even the worst $50 Walmart DVD player with a $60K Burmester transport. I do not agree with that assertion because I haven't experienced it to be true. The transport still matters, otherwise there would be no reason for these converters to exist. Why spend hundreds of dollars on a USB to S/Pdif converter when optical digital straight from the motherboard will do the job? Further, why would there be any difference between optical and coaxial? Even if we accept that optical would produce higher incoming jitter, if the DAC is supposed to be able to eliminate that, then the medium shouldn't matter. There'd be no need for glass fiber cables either, what's a little more jitter from an acrylic cable?
   
  I can't answer the question of whether the Jkenny Hiface or the Audiophilleo with battery is better, I haven't heard either. The only way to answer that is to try them both. I can say however that using a motherboard USB port is far from ideal. Whether you want to use the AQVOX supply, or the SoTM card, or just a powered USB hub, it seems that anything is better than USB straight off the motherboard. I won't even get in to USB cables.
   
  I do think that a computer can be a truly high-end transport, but it has to be done right. If you just want to buy something ready to go there are models like the Sonore servers, or you can DIY.


----------



## Currawong

Audioexcels: You are not crazy. There aren't clear answers to any of this, at least not generally. There are only different answers for different DACs.


----------



## leo1311

Does anybody compare Audiophilleo vs Wavelink HS?
   
  Thank you,
   
  Leonardo.


----------



## Audioexcels

Thanks all.  It's a tough subject and I think as is with most any case, it's simply best to go with what you know, and when you do not know, simply trial/error as much as you can to hear what exactly people are hearing.  I LOVE that the Audiphilleo has the 30 day trial and if I am not mistaken, shipping back to them would be cheap if they are in the US.  Problem with the Jkeny MKIII is the false advertising about a free trial.  I have spoken with John and he seems like a person I would very well get along with by how he seems...in other words, I do have respect for what he has achieved, but I have more respect for the type of person he seems to be.  Anyhow, it's something like 20EUR for shipping the MKIII.  Then you have to pay $30 USD to get the unit back.  That's basically $60 to trial/error, not free.
   
  I think I will rely on that one reviewer's review that included the MKIII and said both were on equal playing fields with the MKIII sounding "smoother" and Audiphilleo sounding more live/clear/lively with better bass.  I have a Touch and a plain ole Hiface, along with a cheap but very good dvd transport to play around with.  I figure if the reviewer's ears are at least partly accurate and the Audiophilleo is indeed even "almost" as good as the MKIII (though he did say it is equal to it), and I don't hear whatever he was hearing or do not feel any sense of clarity/transparency/etc. gain in my system, then I can pretty much stick with the most convenient for me, device that there is and with hope, the cheapest as well)
   
  Do not mean to be off-topic in any way as I will put in an order for the Audiophilleo so long as I only have to pay like $10 to ship it back if it doesn't provide a sound from a transport that is remarkably more transparent or makes me say, "wow"...What????  This thing, whatever it is doing, is doing something good!  Maybe time to build a hub system!!!!)

 Cheers all!


----------



## tim3320070

I thought I'd put my 2 cents into this discussion. I had the Audio-gd DI with PSU for a while now but wanted to try the Audiophilleo based on Currawong's remarks as we have a similar setup. I did my best to A/B them, using a well recorded song that had nice detail. I would focus on the bass and vocal clarity each time at a certain point in the song. What I noticed is that the 2 are very close. The main difference to my ears is that the Audiophilleo has better defined bass, not dramatic but noticeable. Also,vocals (female in particular) are "cleaner", less grain maybe. All this is subtle but noticeable on my speakers and my D7000. Overall, I'm a bit disappointed for the money spent (I wish it were about $350) but I am keeping the Audiophilleo. I think anyone would be more than satisfied with the DI on a mid-tier setup (or even higher end) but the Audiophilleo provides that last few percentage improvement that most of us crave.
  I really wish there was a BNC adapter that was male-male at a 90 degree. I searched a lot and found nothing. I ended up buying a BlueJeans 18" coax as the unit sticks out too much with the direct connection.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> I thought I'd put my 2 cents into this discussion. I had the Audio-gd DI with PSU for a while now but wanted to try the Audiophilleo based on Currawong's remarks as we have a similar setup. I did my best to A/B them, using a well recorded song that had nice detail. I would focus on the bass and vocal clarity each time at a certain point in the song. What I noticed is that the 2 are very close. The main difference to my ears is that the Audiophilleo has better defined bass, not dramatic but noticeable. Also,vocals (female in particular) are "cleaner", less grain maybe. All this is subtle but noticeable on my speakers and my D7000. Overall, I'm a bit disappointed for the money spent (I wish it were about $350) but I am keeping the Audiophilleo. I think anyone would be more than satisfied with the DI on a mid-tier setup (or even higher end) but the Audiophilleo provides that last few percentage improvement that most of us crave.
> I really wish there was a BNC adapter that was male-male at a 90 degree. I searched a lot and found nothing. I ended up buying a BlueJeans 18" coax as the unit sticks out too much with the direct connection.


 

 Are you using a USB port straight from the motherboard? The Audiophilleo is bus powered, so that matters more than it does for some other devices. You probably don't wish to spend a few hundred more on something like the AQVOX or the SoTM card, but if you're comfortable with a bit of DIY it's not that hard to rig up an external power supply in place of the USB power.


----------



## tim3320070

Maybe someday, I am pretty spent at the moment (monetarily and mentally). I just want to enjoy the music now.


----------



## Currawong

tim: Thanks for the feedback. I think it made far more difference on my Reference 1 than the Reference 7.1 or NFB-10SE, as since I got the Ref 1, Kingwa has made considerable progress with the quality of the digital input in his designs. The result is, of course, that devices such as the Audiophilleo aren't as worth it.  I did find that the DI was very pleasant-sounding, if not quite as refined as the AP, much as you've described. If you have the PSU, I'd be interested to know what you think using it to power the Olimex USB Isolator as I do.


----------



## tim3320070

I actually already sold the DI to help recoup the money spent.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> Maybe someday, I am pretty spent at the moment (monetarily and mentally). I just want to enjoy the music now.


 

 I felt the same way as you going from a very old Theta TLC w/ linear PS ($120 total used) to the AP2, pretty subtle.  Adding the AQVOX to the AP2 made a more significant impact.  Clean power seems to be important for a DI to do its thing.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> I felt the same way as you going from a very old Theta TLC w/ linear PS ($120 total used) to the AP2, pretty subtle.  Adding the AQVOX to the AP2 made a more significant impact.  Clean power seems to be important for a DI to do its thing.


 

 Indeed. John Kenny's original Hiface mod wasn't the radical change to the product that the MK3 version is. Basically he just cut the USB power to the most sensitive components and replaced it with batteries. I don't believe that the USB spec was designed to power sensitive components, it was made for things like thumb drives.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Indeed. John Kenny's original Hiface mod wasn't the radical change to the product that the MK3 version is. Basically he just cut the USB power to the most sensitive components and replaced it with batteries. I don't believe that the USB spec was designed to power sensitive components, it was made for things like thumb drives.


 


  True, but why would a reviewer state the Audiophilleo is as good, even saying better in certain areas taste dependent, than the MKIII?  Likewise, people here have used battery supplies and reading elsewhere, have too.  Consensus with the unit battery driven has been an improvement, but one that is not so easily defined, meaning, sure it's better, but how/why/how much so/etc. etc.  
   
  When I read some words by someone like Tim, for example, it makes me feel that yes, there are some differences, but it's not such a clear difference that we cannot go to Tim's place, swap in the GD before Tim gets back to listening, and have Tim wondering what happened to the sound of the system.
   
  In the meantime, people in the Jkeny modded thread have literally said how much of a night/day difference the MKIII is, one person going so far as to say it's like changing headphones...LOL!!!  If this is so, they would say the same about the Audiphilleo especially if what the one reviewer stated about the MKIII vs. Audiophellio is really true.  
   
  The one thing that has been about the most interesting thing so far is what Pompon (sp) said about his hub system made for the Audiophilleo.  It would be interesting to hear if he tried a battery based supply, battery+hub system, etc. etc.  I have to go back and read that post again because many others were impressed, though no one else has talked about the hub system and using it with their Audiophilleo or Jkenny, etc. USB based devices with excellent clock systems and implementations, but perhaps, not quite whatever Pompon was onto with his hub system development.
   
  It is still difficult to say where we are at with these products because with what Tim stated, if he is only getting some tiny improvements, so tiny that it doesn't sound like he can truly/clearly define them, or if he does, it is only things like better female vocal sound and better defined bass.  I would put money down that if we put in some mega buck device for computer transmission of the digital signal as transparent as possible (I don't know all the best gadgets out right now cost-no-option), and we put it into Tim's system, we would have similar results of noticeable improvements, but that's about it.


----------



## Currawong

The Computer Audiophile computer system, which costs about $1500 (including a $300 isolated USB card) might do the trick.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The Computer Audiophile computer system, which costs about $1500 (including a $300 isolated USB card) might do the trick.


 

 It can actually be done for much less than that. Chris spends a ton of money on the case, purely for aesthetic reasons. I'm building my own dedicated PC for music to experiment with JPlay's "hibernation mode" using a traditional $100 Lian Li mini-tower rather than an expensive home theater style case. The other big expense is the SSD. With JPlay that's completely unnecessary, as the files are first moved to RAM before playback. Standard hard drives cost _much _less for the amount of storage needed, and using an internal drive eliminates the need for expensive silent NAS enclosures. Basic Seagate or WD external drives make a racket and are completely unsuitable for audiophile use with open headphones. I have a very quiet Samsung drive that will be placed inside the Smart Drive Neo internal enclosure (quietest commercial enclosure I've seen) and since the drive should be completely idle during playback, it should be inaudible.
   
  Where I think Chris makes a mistake with the CA system is his choice of power supply. He said he decided against a linear supply for cost, size and "scarcity" (whatever that means) reasons, but I can almost guarantee that the switching supply has buckets of DC ripple and terrible voltage regulation which are sent straight into the motherboard, as usually with these the 12V is sent direct from the switching supply. You could spend several hundred on a Hynes or B-P-T custom 12V linear supply, but I think a basic fanless computer PSU like the Kingwin Stryker makes a lot more sense. $150, and the DC output is near flawless.
   
  Switching power brick 12V DC ripple:
   

   
  Kingwin Sryker 12V DC ripple:
   

   
  My build is going to come in way under $1000, including the $300 SoTM USB card.


----------



## Elysian

Mind posting your build once you're satisfied with it, Dave?  I might be building a music server for someone who isn't computer literate and have been considering building a cheaper variant of Computer Audiophile's pocket server.  Due to too many years building gaming PCs, I'm having to repeatedly remind myself that I don't need to shove in a pair of GeForce cards in SLI to play flacs through Foobar.
   
  Any thoughts on the Auraliti PK90, btw?  I figure the MSRP ($749) is at least twice the BOM, but I read a few favorable comments so I'm curious, if only on an academic level.
   
  Chances are I'll spend a few nights on silent PC review and hash something out under $800.  I'm kind of annoyed that Win7 OEM will run $100-130 of the cost, but I'm not going to go the Hackintosh route for this one.  Foobar Media Library is just too good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If only they'd start selling Anedios again...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





elysian said:


> Mind posting your build once you're satisfied with it, Dave?  I might be building a music server for someone who isn't computer literate and have been considering building a cheaper variant of Computer Audiophile's pocket server.  Due to too many years building gaming PCs, I'm having to repeatedly remind myself that I don't need to shove in a pair of GeForce cards in SLI to play flacs through Foobar.
> 
> Any thoughts on the Auraliti PK90, btw?  I figure the MSRP ($749) is at least twice the BOM, but I read a few favorable comments so I'm curious, if only on an academic level.
> 
> ...


 

 Sure, I'd be happy to. Right now it's looking like this:
   
  Case: Lian Li PC-A04 ($100), chosen for decent ventilation that can be dust filtered, and light weight. Thin aluminum is a normally problematic with silent PCs, but since this will be fanless, vibration shouldn't be an issue. The drive cage and all fans will be removed. The Fractal Arc Mini has even better ventilation which is good for passive cooling, but it weighs twice as much.
   
  Motherboard: Asus E35M1-M Pro ($120). This is a passively cooled Micro ATX board running AMD's E-350 processor. The E-350 is a better performer than the Intel Atom. I chose Micro ATX rather than Mini ITX for future proofing reasons. The board has a PCI-e slot and two PCI slots, and you can't get all of those together on a Mini ITX board. It also supports a full 8GB of ram.
   
  Hard drive: 1TB Samsung EcoGreen ($140), which will be inside the Smart Drive Neo enclosure ($75), mounted in one of the CD drive bays.
   
  RAM: 8GB of G.skill DDR3 ($45). Tons of ram is important for large playlists or high-res files in JPlay.
   
  Power supply: For this, I may actually go with the Seasonic X-560 ($120), rather than a completely passive supply. The Seasonic is "semi-passive", and under light load conditions, the fan stays off. The E-350 never draws more than 50W, so the fan should never come on. If things start to get too hot though, the fan is there as a backup, so there's no risk of dangerously high temperatures which is a possibility with no fan at all. The Seasonic's iron grip on voltage and ripple are also a plus. You just don't get results like that with a power brick.
   
  Interface: A wireless mini keyboard/trackpad. JPlay is controlled entirely by the keyboard, so something like this makes a lot of sense as a remote: http://www.amazon.com/CE-Compass-Wireless-Keyboard-Touchpad/dp/B004VPXLDI/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1320391865&sr=8-7
   
  The total cost will be around $600, plus the $300 SoTM card, and a copy of Windows 7 64 and JPlay.
   
  The Auraliti is really not a bad value, but the issue is powering it, and storing your music. A Hynes 12V supply for it and a high quality silent hdd enclosure like the HFX box would run you over a thousand dollars, more than the cost of my entire DIY system. You could use the brick supply and a NAS in a different room (assuming you''ve already got ethernet wired for that) but I think my ~10lb. all in one box is more practical.


----------



## K3cT

Do you really need JPlay to offload the music data to RAM? Foobar can do that too as far as I know although the setting is hidden in the Advanced options.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





k3ct said:


> Do you really need JPlay to offload the music data to RAM? Foobar can do that too as far as I know although the setting is hidden in the Advanced options.


 
   
  JRiver also does memory playback. The main reason I want to build this dedicated music player is to try JPlay's hibernation mode, which Foobar and JRiver don't do. It basically shuts down the entire OS other than itself. System disk usage is reduced to zero. You can actually physically disconnect the hard drive, and JPlay will happily keep on playing all the songs that are in memory. JRiver or Foobar might be playing the files from RAM, but Windows could still be doing various hdd reads and writes in the background. With hibernation mode, that doesn't happen. Hence the need for a dedicated music PC - in hibernation mode it can't do anything else.


----------



## FauDrei

k3ct said:


> Do you really need JPlay to offload the music data to RAM? Foobar can do that too as far as I know although the setting is hidden in the Advanced options.


 

  Theoretically you are right K3cT, but my from my experimentations I concluded that jplay's hibernation mode has the highest quality playback on Windows machines with dedicated USB/SPDIF converters. The difference to "fidelized" and "maxxxed" foobar2000 is not night-and-day, but it is audible in my system. Still, because of extremely limited interface and high price (my opinion) I still use foobar2000 on my work laptop.
   
  But there are other alternatives... IMO, everybody who is into HQ music playback from computer source should at least try Openelec's implementation of XBMC server. It is Linux, but it's installation and configuration is quick and elegant, you do not see Linux's command line at all and if you do not want to touch your machine's configuration you can try it from USB stick. It will run fine also on your obsolete XP machine, audiophilleo is natively supported (no drivers required), you can control it over your tablet or mobile phone (with album art display and other candies), and most importantly - it plays music on jplay quality level. It is also free.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





faudrei said:


> But there are other alternatives... IMO, everybody who is into HQ music playback from computer source should at least try Openelec's implementation of XBMC server. It is Linux, but it's installation and configuration is quick and elegant, you do not see Linux's command line at all and if you do not want to touch your machine's configuration you can try it from USB stick. It will run fine also on your obsolete XP machine, audiophilleo is natively supported (no drivers required), you can control it over your tablet or mobile phone (with album art display and other candies), and most importantly - it plays music on jplay quality level. It is also free.


 

 Interesting, I'll have to look into that. It does seem like current 64-bit support is limited to Intel, the generic and Fusion builds appear to be 32-bit only. How does file management work on the actual PC, rather than with a phone? Is it all ID3 tag based?


----------



## FauDrei

Hmmm... did not paid attention to file management part - there are some file/directory related functions and plugins that can fetch artist and album info, lyrics and art, but since I prepare my music library with mp3tag/foobar2000 I have never used those functions on non properly named or tagged files.
   
  As for using phone/tablet as remote - you choose between various XBMC remote applications. ATM I use official XBMC remote which has two music related modes: music mode that allows you browsing albums/artists/genres/compilations/filesystem and now playing mode where you see/alter currently queued/played songs. There is also general "remote control" mode in which you use your phone instead of keyboard/mouse to navigate/control main openelec interface on monitor/TV.
   
  ...and yes, browsing is tag based... but not just ID3 tag since XBMC can read and play _almost any_ media format you throw at it.
   
  Since it really does not take much time - I recommend tryout from bootable stick and pluging external disk with some music to get a look&feel of it all.
   
  Sorry for OT. Just wanted to share my enthusiasm for something I consider very promising.


----------



## Elysian

I really prefer how you can setup a hierarchical directory structure for your music library under Foobar, rather than dealing with the ID3 tag mess.  This is probably more of a concern to folks with large collections, though.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





elysian said:


> I really prefer how you can setup a hierarchical directory structure for your music library under Foobar, rather than dealing with the ID3 tag mess.  This is probably more of a concern to folks with large collections, though.


 

 That's the way I do it, good old Windows folders. I personally can't stand ID3 tags, I always end up with duplicates, unknown artists, upper and lower case showing up as two different genres, etc.


----------



## K3cT

Interesting information guys. Shame about JPlay's user interface though... A customized Foobar is really unparalleled in this regards. 
   
  This is the first I know about this Fidelizer program that FauDrei posted. Is this worth playing with?


----------



## Elysian

You can route JPlay through a front-end/music manager like JRiver and MP3Toys (#8: http://jplay.eu/faq/)
   
  You might be able to do the same with Stealth.
   
  I tried Fidelizer out.  It did something subtle but I didn't really like the change, and setting #2 (Audiophile) on my high-end i7-950 system (12GB DDR3, Win7 64bit Pro OS kept on its own clean partition) really choked overall performance.


----------



## agoston.berko

which other converter do i have to take in account for ~500usd ? (like AP2)


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> which other converter do i have to take in account for ~500usd ? (like AP2)


 

 The Stello U3, SoTM DX-USB, M2Tech EVO and the JK MK3 Hiface mod.


----------



## agoston.berko

which is Nr. 1. ?


----------



## Currawong

Nobody has measured them all, so we don't know. Might have to ask our friend some pages back who measured the AP1 to measure those as well.


----------



## sorue

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The Stello U3, SoTM DX-USB, M2Tech EVO and the JK MK3 Hiface mod.


 

 Great list, don't miss the ART Legato if one only needs 16/44.1


----------



## agoston.berko

I think it will be SoTM because
   
  imho Legato is outdated with 16bit,
  imho M2Tech has too much feature... and I don't want to pay for a layout that I cannot use in the future,
  imho Stello has no PSU only powered by USB,
  imho Styleaudio Carat T2 is maybe a cheap alternative here (in this group) and therefore maybe under my expectation,
  imho JK MK3 Hiface is not sympatic enough because of the batteries
   
  But AP2 looks nice - the only downside here is the crucial BNC-to-COAX (RCA) adapter when I attach it to the DAC - I feel this connection is too fuzy that way. 
   
  So looks like I have narrowed it down to SoTM HD & AP2.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sorue said:


> Great list, don't miss the ART Legato if one only needs 16/44.1


 

 I didn't forget about the Legato, I just don't think it's quite apples to apples with the others because of the resolution limitation. That and I think the excuse for making it 16/44 only is a bit bunk. Everybody else seems to have no problems using two clocks to support up to 24/192 without jitter being an issue. If a single clock made things so much better, than the Legato should be able to outperform everything else, including the Alpha USB, Off-ramp, and Diverter 192, but it does not.
   
  I also didn't include the Halide Bridge because I don't think it's competitive in terms of performance with the others.


----------



## Elysian

agoston: Fwiw, a dealer I spoke with liked the Lynx AES16 more than the SotM DX converter.  I had the same issue you were facing in trying to find a good converter for around $500.  Luckily, I picked up someone's used WaveLink HS and am incredibly happy with it.  I thought the reviews on what a good converter does was audiophile fluff, but it's done incredible things for my Alpha DAC.  I was generally happy with my Alpha DAC but wasn't really hearing the effusive praise people were lavishing on it.  With the WaveLink, I don't think the reviews are exaggerations anymore.  I'm now convinced that certain DACs benefit greatly from a low jitter input.
   
  I had personally narrowed down my decision between the WaveLink and stock Off-Ramp 4, but it wasn't really a sure thing because I couldn't find any Off-Ramp 4 reviews (only 3), and I'm not sure if Steve offers returns.  That said, until the used WaveLink came by, I had also narrowed my decision between the SotM and Audiophilleo 2, as I had trouble rationalizing a converter that was close to $1000.  After experiencing the WaveLink, though, I now feel the converter is incredibly important depending upon your DAC.


----------



## agoston.berko

Off-ramp 5 is coming soon. Maybe it will be the new reference...
   
  Wavelink is sure marvellous but $$$.
  Maybe I should buy also something used.
   
  Only problem with Lynx AES16 that I don't have free PCI-E slot in my computer.


----------



## sorue

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I didn't forget about the Legato, I just don't think it's quite apples to apples with the others because of the resolution limitation. That and I think the excuse for making it 16/44 only is a bit bunk. Everybody else seems to have no problems using two clocks to support up to 24/192 without jitter being an issue. If a single clock made things so much better, than the Legato should be able to outperform everything else, including the Alpha USB, Off-ramp, and Diverter 192, but it does not.
> 
> I also didn't include the Halide Bridge because I don't think it's competitive in terms of performance with the others.


 
  Have you had personal experiences with all the converters you're talking about? Because i haven't come across anyone's review of the legato losing to the other converters you mentioned. There's a legato owner who has just got his hands on the alpha usb so it'll be nice to see his thoughts on the differences between the two.
   
  I had a hiface before. It did 24/192, but it sounded much worse than the legato. Just because a converter does 24/192 doesn't mean it'll sound good. My friend has a wavelink HS. We did lengthy comparisons and honestly, it is splitting hairs to tell the differences


----------



## Elysian

Most people I've spoken to who have tried multiple converters place the Legato and WaveLink at the top of the stack.  Alpha USB comparisons should hopefully be gradually incoming over the next few months, but I doubt I'll be upgrading unless it's one or two standard deviations better than the WaveLink.  Last I heard, the Alpha USB uses Gordon's Wavestream code, though it presumably has a better clock.


----------



## agoston.berko

one or two standard deviations ? that's underdefined
  Legato is so good ? For real ? Now that's interesting.


----------



## Elysian

It better be that good in my book to be that much more expensive for a converter 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Legato is the way to go, from a price-performance standpoint, if you can get by with 16/44.  Otherwise go WaveLink.  Try looking here and here if you'd like to read impressions and reviews.  I'm sure people would be happy to share experiences and comparisons with you if you PM them.  I got lots of feedback when I was converter hunting.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> Off-ramp 5 is coming soon. Maybe it will be the new reference...
> 
> Wavelink is sure marvellous but $$$.
> Maybe I should buy also something used.
> ...


 

 I would expect the Off-Ramp 5 to be king of the hill. Steve said he is making the Hynes USB regulator standard equipment on the 5, which will raise the price to around $1,099, but he said he expects it to outperform everything else on the market. Keep in mind that you can still go up much further from there. Add an additional $700 for the dual turbo clock, and $250 for an additional Hynes regulator on either the S/Pdif output, or the HDMI based I2S output. On top of that, you can add either $500 for a Hynes linear 12V supply or B-P-T battery supply to replace the AC adapter, or another thousand for the Empirical Monolith battery supply. That puts its price _way _above the rest including the Alpha USB. Only the Sonicweld Diverter 192 has a similar price tag, and while it may be very good, I doubt it can compete with a fully tricked out OR5.
   
  The only thing there is though, unless you already have a DAC like the EMM, MBL, or Theta Gen VIII S2 that you want to add USB capability to, if you're looking at $2500 - 3000 for a USB converter, you might as well just get the Overdrive instead, which has an Off-Ramp built in.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Nobody has measured them all, so we don't know. Might have to ask our friend some pages back who measured the AP1 to measure those as well.


 

 Exactly, the measurements on the Audiophilleo site are from a lot of different sources and taken with a variety of methods and equipment, so imo need to be taken with a grain of salt.
   
  That is not to say that the AP1/2 are not incredibly good transports which I would like to own one day, just the measurements are a bit sus.


----------



## agoston.berko

thanks for the recommendation. i think i will get a future proof wavelink.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





elysian said:


> It better be that good in my book to be that much more expensive for a converter
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I'm not so sure that's true. Have people compared the Legato to the AP2 or the JK MKIII at 16/44? Does it beat them? From what I've heard, the Legato and Wavelink may be very good, but the AP2 and JK MKIII may be better still, for considerably less money than the Wavelink.


----------



## Elysian

Not a lot of feedback on the MKIII, much less from detailed ones from people with a review history.  I'd be interested in reading more but purely from a design perspective, the cost seems a bit high given what's posted as upgrades off the stock hiFace.  I've actually been trying to find EVO reviews lately.
   
  I spoke with a few people who had technical issues with the AP2 in their system and, after trying vs. next tier up, felt it the AP2 was audibly inferior to the next tier up of converters (Diverter 2, Legato, WaveLink).  I can't speak of my own experience since I haven't used an AP1 or AP2 yet, but I generally trust those folks since their impressions have lined up with my own.  I'm sure it's a fine converter and do not want to discourage anyone from trying it, especially as Audiophilleo is one of the few sellers out there with a guaranteed trial period.
   
  Not enough reviews of the Off-Ramp, particularly not from Empirical fanboys with almost no posting history.  INT202 is a mixed bag.
   
  Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> thanks for the recommendation. i think i will get a future proof wavelink.


 






 Let us know what you think if you get it.


----------



## sorue

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm not so sure that's true. Have people compared the Legato to the AP2 or the JK MKIII at 16/44? Does it beat them? From what I've heard, the Legato and Wavelink may be very good, but the AP2 and JK MKIII may be better still, for considerably less money than the Wavelink.


 

 I have no axe to grind, but you haven't heard all the converters in question, yet you insinuate that the AP2 and JK MKIII is better than the wavelink.
   
  jkeny's posts in diyhifi.org and diyaudio speaks volumes about his engineering expertise, or lack thereof. There's more if you search for it. Just google "jkeny diyaudio" or "jkeny diyhifi.org". Look at the questions he's asking lol
  http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1943&sid=7024620b62372a32c242a5673fd15ddc
  http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1868


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





elysian said:


> Not a lot of feedback on the MKIII, much less from detailed ones from people with a review history.  I'd be interested in reading more but purely from a design perspective, the cost seems a bit high given what's posted as upgrades off the stock hiFace.  I've actually been trying to find EVO reviews lately.
> 
> I spoke with a few people who had technical issues with the AP2 in their system and, after trying vs. next tier up, felt it the AP2 was audibly inferior to the next tier up of converters (Diverter 2, Legato, WaveLink).  I can't speak of my own experience since I haven't used an AP1 or AP2 yet, but I generally trust those folks since their impressions have lined up with my own.  I'm sure it's a fine converter and do not want to discourage anyone from trying it, especially as Audiophilleo is one of the few sellers out there with a guaranteed trial period.
> 
> Not enough reviews of the Off-Ramp, particularly not from Empirical fanboys with almost no posting history.  INT202 is a mixed bag.


 

 The one detailed impression I've seen of the MKIII is from John Darko, who described it as basically equal with the AP2. Presumably that would mean that a battery powered AP2 would win that fight. I've also seen the Legato and Wavelink described on roughly equal terms with the Lynx card, but I haven't seen those two compared with the AP2 and JK MKIII. I've seen the Off-Ramp 4 described as significantly better than the Lynx and Wavelink, but I'm not sure as to the level of upgrades it had. The Overdrive DAC which uses the same tech connected to a Mach2Music Mac Mini was listed by TAS as one of their best sounds at RMAF, for whatever that's worth.
   
  The INT202 might be interesting at $500. For $1800 though, forget it.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sorue said:


> I have no axe to grind, but you haven't heard all the converters in question, yet you insinuate that the AP2 and JK MKIII is better than the wavelink.
> 
> jkeny's posts in diyhifi.org and diyaudio speaks volumes about his engineering expertise, or lack thereof. There's more if you search for it. Just google "jkeny diyaudio" or "jkeny diyhifi.org". Look at the questions he's asking lol


 

 I can only judge John's products by their sound quality. If the JKDAC can match the Wavelength Proton, that's an impressive feat considering it's basically a guy in his garage vs. Gordon Rankin and Wavelength.


----------



## slim.a

First of all, I would like to thank Currawong for starting this thread about the Audiophilleo. I was about to get the the JK MK3 but Currawong steered my attention to this little unit.
  I am glad I got the AP2 instead of the MK3 because it not only sounds better than I was hoping for but its "driverless" feature allows you to try different things including Linux based OSs as mentioned by Faudrei.
  For those who might be interested, I posted a full length review of the AP2 last week on my blog here.
  
   
   
  Quote: 





faudrei said:


> Theoretically you are right K3cT, but my from my experimentations I concluded that jplay's hibernation mode has the highest quality playback on Windows machines with dedicated USB/SPDIF converters. The difference to "fidelized" and "maxxxed" foobar2000 is not night-and-day, but it is audible in my system. Still, because of extremely limited interface and high price (my opinion) I still use foobar2000 on my work laptop.
> 
> But there are other alternatives... IMO, everybody who is into HQ music playback from computer source should at least try Openelec's implementation of XBMC server. It is Linux, but it's installation and configuration is quick and elegant, you do not see Linux's command line at all and if you do not want to touch your machine's configuration you can try it from USB stick. It will run fine also on your obsolete XP machine, audiophilleo is natively supported (no drivers required), you can control it over your tablet or mobile phone (with album art display and other candies), and most importantly - it plays music on jplay quality level. It is also free.


 

 Second, I also do agree with that the combination of Fidelizer and (Optimized) Foobar is very close to JPlay. The difference in my system was so small that I don't bother using anything else other than Foobar + memory playback + Fidelizer. Other players such XXHighend or Jplay can sound better but are not worth the trouble when using the AP2.
  However, "lesser" converters are usually more sensitive to such changes. Curiously even the asynchronous battery operated UD 384 async DAC that I am currently reviewing seems more sensitive to the source than the AP2.
  I personally believe that too much sensitivity to changes in the PC source are not a sign of transparency but rather a sign of poor jitter handling from the USB converters. But that is just a personal opinion.
   
  Finally, regarding the Open elec implementation of XMBC, I found a little bug in my configuration. 16/44 files play fine, but 24/96 files play at something like half speed (very slow). I tried a Linux Fedora build and it worked fine with the AP2 at all sample rates. So I don't know if it is just my system or some conflict between AP2 and XMBC.


----------



## DigitalDirect

There are a number of interesting observations and questions raised by the recent posts... let me try to help out.
   
  Basically the Audiophilleo has a special feature that  allows one to output the clock through the same connector that goes to the DAC (through which the  Audiophilleo is normally outputting S/PDIF). So, this means you can make very accurate measurements with devices such as the $35K Symmetricom TSC 5120A phase noise analyzer. My measurements of the Audiophilleo1 were made with the TSC 5120A that I had here, and they duplicated the manufacturer's measurements.
   
  In addition, another company provided me with an even more advanced phase noise analyser, and it gave the same results. So we know for sure that the Audiophilleo numbers are correct. And keep in mind that if you think these test devices are expensive, the _really_ high-end phase noise units are $85K and up, so only a handful of firms have the key piece of instrumentation required to evaluate jitter.
   
  Yes, it is difficult to put together a "master comparison chart", because most of the devices only put out S/PDIF, which means you have to use a somewhat indirect measurement strategy. S/PDIF embeds the clock in the bitstream, thus one  has to extract the clock, and this itself can be a source of error, etc. The WaveCrest DTS is widely used for this, also the Miller Research units, but remember, jitter measurement (and which kind of jitter to measure, there are several) is an arcane science.
   
  At least the http://www.audiophilleo.com/comparison.aspx is a starting point, and will give you some rough  idea of relative performance.
   
  The basic idea is that if you have a 3 ps integrated phase noise USB-S/PDIF transport in your system, you're about as close as can be physically realized to  perfect S/PDIF. If you don't like the sonic results, start looking for problems elsewhere in your system. It isn't going to be in the S/PDIF transport layer. Note that few manufacturers actually publish phase noise (or even jitter) numbers, which should be a red flag, meaning their numbers are probably mediocre, or they don't know how to measure phase noise, etc.
   
  Remember, the phase noise has to be specified with a frequency offset range  (x to y Hz). In my experience, the VERY low offset frequencies, from say 1 to 10 Hz, are extremely important for creating "realism" and a relaxed, natural but incredibly detailed sound experience. (Phase noise is measured in dB/Hz at various frequency offsets away from the nominal clock frequency, and integrating across a given offset range gives you the phase noise measurement, usually in picoseconds for high-quality gear).
   
  Measuring phase noise or jitter needs to be done at the output connector, not on some pin on the circuit board, because a lot can happen between that pin and the outside world. The Audiophilleo and some of the other products allow the unit to plug directly into a DAC, without a cable, which in my view is an advantage, in that there won't be any degradation caused by the S/PDIF cable, plus of course one saves some money.
   
  My opinion is that phase noise falls into various ranges in terms of its audibile effects.  The devices which are say 3-10 ps from 1 Hz to 100 kHz will sound the best. Those with say 100-200 ps will pretty sound well, but not great, and over 300 ps, don't sound very well at all. The S/PDIF output of typical computers (MacMini, etc.) can be thousands of ps, and sounds rather poorly on a decent system. Yes, some reviewers foam at at the mouth about how well such mass-market devices perform, but, well, it just isn't true.
   
  Note that the better your system, the easier it will be to hear the differences, but even with mid-range gear, you should be able to do a good-better-best ranking of the products.
   
  One final point... low jitter is important throughout the entire recording and playback chain. Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings is reportedly able to differentiate handfuls of ps of jitter in his A/D and D/A setup. So in evaluating how all the USB transports and DACs sound, my suggestion is to start with really high quality source material, such as Keith's.
   
  Hope this is useful to everybody, and it's the result of a lot of experimentation and education the past couple of years.


----------



## Currawong

Thanks for the interesting post. I've had it in mind to PM you to ask you measure other converters, if you are able.
   
  Despite the benefits of the Audiophilleo, I did find it improved using a separate, high-quality power supply over connecting it directly to my MacBook Pro or a USB hub. It'd be interesting to see if its measurements improved from this too.


----------



## DigitalDirect

The phase noise measurements don't seem to change when using a high-quality linear power supply, or batteries. Obviously if it sounds better, and the measurement doesn't change, we need an additional measurement. 
   
  The improvements brought about by an external supply do seem to be quite real, but it apparently depend upon the particular components in the system. Some computer sources may be more lethal than others with respect to the noise that they spew, and of course the USB cables used may vary with respect to their ability to suppress noise.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> The phase noise measurements don't seem to change when using a high-quality linear power supply, or batteries. Obviously if it sounds better, and the measurement doesn't change, we need an additional measurement.
> 
> The improvements brought about by an external supply do seem to be quite real, but it apparently depend upon the particular components in the system. Some computer sources may be more lethal than others with respect to the noise that they spew, and of course the USB cables used may vary with respect to their ability to suppress noise.


 
   
  I mentioned earlier in this thread that adding an AQVOX linear PS made more of a difference than I expected.  I might not have mentioned that I also added a Wireworld ultraviolet to the mix (not convinced on what better USB cables may add, but in theory it appears to shield the signal/power well so I thought it could help).  These changes appeared to make a more significant improvement than just the AP2 alone vs. what I was using before, which was a Theta TLC + linear PS.  In the case of the theta I was using a glass toslink in - which by its nature is decoupled from the power of what is likely a very dirty computer system   So much so that I was pretty underwhelmed upgrading to the AP2 alone, but my expectations were exceeding by the AQVOX.  I can understand how perhaps using a dedicated music PC and/or a lower resolving convertor it might not be so significant, but in my system I consider one of the highest value tweaks I've made.  There's an edginess to the AP2 using bus power in my setup that just vanishes with the linear PS put inline, the sound just overall becomes more balanced and effortless - to the point where I can listen at a higher volume before fatigue sets in (short listening sessions only, I do want to preserve my hearing).


----------



## agoston.berko

is AP2 galvanic isolated (usb) from computer ?
  or I have to use an extra usb 2.0 port isolator in the chain ?
   
  i mean:
  pc -> usb isolator -> usb cable -> aqvox usb ps -> ap2 -> dac
   
  olimex makes nice usb isolators:
http://www.olimex.com/dev/usb-iso.html


----------



## bobeau

http://www.audiophilleo.com/specifications2.aspx

 SPDIF output: 75 Ohm female BNC, +/- 300 mV amplitude, minimal overshoot, galvanically isolated


----------



## agoston.berko

Audiophilleo 2 looks very well designed, especially with the aqvox power supply.
   
  I'm sooooo curious which solution gives better results:
   
  -Wavelength Wavelink
  or
  -AP2 together with Aqvox PS


----------



## sridhar3

Just to briefly put in my $0.02, I got an Audiophilleo 1 several months back.  The setup is a Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub to Cardas Clear USB cable to the AP1 to a RAL BNC cable to a Cary Xciter DAC.  I haven't heard the edginess or aggressive sound that has been described in the AP2 without the power supply or battery upgrade.  I bought the AP1 with every intention of returning it if it didn't make a difference, but I was somewhat surprised that the improvement in detail resolution was more than subtle.
   
  Thanks to Currawong for steering me in the direction of this product.  I haven't regretted it.


----------



## DigitalDirect

@Bobeau... Edginess is usually what goes away with the Audiophilleo introduced into a system, so it could well be that whatever source you had before was masking it (as a theory...). And that the WireWorld UV cable and external power supply made that much of an improvement is interesting also. The AP generates its own power internally with a regenerative supply, and as others have noted, it definitely is galvanically isolated.
   
  Who knows? Perhaps you have some very noisy ground issues? EMF radiating from a switching supply? These are the curse of audio existence. You also might want to contact the AP designer directly, Philip Gruebele, and I'm sure he'll be quite interested in your experiences.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> @Bobeau... Edginess is usually what goes away with the Audiophilleo introduced into a system, so it could well be that whatever source you had before was masking it (as a theory...). And that the WireWorld UV cable and external power supply made that much of an improvement is interesting also. The AP generates its own power internally with a regenerative supply, and as others have noted, it definitely is galvanically isolated.
> 
> Who knows? Perhaps you have some very noisy ground issues? EMF radiating from a switching supply? These are the curse of audio existence. You also might want to contact the AP designer directly, Philip Gruebele, and I'm sure he'll be quite interested in your experiences.


 
   
  I can imagine my machine is fairly hostile as far as EMF is concerned - I haven't done anything to make matters better.  It's a high end Win7 workstation built for software dev.  It's just more convenient to spend some $200 extra to ensure the AP2 gets a clean signal rather than fuss with it.  It's been at least 200 hours or so since I listened to things without the AQVOX - popping it off sure enough the change is unmistakable to my ears... there's a more strident, gritty thing going on with the sound.  FWIW, I have it hooked up to a Metrum Octave upsampling to 172k w/ Reclock.
   
  And I agree some of the edginess (it's something in the upper mids or treble) could be due to unmasking detail.  But it's certainly attenuated by the linear PS.  
   
  I've talked to Philip about this.  His first response was that the unit needs at least 200 hours to burn-in, which by now it has, probably more in the 300-400 area.  We also talked about a battery driven AP mod that he was preparing to offer but had to shelve for the time being due to issues with a supplier.


----------



## DigitalDirect

A workstation? Uh, oh. One of the usual suspects...
   
  I've got a really tiny, low-noise laptop (a terrific Acer Aspire 1410) that's a great music server, and even so, I always run it off its internal battery when doing serious listening. Could be that the USB power or more likely, the ground, is unusually toxic.  Is there an LCD display nearby as well? That's asking for it. And "stuff" radiates through the air...

 BTW in my experience, the AP1 has made a significant difference in sound quality with DACs from $6000 to $70000 that have FireWire or USB inputs. Absolutely no edginess, in fact, quite the reverse compared to the interfaces supplied with the DACs.  That's why I was questioning the "edginess" deal: on these best (or at least, most expensive ) DACs available, the AP delivers absolutely sweet and natural sound (assuming it's on the recording to be begin with).
   
  The main thing is that with a little experimentation, you ended up with a great result. In my system here, one of the Red Wine Audio supplies powers the Audiophilleo, and it does reduce the noise floor by a tiny amount. My laptop is 15 ft away with a long, generic USB cable running over to the DACs where the AP is connected.
   
  BTW are you plugging the AP directly into your DAC? Your system description suggests that it is, and this is a good idea. One less antenna...


----------



## Currawong

Maybe all the drives and whatnot I have plugged into my MacBook Pro is the cause of it not doing well with the AP1 directly.  I noticed when I powered my Metric Halo ULN-2 using Firewire that its performance measurably dropped and using the external PSU improved things considerably.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> A workstation? Uh, oh. One of the usual suspects...
> 
> Is there an LCD display nearby as well? That's asking for it. And "stuff" radiates through the air...
> 
> BTW are you plugging the AP directly into your DAC? Your system description suggests that it is, and this is a good idea. One less antenna...


 
   
  I have a fair amount of gear at my desk - 3 lcd displays (2 24", 1 19"), various handheld computers, routers, etc.  One of the displays is about 2" from the AP2 as the DAC sits partially under the monitor.  There's also another computer that sits directly next to my main workstation.  My audio gear is all separated out on an Audio-GD power strip that plugs into its own wall outlet and uses pangea and signalcable power cords.  The AP connects directly to the DAC, and the AQVOX connects direction to the AP2 USB in.  
   
  I do have a MBA at home and will probably bring it in to work some day to see how it sounds running strait off battery with and without the AQVOX.
   
  Philip doesn't seem to really take a stance on this, understandably so, but he is coming out with a battery powered mod.  With that the unit will no longer receive power from the USB jack, it have a dc connector on a modified casing.  The cost for the upgrade is targetted for less than $200.


----------



## DigitalDirect

Most likely EMI strikes again, in both cases. Nobody bothered to engineer laptops and workstations for low emission, at least not to levels that would be safe to use with audio gear. They're full of switching power supplies, all kinds of digital hash is going out on the grounds, etc. And all this "stuff" is getting (in my opinion) coupled into the DAC, cables, etc.
   
  Probably going to an external supply is only part of the fix. if you move the computers away from the DAC, perhaps the sound will get even better?


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> Most likely EMI strikes again, in both cases. Nobody bothered to engineer laptops and workstations for low emission, at least not to levels that would be safe to use with audio gear. They're full of switching power supplies, all kinds of digital hash is going out on the grounds, etc. And all this "stuff" is getting (in my opinion) coupled into the DAC, cables, etc.
> 
> Probably going to an external supply is only part of the fix. if you move the computers away from the DAC, perhaps the sound will get even better?


 

 The DAC sits about 16" above the computers on the desk above them.  I can't really move it any further away as the cable is only 3' and routes around, it's almost taut as it is.  I can move the one monitor that's by it away a couple feet - don't really hear a change. 
   
  My main thought is EMI polluting the USB power, absolutely.  But also in its switching nature and the fact the the USB spec has a fair amount of variance in voltage?  I know the unit has a galvanized regenerative PS... but I imagine that the dirtier the power in, the more load on the internal PS, heat, etc, the more this impacts the stability of the clock.


----------



## DigitalDirect

Not sure what your overall system looks like, but I run very long USB cables to the DAC, which is just 3 feet from the amps. The EMI is probably polluting way more than the USB power. How about the DAC, to say nothing of sending all kinds of hash down the line level analogue cables to the amps. Many amps these days go way, way out there in terms of frequency response, which sometimes isn't such a good thing.

 If my memory is correct, one the Spectral preamps will put out an amp at 1 MHz!


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Just to briefly put in my $0.02, I got an Audiophilleo 1 several months back.  The setup is a Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub to Cardas Clear USB cable to the AP1 to a RAL BNC cable to a Cary Xciter DAC.  I haven't heard the edginess or aggressive sound that has been described in the AP2 without the power supply or battery upgrade.  I bought the AP1 with every intention of returning it if it didn't make a difference, but I was somewhat surprised that the improvement in detail resolution was more than subtle.
> 
> Thanks to Currawong for steering me in the direction of this product.  I haven't regretted it.


 
   
  Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> @Bobeau... Edginess is usually what goes away with the Audiophilleo introduced into a system, so it could well be that whatever source you had before was masking it (as a theory...). And that the WireWorld UV cable and external power supply made that much of an improvement is interesting also. The AP generates its own power internally with a regenerative supply, and as others have noted, it definitely is galvanically isolated.
> 
> Who knows? Perhaps you have some very noisy ground issues? EMF radiating from a switching supply? These are the curse of audio existence. You also might want to contact the AP designer directly, Philip Gruebele, and I'm sure he'll be quite interested in your experiences.


 

  
  I can also confirm that I have heard zero edginess with the AP2 in my system (with no external power supply). Though, I should probably note that I am using the AP2 with the Wireworld Ultraviolet USB cable, that the external hard drives are connected through a USB hub (to minimize the overall USB power consumption from the usb ports), and that all the components are plugged into power filters.
   
  I was fearing that the AP2 might end up sounding too "clear" in my system, but it wasn't the case. The AP2 was surprisingly both more detailed and sweeter sounding than all the converters I had tried in my system.
   
  One thing that seems to make a difference in my notebook is disabling the internal screen of the notebook and outputting it to an external 20 inch LCD screen. Although the difference is rather small, it is still bigger than what I get when I compare the notebook running on battery power vs. the notebook running from the AC line.


----------



## agoston.berko

Can anybody make me a hi-res photo about AP2 BNC connector (opposite side of the usb connection) without the adapters attached !?
  Would be very helpful. Thanks
agoston.berko@gmail.com
   
  has anybody his AP2 for sale ?
  (maybe who wants to upgrade to AP1 - please write me pm)


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> Not sure what your overall system looks like, but I run very long USB cables to the DAC, which is just 3 feet from the amps. The EMI is probably polluting way more than the USB power. How about the DAC, to say nothing of sending all kinds of hash down the line level analogue cables to the amps. Many amps these days go way, way out there in terms of frequency response, which sometimes isn't such a good thing.
> 
> If my memory is correct, one the Spectral preamps will put out an amp at 1 MHz!


 

 While this may be true, I am hearing a quite significant difference w/ the AQVOX unit in my system.  The power is dirty, whether it's EMI inside the computer itself polluting, or the USB bus itself is compromised by a myriad of other devices, or just USB itself.  Maybe a simple powered hub would get me most of the way with what I'm seeing with the AQVOX... I know I would still wonder if there wouldn't be a benefit to getting one though   My WA6SE is pretty close to the DAC, but like the screen I initially tried it a couple feet away from the DAC and couldn't detect a difference.  I definitely am not one with golden ears so I can't say conclusively there isn't a difference, just I had trouble determining anything conclusive.  
   
  I guess the end result of all this is for redbook material I felt the change from a 10 year old Theta TLC + ps vs. the stock AP2 was rather subtle... got a little more detailed, a little more clearer, but the extra treble activity pushed things to a what one might say a more sibilant nature.   Adding the power supply was like 'boom! heavens parted..." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I'm exagerrating a bit but you probably get the picture, degree of met expectations and all.  Just one system, just one person's experience, as always YMMV.
   
  That said, since I've shared as much I promise to get around to doing some more experimentation here... (ie. with my MBA, picking up a cheap powered hub, isolate components, etc).  I'll try to get this done by the end of the year and share my experiences in this thread.


----------



## agoston.berko

The only thing that I don't understand is the huge prize-gap between AP1 and AP2.
  If I had money for AP1 maybe I would wait a little more and buy a Berkeley Alpha USB instead.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> The only thing that I don't understand is the huge prize-gap between AP1 and AP2.
> If I had money for AP1 maybe I would wait a little more and buy a Berkeley Alpha USB instead.


 

 The AP1 has some useful extras like volume control, and some useless extras like the "jitter simulator". At $500 I think the AP2 is a good value, at $950 it's less so, because as you've said it starts bumping into products like the Off-Ramp and the Alpha USB.


----------



## agoston.berko

exactly.
  looks like AP2 is a sweet spot among converters today at ~400-700usd price-level.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The AP1 has some useful extras like volume control, and some useless extras like the "jitter simulator". At $500 I think the AP2 is a good value, at $950 it's less so, because as you've said it starts bumping into products like the Off-Ramp and the Alpha USB.


 

 I think the AP1 was really Philip being an engineer and wanting to totally geek out... as an engineer I get it.  It's fun to be able to experiment with simulating jitter, line levels, etc.
   
  Beyond experimentation geekiness, it does have a few things though that should be mentioned
   
  - 12v trigger, to turn on/off other components (depending on your setup, this alone may justify the cost)
  - digital volume control, channel calibration
  - wireworld ultraviolet cable (costs $50)
  - cool case
   
  Also the AP2 it $579, not $500, so it's a $370 diff.  If you plan on getting the cable (like I did) then the differential is $320.


----------



## agoston.berko

for 99% the same SQ I think 320$ is a no-go for me. i just want to listen to music, no experiments required for me


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


bobeau said:


> I think the AP1 was really Philip being an engineer and wanting to totally geek out... as an engineer I get it.  It's fun to be able to experiment with simulating jitter, line levels, etc.
> 
> Beyond experimentation geekiness, it does have a few things though that should be mentioned
> 
> ...


 

 It can also tell you if it's receiving bitperfect input from USB, which the AP2 cannot do.


----------



## Currawong

It also will output square waves at a large variety of frequencies, which allows you to attach various cables and measure the effects on a scope, which I did. Definitely an engineer's or geek's toy.


----------



## agoston.berko

i order an Audiophilleo 2 tomorrow. i hope i made the right choice. wish me luck that the package will arrive in one piece to Hungary from the States.
  as soon as i get it, i will make a burn-in first. after that i will tell you my thoughts about AP2.
  i also ordered an Aqvox USB-PSU to my system - just to be for sure that my power is clean from "electro-dust".


----------



## agoston.berko

which sounds better:
   
*AP2 + Aqvox + Ultraviolet (599$ +150$ + 50$ = 800$)*
  or
*AP1 alone (included Ultraviolet in prize: 949$)*
   
  ???
   
   
that's 150$ difference


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> which sounds better:
> 
> *AP2 + Aqvox + Ultraviolet (599$ +150$ + 50$ = 800$)*
> or
> ...


 

 The AP2 and Aqvox is going to sound better. There's nothing about the AP1 that makes it sound any better than the AP2. It just has the screen, volume control, etc.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> which sounds better:
> 
> *AP2 + Aqvox + Ultraviolet (599$ +150$ + 50$ = 800$)*
> or
> ...


 

 I went path 1.  My thought process was actually this setup vs. the Offramp 4 w/ turboclocks + haynes ($1500).  I didn't go with the latter as I thought the price is just a bit too silly, but it is supposed to be a pretty nice step up from a stock AP2.  I know several people in this thread say that the stock AP2 is perfect and all that jazz... but sometimes unless someone tries something they don't know what they're missing.  Or my USB power really is that dirty, who knows.  And I really wonder how much better that modded up Offramp 4 is vs. the AP2 w/ AQVOX as I haven't seen that comparison before.
   
  The AP1 alone adds utility and features that aid experimentation, but arguably little or none of it improves sound quality.


----------



## DaveBSC

I think the Off-Ramp is likely to retain the lead even with the AQVOX, but not without a significant price premium. The new Off-Ramp 5 now starts at $1099. Add the dual turbo clock and you're looking at $1800.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I think the Off-Ramp is likely to retain the lead even with the AQVOX, but not without a significant price premium. The new Off-Ramp 5 now starts at $1099. Add the dual turbo clock and you're looking at $1800.


 

 No doubt, I'm just wondering how much the gap narrows.  
   
  That said, if I didn't have anything right I might wait for a used Off Ramp 4 to hit the market once the 5 starts making the rounds.  That is probably my biggest issue with such a pricey piece of gear, can't stand buying something one year just to have it be obsolete a year later and its value drop like a rock.  I can stomach $600 turning into $300, but not $1500 into $800.  Oh of course you can hold onto it and enjoy it for years, but the new hotness just begs for an audition...


----------



## agoston.berko

a well burned-in AP2 with a well burned-in Aqvox will do it for me for 2-3 years...
  and after that i will buy Off-ramp 6 used for 800$ (hopefully: 64bit & 384kHz & USB 3.0)    )))
  that's my plan.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> No doubt, I'm just wondering how much the gap narrows.
> 
> That said, if I didn't have anything right I might wait for a used Off Ramp 4 to hit the market once the 5 starts making the rounds.  That is probably my biggest issue with such a pricey piece of gear, can't stand buying something one year just to have it be obsolete a year later and its value drop like a rock.  I can stomach $600 turning into $300, but not $1500 into $800.  Oh of course you can hold onto it and enjoy it for years, but the new hotness just begs for an audition...


 

 For what it's worth, no one should have to sell their OR4 to get the OR5 upgrades. Steve has been really good about making sure his customers can upgrade their older products to the latest and greatest. I'm not sure if that extends to adding the HDMI based I2S output to the OR4, but that only makes a difference if you are using either a PWD, or the W4S DAC2. At the very least, OR4 owners should be able to send their units in for all of the internal upgrades.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> For what it's worth, no one should have to sell their OR4 to get the OR5 upgrades. Steve has been really good about making sure his customers can upgrade their older products to the latest and greatest. I'm not sure if that extends to adding the HDMI based I2S output to the OR4, but that only makes a difference if you are using either a PWD, or the W4S DAC2. At the very least, OR4 owners should be able to send their units in for all of the internal upgrades.


 

 I'm almost afraid to ask - how much does that cost?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but before the latest clocks in the OR4 came out, wasn't the maxxed unit something like $2400, only to come down to somewhere around $1800 once he developed his own, better clocks?  And the cost to upgrade to these newer, cheaper clocks was like $700?  I guess there are several ways to look at that, it's only a 30% upcharge if you're coming from an old unit... but if you take the perspective having just waited, it's closer to doubling the price.  $1800 vs. $3100.  
   
  No offense to Steve, it seems like he puts out a great product and does small volumes of handbuilt stuff, all by himself.  I can respect that.  OTOH, it seems like this is just too much of a nascent field.  I have to wonder how the $500 and under class of today competes against the multi-kilobuck units of a couple years back.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> I'm almost afraid to ask - how much does that cost?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but before the latest clocks in the OR4 came out, wasn't the maxxed unit something like $2400, only to come down to somewhere around $1800 once he developed his own, better clocks?  And the cost to upgrade to these newer, cheaper clocks was like $700?  I guess there are several ways to look at that, it's only a 30% upcharge if you're coming from an old unit... but if you take the perspective having just waited, it's like you almost doubled the price.  $1800 vs. $3300.


 

 You used to be able to order two different upgrades, the super clock or the ultra clock, one for 44.1 multiples, and one for 48. The dual turbo clock was then developed which replaced those, and is more affordable than two ultra clocks used to be. The big hardware difference between OR4 and OR5 is the I2S output, which matters for very very few people. PS has made their I2S spec open, and it would be lovely if everyone decided to adopt it, but I don't see it replacing S/Pdif anytime soon. If you buy the bone stock, $800 OR4 right now, you miss out on the I2S output, and the Hynes USB regulator, which is currently optional on the OR4 and will be standard on the OR5. Aside from that, there is an additional Hynes regulator on the output, which OR5 buyers can choose for the S/Pdif output or I2S output. I'm sure OR4 owners can send their units in to get that additional regulator on the S/Pdif output if they wish.
   
  The maxxed out OR5 is probably going to come in at $2050. $1099 stock + $700 for the dual TC + $250 for the Hynes regulator on the output. That's with the stock AC adapter. You have several choices if you want to upgrade that - a Hynes or BPT 12V linear supply, a BPT battery supply, or the Monolith.


----------



## Sid-Fi

The Aqvox sounds intriguing. Does anyone know of any places in the US that sells it so I don't have to ship from Germany? If not, about how long does it take to receive in the US? Thanks.


----------



## agoston.berko

only that bothers me is the bnc-to-coax adapter that comes within the box.
  does anybody know where to find a high quality adapter ?
   
  maybe this one:
LINK


----------



## tim3320070

What would that do over the included adapter- both are 75 ohm and conduct the signal?


----------



## agoston.berko

there are differences between every adapter too (from 1usd to 150usd).
  that's the same like a cable. it's a material and the signal will pass through it.
  there will be an interaction between adapter and the signal even if it's short.
  if the adapter is not tight enough or not high quality made then it will
  downgrade the overall sq, especially on the coax side, because it's an
  analog signal (not like usb which is 01010101010).
   
  best would be to use no adapter at all but that's not possible with my DAC.
  would be great if audiophilleo would produce different version of AP's
  which use coax or bnc primary from the box and then they would give an
  adapter for the other standard too.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> only that bothers me is the bnc-to-coax adapter that comes within the box.
> does anybody know where to find a high quality adapter ?
> 
> maybe this one:
> LINK


 

 The regular BNC-to-RCA adapters are 50 Ohm. I wonder if a short BNC to RCA cable using the 75 Ohm compatible Eichmann Bullet plugs would do a a better job, but if the DAC I'm using only has RCA digital inputs, I first look at the possibility of changing those.


----------



## agoston.berko

is RCA inferior to BNC ?


----------



## axw

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> is RCA inferior to BNC ?


 
   
  .. why not use head-fi search facility?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/480566/bnc-why-is-it-less-common


----------



## agoston.berko

is it simple to change the RCA output on my DAC ?
  i mean, is it possible to dismount the old RCA connector and just put back in the new BNC connector ?
  where can I buy hi-quality 75 Ohm BNC output connector ?
   
 Thanks Currawong & AXW for the help.
   
   
  and what about this?:
http://www.wbtusa.com/pdf/0210cu.pdf


----------



## Currawong

Depends on the DAC. I have a Parasound where the socket is mounted on the motherboard in an annoying location so I haven't bothered considering changing it.
   
  That WBT RCA socket is the only one I know of that is actually 75 Ohms. Very clever design, but they cost something like $45 each.


----------



## agoston.berko

yes it's 75 Ohm 
  should be great.


----------



## DaveBSC

Why not just use a cable that has BNC on one end, and RCA on the other? Skip the adapter.


----------



## agoston.berko

i want to avoid using cable between audiophilleo 2 and DAC.


----------



## vrln

Someone in this thread (don´t remember who it was anymore, and couldn´t find the quote) mentioned the old audiophile truth about the stock Mac Mini having a jittery output signal via coax. Well, it´s not true anymore.
   
  The new Mac Mini actually measures quite well: http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/internet-audio/373-mac-mini-2011.html


----------



## agoston.berko

please help


----------



## Currawong

Yes, picture two is the other side of picture three. However, that adaptor is for a cable, which has male ends, whereas the AP1 and AP2 have a female socket.


----------



## agoston.berko

hey thanks currawong !
   
  but do you know where to get an adapter between AP2 female socket and coax-dac input ? (so no BNC DAC input)


----------



## Currawong

I'm pretty sure it comes with a set of adapters. I have the AP1 though so I'd check the web site to be sure.  If you search the web for "75 Ohm BNC RCA adapter" you get many hits.


----------



## agoston.berko

Audiophilleo 2 comes also with these compatible adapters, but i'm looking for some BETTER quality than that...
  and only a few has RCA-male in the web-search
   
  so do i have tot search for: BNC male to RCA male ADAPTOR ? right ?


----------



## Currawong

I don't think it's worth searching for. I'd sooner consider installing a BNC socket in your DAC first.


----------



## agoston.berko

you already mentioned that before and thanks for your suggestions but my dac is worth like 3-4 grand or so.
  thats why i dont want to make a diy-project on it.
  i have to mention that it has aes/ebu input too but i think its impossible to use that with the AP.
   
  so i need BNC male to RCA male adapter ? please reply


----------



## FauDrei

See those two included connectors lower left on the picture? Bottom end of both connects to audiophilleo, the other end goes to BNC SPDIF (left connector) or RCA SPDIF (right connector) input of your DAC. Your $3-4 K DAC surely has RCA SPDIF input.
   
  Short signal distance through connectors minimises the connector influence on SPDIF signal. Changing stock connector with OCC/platinum/rhodium/beryllium/kryptonite connector should have mainly mind appeasing effect. Focusing on USB power and/or USB isolation of audiophilleo could give more in return. That is if one is not satisfied with stock audiphilleo performance or just like experimenting. Either way, we are deeply in diminishing returns territory.
   
  All IMO.


----------



## agoston.berko

yea, i know that, but thanks anyway. but searching for the same adapter in 100% copper or 100% silver (or gold) ))


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> yea, i know that, but thanks anyway. but searching for the same adapter in 100% copper or 100% silver (or gold) ))


 

 The plating material is less important than having the correct impedance. Frankly I still think you're better off with a cable. If you use something like a 3" digital coax cable, something just long enough to attach connectors to, its effect ought to be extremely minimal, and you can use an extremely high quality Furutech or Oyaide BNC connector on one end, and a 75 Ohm WBT silver RCA connector on the other.


----------



## agoston.berko

well good idea. which digital coax cable should i get ?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





agoston.berko said:


> well good idea. which digital coax cable should i get ?


 

 Neotech NEVD-2001 is a really nice coax cable that sells for about $20 a foot. You probably cant buy it shorter than that, but you can just cut off the extra length you don't need.


----------



## agoston.berko

the cable has to be 75 ohm for best result ?
  somebody says thats not that important.
  can I use Van Den Hul MC Gold interconnect too ?
http://www.highendcable.co.uk/van_den_hul%20MC%20Gold.htm
   
  i think i will get furutech bnc and wbt cinch


----------



## Currawong

The MC Gold is not a 75 Ohm IC. Any of their coax cables are 75 Ohm, though the RCA plugs are not.


----------



## agoston.berko

maybe its easier to buy something like this:
http://www.trusoundz.com/Leads/TSZ-0011.html
  or this
http://www.highendcable.co.uk/StereoLab%20BLACK%20CAT%20Volace%20123%20Digital.htm
  or even this
http://www.highendcable.co.uk/StereoLab%20XV%20Ultra%20Digital.htm
   
  but i dont know how they compare to:
  furutechBNCPLUG    -    short75ohmCABLE   -   WBT75OhmCINCHPLUG
   
   
  vdh has
http://www.vandenhul.com/p_B22.aspx
  or
http://www.vandenhul.com/p_B57.aspx
  in 75 Ohm category too


----------



## tim3320070

I got my post deleted before.............but whatever- I bought my 75ohm BNC-BNC (they will do BNC-RCA) cable from BlueJeans for next to nothing that will serve your purpose precisely. Spec's are beyond what is needed for this application.


----------



## shamu144

For what it is worth, I have had the exact same experience after adding the Aqvox linear PS to my AP2. It tamed down some edginess (brittle and excesive sparkle, sharp edges) in my system. However, I must admit I was not even aware of it untill I plugged the Aqvox PS.
   
  I have no idea what causes this, but I would think that the AP2 is not _completely_ immune to the polluted power on the USB line though it does a fantastic job already in its stock form. By the way, it is more than one year I have my AP2, so burn-in is probably not the culprit.
   
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> I can imagine my machine is fairly hostile as far as EMF is concerned - I haven't done anything to make matters better.  It's a high end Win7 workstation built for software dev.  It's just more convenient to spend some $200 extra to ensure the AP2 gets a clean signal rather than fuss with it.  It's been at least 200 hours or so since I listened to things without the AQVOX - popping it off sure enough the change is unmistakable to my ears... there's a more strident, gritty thing going on with the sound.  FWIW, I have it hooked up to a Metrum Octave upsampling to 172k w/ Reclock.
> 
> And I agree some of the edginess (it's something in the upper mids or treble) could be due to unmasking detail.  But it's certainly attenuated by the linear PS.
> 
> I've talked to Philip about this.  His first response was that the unit needs at least 200 hours to burn-in, which by now it has, probably more in the 300-400 area.  We also talked about a battery driven AP mod that he was preparing to offer but had to shelve for the time being due to issues with a supplier.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





shamu144 said:


> For what it is worth, I have had the exact same experience after adding the Aqvox linear PS to my AP2. It tamed down some edginess (brittle and excesive sparkle, sharp edges) in my system. However, I must admit I was not even aware of it untill I plugged the Aqvox PS.
> 
> I have no idea what causes this, but I would think that the AP2 is not _completely_ immune to the polluted power on the USB line though it does a fantastic job already in its stock form. By the way, it is more than one year I have my AP2, so burn-in is probably not the culprit.


 

 So the AP2 draws from the USB?  Wouldn't supplying it with a battery pack be the best way to go in order to keep it as far out of the USB line as is possible?


----------



## prinz

Has anyone performed an comparison of Audiophilleo2 and SOTM dx-USB HD?
   
  btw. If any of You would like to say "goodbye" to your audiophilleo - just send me PM


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> So the AP2 draws from the USB?  Wouldn't supplying it with a battery pack be the best way to go in order to keep it as far out of the USB line as is possible?


 

 Batteries are good, highly regulated linear power supplies are also good. USB power - not so good.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> So the AP2 draws from the USB?  Wouldn't supplying it with a battery pack be the best way to go in order to keep it as far out of the USB line as is possible?


 

 Right, and as I mentioned further upstream Philip is actually going to come out with a modification for an external battery pack.  Unfortunately it will not be an easy turn off -> charge, turn on -> power unit (ala jkeny)... the pack will need to be removed and plugged into the charger.
   
  Battery should have an edge... I imagine a good linear PS gets you at least 80-90% there without the hassle of remembering to charge/cycle it.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





shamu144 said:


> For what it is worth, I have had the exact same experience after adding the Aqvox linear PS to my AP2. It tamed down some edginess (brittle and excesive sparkle, sharp edges) in my system. However, I must admit I was not even aware of it untill I plugged the Aqvox PS.
> 
> I have no idea what causes this, but I would think that the AP2 is not _completely_ immune to the polluted power on the USB line though it does a fantastic job already in its stock form. By the way, it is more than one year I have my AP2, so burn-in is probably not the culprit.


 
   
  I think the main issue in my case is I upgraded the DAC at the same time, going from a rolled off Ack! to the well extended Metrum... so it was just a bunch of extra treble info regardless, my ears were overly sensitive and looking for some relief.  Good to hear another's experience on this.


----------



## tim3320070

An interesting observation/ test I performed tonight- I tried my generic Dell sound card optical out to my Ref-8/ Master-5/ D7000 system and compared it to my AP2 source which I have been running for a few months now. Now that may sound silly to many of you but I am a born skeptic and wanted to try it. I used a well recorded, FLAC file of Solas "Girl In The War". The optical version sounded okay but a bit gritty- Niamh's vocals sounded grainy. I redo the connection to the AP2 and everything in clear again- no grain. Like a dirty window has been cleaned. I was truly expecting little difference but the difference was substantial (at this level anyway). More cheers for Audiophilleo. Maybe this is what jitter sounds like?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> Maybe this is what jitter sounds like?


 

 Pretty much. It also gives lie to the myth that a PLL is the great equalizer, the transport doesn't matter because the DAC takes whatever it's given and fixes it. That's hogwash.


----------



## newtophones07

Quote: 





prinz said:


> Has anyone performed an comparison of Audiophilleo2 and SOTM dx-USB HD?
> 
> btw. If any of You would like to say "goodbye" to your audiophilleo - just send me PM


 


  Im interested in this comparison also
   
  Im building a server/main rig  and I wasnt sure if I needed to invest in BOTH the usb card and the spdif adapter
   
  just brainstorming and researching at the moment, so any help would be appreciated


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> The optical version sounded okay but a bit gritty- Niamh's vocals sounded grainy. I redo the connection to the AP2 and everything in clear again- no grain. Like a dirty window has been cleaned. I was truly expecting little difference but the difference was substantial (at this level anyway). More cheers for Audiophilleo. Maybe this is what jitter sounds like?


 

 Grain???  Sounds like using a point and shoot cam at 3200iso vs. a FF DSLR at 100iso)  I've personally never heard grain regardless of the source (though I have never used optical off the motherboard).  What exactly does grain sound like?  Besides the grain, did you hear anything else that was substantially different or was it just the grain?


----------



## tim3320070

I guess I cannot explain it better- grain as in mild distortion or muddled. It's not black and white but it was apparent to me. It was clearly audible on that track which has a female vocal- she sounded a bit harsher via optical. Best I can do. I wasn't really expecting much of a difference to be honest. The rest of the sound was elevated- like going from lower quality gear to higher end, that added clarity you hear.


----------



## SteveM324

I ordered the Audiophilleo 2 and received confirmation that it will arrive just in time for Christmas.  I exchanged e-mails with Phillip and he told me that the battery power supply should go on sale sometime in January but no exact date.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


stevem324 said:


> I ordered the Audiophilleo 2 and received confirmation that it will arrive just in time for Christmas.  I exchanged e-mails with Phillip and he told me that the battery power supply should go on sale sometime in January but no exact date.


 

 Thanks for the update on the battery supply.  Will keep an eye open.


----------



## customNuts

Has anyone actually compared the AQVOX against the OLIMEX with DI psu - using the Audiophileo??
  I'm still unsure of which would be the better setup. 
  I will be using it with Ref 7.1.


----------



## drez

DI PSU into OMILEX - omilex regulates DI's 7V into 5V with crappy switching PSU.  OMILEX is good if you have a noisy USB slot but add's its own jitter to the signal so its adding jitter to remove jitter
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Aqvox is good but a bit of a rip for what you are getting but should provide better power.  No real downside AFAIK except the slight rip-off.


----------



## Audioexcels

I've been listening to the Audiophellio direct into my pre-dac, and using the USB cable (standard setup and no hub setup).  Sound has a lot more "digitization" than what I am used to with other converters.  A bit more of the mids/treble intensity.  Besides this, and it's subtle, the "most noticeable" thing is the lack of any soundstage depth.  I can literally sit next to my speakers and when the Audiophellio is inserted, the soundstage depth is so non-existing vs. my other transports that it literally sounds like there is no soundstage depth.
  
  Has anyone else using this in a solid two channel system heard the same?  I can see people with speakers that don't have much depth to begin with not hear it...people using headphones, especially, would have a hard time hearing it.  But people with excellent soundstage depth, it would be interesting if you are hearing what I am too.

 Thanks!


----------



## drez

IMO to get soundstage out of a computer transport takes a LOT of work - comprehensive hardware/OS optimisations and playback software selection are crucial.
   
  Are your other transports also using computer?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> IMO to get soundstage out of a computer transport takes a LOT of work - comprehensive hardware/OS optimisations and playback software selection are crucial.
> 
> Are your other transports also using computer?


 


  Sadly, one of them is a plain ole stock Hiface believe it or not!  It has no problem soundstage depth vs. Audiophellio.  It is perhaps more veiled/less detailed/etc. digital stuff vs. Audiophellio, but on the soundstage part of things, it has one, Audiophellio no.  I have to get some other transports out tomorrow and see what I hear.
   
  Maybe Drako's review about that "lively/detailed/etc." sound bodes true about the Audiophellio vs. the MKIII that he said was smoother, yet had a dimensional soundstage both front-back-left-right...Maybe Hiface has a way of getting that better soundstage stock and JKenny only helps refine the device further by lowering the jitter.  
   
  Did you find it more difficult with the MKIII in dealing with the soundstage or did it do very well without tweaking much?


----------



## drez

Compared to the AudioGD DI the soundstage was similar size but with better imaging and layering.  I have never compared against a stock hiface.  
   
  Another thing to note is that I do not remember the soundstage being this good when I first received the JK mk3.  Could be the audiophilleo needs burn in.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> Compared to the AudioGD DI the soundstage was similar size but with better imaging and layering.  I have never compared against a stock hiface.
> 
> Another thing to note is that I do not remember the soundstage being this good when I first received the JK mk3.  Could be the audiophilleo needs burn in.


 


  So you felt the MKIII had poorer soundstage/imaging when you first received it, but it opened up more as you played around with it?  I wasn't sure what you meant about the AudioGD DI comparison====did you mean that the AudioGD DI had a poor soundstage but after a while it opened up and/or that it bested the MKIII's soundstage?
   
  Thanks Drez!


----------



## customNuts

Thanks Drez, the AQVOX psu seems more and more like the go. 
  Has anyone tried the AQVOX usb cable with this setup? Or any other usb cables that have worked well with the AQVOX & audiophilleo?
  Audioquest?
  Locus Designs?
  Synergistic Research?


----------



## pompon

Quote: 





> I have a solid 3D soundstage with Audiophilleo 2 on my setup. It's the best transport I have heard, better to Xonar ST or Xonar STX with clock upgrade. I am not using headphone, I am using speakers. My AP2 is connected to my DAC with the adaptor BNC 2 BNC. I am not using any coax cable. I am using 15 foots active usb cable extension from my NetBook to my audiophilleo. Using USB hub active on dedicated power line it's a step up in quality on my setup.
> 
> You can have excellent soundstage if you have SPACE behing your speakers. I have over 5 foots behind my speakers and the wall.
> 
> ...


----------



## drez

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> So you felt the MKIII had poorer soundstage/imaging when you first received it, but it opened up more as you played around with it?  I wasn't sure what you meant about the AudioGD DI comparison====did you mean that the AudioGD DI had a poor soundstage but after a while it opened up and/or that it bested the MKIII's soundstage?
> 
> Thanks Drez!


 


  IMO mk3 took a while to burn in - at first the sound was a little forward whereas the burned in DI was more laid back.  Later on the mk3 overtook the DI and can now throw images much further - sorry I'm not sure how to express this more clearly brain not working today
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  IMO keep the audiophilleo burning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Audioexcels

So I had a lovely visit with Steve Nugent from Empirical and we did put the Audiophellio into the setup.  It actually did very well, but was quite a massive step down to the Off Ramp 5, however subtle one may or may not think of it as being.  I will probably do a little review on the site though it will not have much to say other than the performance gain from the OR5 over a tweaked OR4 along with the excellent sound of his DAC.  I wish I had a setup similar to Pompon (have spoken with this fine gentleman in the past), but in the least, I will try some of the drivers mentioned.  When I had mine inserted into the system the drivers just picked up asap.  I am not sure if Steve added any drivers or not when he did the install.

 Thanks for the soundstage comments.  It sounds as though it takes these devices some time to break in a bit in order to start hearing what all they truly have to offer.


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> So I had a lovely visit with Steve Nugent from Empirical and we did put the Audiophellio into the setup.  It actually did very well, but was quite a massive step down to the Off Ramp 5, however subtle one may or may not think of it as being.  I will probably do a little review on the site though it will not have much to say other than the performance gain from the OR5 over a tweaked OR4 along with the excellent sound of his DAC.  I wish I had a setup similar to Pompon (have spoken with this fine gentleman in the past), but in the least, I will try some of the drivers mentioned.  When I had mine inserted into the system the drivers just picked up asap.  I am not sure if Steve added any drivers or not when he did the install.
> 
> Thanks for the soundstage comments.  It sounds as though it takes these devices some time to break in a bit in order to start hearing what all they truly have to offer.


 


  So it's a step down from the Audiophilleo to the OR5??


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





customnuts said:


> So it's a step down from the Audiophilleo to the OR5??


 


  The modded OR4 and OR5 were both "vastly" superior to the Audiophellio on a BNC connect using some high end USB cable.  I don't know that the Audiophellio can honestly be corrected because the design may be that much flawed.  I feel this is the absolute difference between the Off Ramp and Audiophellio.  In other words, the Audiophilleo can be upgraded to use these fancy clocks, but even if it used inferior clocks, so long as the clocks at least work properly and the rest of the design is correct, it's still going to be superior.  
   
  Do I think the Audiophellio can sound good using that hub design and other tweaks?...sure...but it will simply never be able to sound as good as the Off-Ramp.
   
  To me, both devices are expensive and though I have the Audiophellio going back on the trial period basis, I still wouldn't be able to afford it unless it was able to sound like the Off-Ramp.  Likewise, the Off-Ramp is actually more reasonably priced, IMHO, only because it is still low $1000 territory and does what it can do.  I'm just a person that sticks with what works and if you look at pricing, take the Audiophellio at $579, then add on the $200 Vaunix Hub and you are almost at $800.  OR5 costs $1200.  That's only $400 for absolutely guaranteed sound vs. taking the chance that the hub setup can even compare with a "standard" version OR4 that used to go for $800.
   
  Don't like to ever put anything down or praise something so high, but I know what I would do if I had the money.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Do I think the Audiophellio can sound good using that hub design and other tweaks?...sure...but it will simply never be able to sound as good as the Off-Ramp.


 

 Do you know if the OR was powered by a Monolith, or the stock wall-wart? That makes a big difference to the sound (and price).


----------



## FauDrei

audiophilleo flawed?!? Quite a cheeky comment.
   
  Especially considering that audiophilleo was designed from the scratch as compact, integrated proprietary HW+SW solution incorporating differential digital techniques used in most recent gigahertz communication devices (as oposed to implementing together various non necesarily propriate modules with botique parts)...
   
  Can not comment which one "is better" but firmly sure audiophilleo is not flawed.
   
  ...as for "it will simply never be able to sound as good as the Off-Ramp" - that's pure marketing.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





faudrei said:


> Especially considering that audiophilleo was designed from the scratch as compact, integrated proprietary HW+SW solution incorporating differential digital techniques used in most recent gigahertz communication devices


 

 That's pure marketing.


----------



## FauDrei

Do your due diligence first Dave.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Do you know if the OR was powered by a Monolith, or the stock wall-wart? That makes a big difference to the sound (and price).


 


  We didn't use the Monolith though it would have been nice to have!  We kept it off the entire time so everything socket powered.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> We didn't use the Monolith though it would have been nice to have!  We kept it off the entire time so everything socket powered.


 

 That's impressive that it was able to outperform the Audiophilleo to that degree when using the AC adapter. That suggests that if you replace the adapter with something like a Hynes linear power supply, the performance gap would just be that much wider. I'd be curious how the Monolith stacks up against a Hynes, which is considerably less expensive. I've seen a Hynes compared to a battery supply made by Balanced Power Tech with an Off-Ramp 3, but I don't think I've ever seen any of the third party options compared to the Monolith.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





faudrei said:


> audiophilleo flawed?!? Quite a cheeky comment.
> 
> Especially considering that audiophilleo was designed from the scratch as compact, integrated proprietary HW+SW solution incorporating differential digital techniques used in most recent gigahertz communication devices (as oposed to implementing together various non necesarily propriate modules with botique parts)...
> 
> ...


 

 If I marketed anything that I cannot buy, would that make any sense to you?  Think about it...
   
  Bass was bloated and ill defined, cymbols were smeared and "splashed", vocals were not present and had a texture to them, soundstage was mediocre, overall tonality was terrible.  Need I say more or do you get the point?  I'm not saying the Audiophilleo is bad for people that need some kind of transfer to a pc, but if you have a transparent system, you will "easily" hear these differences.  Maybe with headphones, it's more difficult and you can't tell anything because your headphones cannot produce the music like a top flight or even middle way two channel home stereo system can.
   
  Again, I do not like putting poor comments or talking a product down, but I say the same thing about 99% of the junk that is out there.  For a USB converter, it's definitely very good vs. other "junk' converters.  But when you hear a "real" converter, you will think the Audiophilleo is no different than the rest of the junk.  Understand?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's impressive that it was able to outperform the Audiophilleo to that degree when using the AC adapter. That suggests that if you replace the adapter with something like a Hynes linear power supply, the performance gap would just be that much wider. I'd be curious how the Monolith stacks up against a Hynes, which is considerably less expensive. I've seen a Hynes compared to a battery supply made by Balanced Power Tech with an Off-Ramp 3, but I don't think I've ever seen any of the third party options compared to the Monolith.


 


  The Monolith is a real beast and it takes a LOT in the design of it.  My guess is it probably sounds a little better with either and I think Steve was even saying that with the Off-Ramp, the Monolith is definitely better, but it's not a major difference.  I would think the same would bode true for a Hynes or other solid power supply.

 But yes, I did not know what to expect to hear, if anything, even, but it was indeed clearly audible.  If I was expecting anything, I was expecting either a gimmick meaning just some "different" type of sound or just some subtle differences, like the Off-Ramp being better, but not really in any way that is so clear that you point it out in one second)!!!  That was the thing.  When I first heard the OR4, I knew what the Audiophellio had sounded like in my system and immediately thought oh no, the Audiophellio is literally going to sound too bad to even have it inserted.  But in spite it was flawed in many areas, it was far better in his setup than mine.  I just like devices that are precise, for one thing in terms of detail/tonality/soundstage/etc. but most importantly I like that I do not hear anything there, that it should just be something in the mix and the majority of the sound is obviously the speakers=get as clean a signal to the speakers.  We literally took the Audiophellio out after only a minute or so of listening.
   
  I don't want to portray the OR as some holy grail device, but it does what something transparent should be doing which is not making things stand out and in a bad way at that.
   
  I think I mentioned before, but had the Audiophellio even been just "different" as in, had fine soundstage, maybe more treble or more bass or things like this, and doing it properly and so on, then I would for sure keep it and see what more can be done such as the hub system.  But as is the case for a long time, I will go with just basic cheap stuff until I have money to spend on things that will come in time because it's only a matter of time that these USB makers nail them down better and better unless they will be like point and shoot digital cameras that they just want a fast buck off of.  And who knows with Audiophellio's battery design in the works.  Maybe he is working out a few things aside from just a battery supply to get the unit at least up to that level that is "good enough".


----------



## FauDrei

OK, I might be wrong: let's say my system is not transparent, my headphones are no good to reveal that and audiophilleo is ultimately flawed...
   
  Just to appease my scepticism - can you please describe your system (from software player to headphones) with which you can so easily spot audiophilleo's flaws hiFace's equality and OR4/5 superiority?


----------



## Currawong

A number of guys on Stereo.net.au compared the Audiophilleo to the Offramp on a few systems and reckoned the Offramp was superior. I've been pondering (reversibly) modding my Ref 7.1 to accept I2S input and getting an Offramp to use with it. I'm a bit worried about the expense being overkill though.  If I do go ahead and improve my livingroom system though I might do it and use one digital input rig with that.


----------



## sridhar3

I'd love to hear some comparisons between the AP1/2, and the Berkeley Audio Design "The Alpha" bridge and the Wavelength Wavelink.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> The Monolith is a real beast and it takes a LOT in the design of it.  My guess is it probably sounds a little better with either and I think Steve was even saying that with the Off-Ramp, the Monolith is definitely better, but it's not a major difference.  I would think the same would bode true for a Hynes or other solid power supply.


 

 Here's a quote from the comparison test done by Positive Feedback:
   
  "[size=x-small]So what is the deal on either? Well both are quite stellar in all the right ways: clean, smooth, grain-free, spatial presentation, palpable presence, airy, dynamic, etc. That they are so much better than the supplied wall-wart supply; I could easily live with either. Going back to that is sort of having a Firestone ale and then going back to a Coors. Yeah, it's beer, it refreshes on a hot day, but it is clearly lacking character and taste. With either power source feeding the DC to the Off-Ramp, you get character and taste in your music. Not only do they refresh, but they do it with real taste! "[/size]


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





faudrei said:


> OK, I might be wrong: let's say my system is not transparent, my headphones are no good to reveal that and audiophilleo is ultimately flawed...
> 
> Just to appease my scepticism - can you please describe your system (from software player to headphones) with which you can so easily spot audiophilleo's flaws hiFace's equality and OR4/5 superiority?


 


  Both my system, Steve's (Empirical Audio), even a friend of mine's, have all revealed the issues, but we all have different two channel home systems.  I have heard very high end headphone setups, and they are no were near the same level of resolution/detail/name your adjectives of a two channel home audio system.  With this in mind, the differences between these transports will definitely be heard, but it probably will not be a deal breaker if you know what I mean.  It is certainly a deal breaker when you are wanting all that a high end two channel or even a mid range two channel system can give you because you hear every little thing and those truly annoying things can and do become bothersome OR in this case, just do not fit into the system without reducing the sound of it.  When something reduces the sound rather than simply give a different sound, that's not a good thing.  I am absolutely confident that even VERY EXPENSIVE usb based computer stuff out there will struggle to keep up with the OR5 and I bet these devices will show off enough inferiority that I would place them in that same category of being flawed somewhere.  So you see, the Audiophilleo may not even be that bad and may even be up for the test against much more expensive other USB interfaces, but it's just not when going against either OR4 or OR5.


----------



## bobeau

Audioexcels,
   
  I was a bit in the same boat as you before purchasing my AP2 + AQVOX, but in this case regarding the tricked out OR4 special (like $1550 or so for what was regularly $1800).  In the end, my decision simply came down to this unit would end up costing about 25-30% of my entire setup, and that is hard to swallow.  If I had the luxury of hearing them back to back my decision might have been different.  Now the OR5 wasn't out at the time and $1200 is certainly a more tempting figure.  If I had a nice home 2 channel setup I probably would have gone with the OR route without a second thought, simply based on numerous comparisons on the aussie site that there is indeed a notable increase in fidelity.
   
  It seems like this is a pretty nascent field, in that last year's $1500 product may produce sound that next year's $500 is capable of, so I'm going with that moving forward.  I'm sure by next summer there will be some new hotness in the more reasonable price bracket, I'll sell my AP2 at a loss of maybe $100-200 and move onto that.  Or maybe I'll be able to pick up a used but maxxed out OR4/OR5 for something like $800 whenver the OR6 comes out.


----------



## prinz

question to audiophilleo users:
  is there any change after i.e 100hrs of burn in period?  I mean: is there any gain of sound weight and body and overall musicality?
   
  I know that some of you added aquvox psu or battery power. could you provide me some feedback if this PSU upgrades provided improvement in terms i mentioned above?
   
  all sugestions are welcome.


----------



## Edoardo

Some of these USB/SPDIF interfaces are so expensive I'd rather build a music server with a native SPDIF out, honestly.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





edoardo said:


> Some of these USB/SPDIF interfaces are so expensive I'd rather build a music server with a native SPDIF out, honestly.


 

 So, a sound card. None of them are that great, and the Lynx is not any cheaper than an Audiophilleo2. Output jitter from the Lynx is also _considerably _worse.


----------



## Edoardo

I was thinking about something like the RME HDSP 9632 or the ESI Juli@, which are much cheaper. you can built a great music server around those, without the USB jitter and (morover) power supply issues! 
   
  The Bryston BDP-1 indeed is built around a tweaked ESI Juli@ ...
   
  Lynx jitter higher than USB out? where?


----------



## BrainFood

Quote: 





currawong said:


> A number of guys on Stereo.net.au compared the Audiophilleo to the Offramp on a few systems and reckoned the Offramp was superior. I've been pondering (reversibly) modding my Ref 7.1 to accept I2S input and getting an Offramp to use with it. I'm a bit worried about the expense being overkill though.  If I do go ahead and improve my livingroom system though I might do it and use one digital input rig with that.


 

  
  I think those comparisons done using an Offramp with turboclock upgrade, which pushed it to around $1.5K


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





edoardo said:


> I was thinking about something like the RME HDSP 9632 or the ESI Juli@, which are much cheaper. you can built a great music server around those, without the USB jitter and (morover) power supply issues!
> 
> The Bryston BDP-1 indeed is built around a tweaked ESI Juli@ ...
> 
> Lynx jitter higher than USB out? where?


 

 The USB out isn't the issue as much as the accuracy of the clocks in the USB to S/Pdif converter. The Lynx clock can't touch the ones used by Audiophilleo or Empirical. I'm sure the one in the Juli@ is that much worse.


----------



## Edoardo

Ehm... source???
   
  USB seem not to be a convenient choice, since you would have to deal with the 5V power supply section, energy saving crap and polling settings for optimal results...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





edoardo said:


> Ehm... source???
> 
> USB seem not to be a convenient choice, since you would have to deal with the 5V power supply section, energy saving crap and polling settings for optimal results...


 

 From Steve from a post at CA: "The clock in the Lynx is not as good as the standard clock in the Off-Ramp 3. 3 psec RMS jitter is the spec on the standard clock."
   
  This was vs. the OR3. The  OR4/5 and the Audiophilleo both use clocks that are much tighter than 3psec. The Auraliti PK90 USB presumably takes care of most of the heavy lifting for you, and the price is extremely reasonable considering the SoTM card is $300 on its own. The Sonore server with the same card is more than twice as much.


----------



## Edoardo

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> From Steve from a post at CA: "The clock in the Lynx is not as good as the standard clock in the Off-Ramp 3. 3 psec RMS jitter is the spec on the standard clock."
> 
> This was vs. the OR3. The  OR4/5 and the Audiophilleo both use clocks that are much tighter than 3psec. The Auraliti PK90 USB presumably takes care of most of the heavy lifting for you, and the price is extremely reasonable considering the SoTM card is $300 on its own. The Sonore server with the same card is more than twice as much.


 

 OK so the plenty of professionals who have always suggested and preferred and used PCI over anything should read a forum sponsorized by SoTM and dCS who sell USB converters for a living...


----------



## drez

Cards like Juli@ can be good but they need to be modified heavily.  I too am suspect of computeraudiophile given their sponsors.  Theoretically cutting out USB should be advantageous **but** making a franken Juli@ AFAIK does not guarantee excellent results...


----------



## Edoardo

Actually the ESI Juli@ has been recognized by many as a card with a great clock and digital out
   
   
  In this review here it beats 7 other cards...
   
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/magazines/2011/5/213/
   
   
   
"For this reviewer, the ESI Juli@ is the
first computer music source component “to succeed in forsaking
sonic artifacts. In fact it does more."
   
  Then yes, you know, when a products is tweakable _then _it seems that tweaking it is the only way to make it sound decently...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





edoardo said:


> OK so the plenty of professionals who have always suggested and preferred and used PCI over anything should read a forum sponsorized by SoTM and dCS who sell USB converters for a living...


 

 Why don't you stop worrying about who sponsors what and actually listen for yourself? Try a Juli@ and an Audiophilleo. They have a return policy. I think if you try even the "specially modified" Juli@ that Auraliti/Bryston use and compare it to the best USB converter - the OR5, you'll fine that the Empirical destroys any PCI sound card, despite what "the professionals" say.


----------



## drez

Sorry can't see the article - can you paraphrase re the spdif output.
   
  AFAIK there is also only a single frequency clock and the card is powered off motherboard rails, has no BNC socket as standard, I2S output requires mod.  IMO plenty of room to improve.
   
  Many USB devices have improved in these areas with the sole restriction of the USB interface.  IMO its not that clear cut.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





prinz said:


> question to audiophilleo users:
> is there any change after i.e 100hrs of burn in period?  I mean: is there any gain of sound weight and body and overall musicality?
> 
> I know that some of you added aquvox psu or battery power. could you provide me some feedback if this PSU upgrades provided improvement in terms i mentioned above?
> ...


 


  Neither my friend or myself heard it, but we had more than 300 hours on ours.  I would highly consider looking back in the thread around page 5-7? where Pompon? says how the hub setup did the trick.  Previously, he was not able to get a sound even as good as his Xonar sound cards, but once he got the hub in there, it became a new beast.  I don't know the logic in how a device is able to honestly improve 10 fold via some hub thing, but whatever.  Battery supply supposedly gives you a bit more additional benefit, but is nothing like the Hub mod.
   
  Currently Philip is working on a battery pack, so it may be worth your time to simply hold out and if that proves to be the trick for this device, well, it'll be $450 more, but if it can be implemented to customers even at a discount and give a sound superior to that hub trick or anything else that can be done to it, it's $450 well spent IMHO.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





brainfood said:


> I think those comparisons done using an Offramp with turboclock upgrade, which pushed it to around $1.5K


 


  The new Off Ramp 5 is superior to ANYTHING Off Ramp 4 and prior, so $1.2K gets you clearly superior sound to anything you have ever seen in a review.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> Sorry can't see the article - can you paraphrase re the spdif output.
> 
> AFAIK there is also only a single frequency clock and the card is powered off motherboard rails, has no BNC socket as standard, I2S output requires mod.  IMO plenty of room to improve.
> 
> Many USB devices have improved in these areas with the sole restriction of the USB interface.  IMO its not that clear cut.


 


  I think you put it correctly just in stating the not clear cut thing.  IMHO, I know a person that used the AP2 and likes his Xonar ST card MUCH MORE than the AP2, both via analog and coax out.  As much as 99 people out of 100 may say the USB interface is the best, that 1 will say they think not.  It's not saying the USB interface vs. another interface, but to say the USB based device that gets PC audio to your outboard dac or not, via USB rather than SPDIF or I2S, etc.  The more I listen to the latest and greatest players, like Jplay, for example, it's intention is no different than what I have heard with a lot of the USB converters=very aggressive, made for either people that have a horrid two channel home system, one that is geared towards a one dimensional soundstage where all they care about is hearing the resolution (can care less about soundstage depth/sense of venue/live music/list goes on), and so on.  This said, and no offense, but 99 out of 100 systems I have heard are literally crappy even if they are 100-500K systems...money matters not.
   
  In the end, the USB converters, a sound card, whatever it may be, along with whatever player, etc. etc. is, IMHO, extremely dependent on listener preferences.  This is where that no clear cut comes into the equation because as Dave argues about the USB converters having superior jitter control, that's nice and all, but it means nothing if the sound is not very good or one can get as good or better sound out of something that maybe has more jitter, but sounds great to that user.
   
  I think computer audio has come a LONG way, but as fast as it is progressing, I still feel it has a long ways to go.  Good thing is, EVERYTHING is pushing computer audio like digital cameras, so expect in months, year by year, etc. etc. that we will be increasing sound 10 fold with how much technology/money makers are in the field knowing this is what people from the AV world to the highest end audio world is wanting.  Nothing nicer than your entire ripped library of music right at the fingertips vs. tossing in cd after cd from a massive rack of cds!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Is the OR5 out yet, since I can't see it on the site.
   
  And does one still need an OR when using an Overdrive Dac?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Is the OR5 out yet, since I can't see it on the site.
> 
> And does one still need an OR when using an Overdrive Dac?


 

 I think it's just starting production. You don't need an OR with the Overdrive. Its USB input was upgraded around the same time that the OR4 was released, and so its basically the same thing.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Ah, but it will be different from the OR5 then? So an upgrade for the Overdrive will be coming?
   
  I thought of using the OR + OD in a way it wasn't meant to be used.
  If I connect an OR via USB to my computer at my desk and then run a netowrk cable from the I2S connection to the OD connected to the amp in the living room, thus kind of using it as a streamer, would that be possible?
  The length would be about 10m, the cable is already installed in the walls. It's Cat 6 cable.
  Does this cable have to be terminated as a normal Cat 6 Ethernet cbale or is the wiring different?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Ah, but it will be different from the OR5 then? So an upgrade for the Overdrive will be coming?
> 
> I thought of using the OR + OD in a way it wasn't meant to be used.
> If I connect an OR via USB to my computer at my desk and then run a netowrk cable from the I2S connection to the OD connected to the amp in the living room, thus kind of using it as a streamer, would that be possible?
> ...


 

 Steve could better answer that, but you're unlikely to get any improvement from having the OR5 plugged in to the Overdrive. You can't just any old network cable you want with I2S. The jack may be RJ-45, but I2S is not Ethernet. You need an I2S cable, not a computer network cable. The I2S cable that Empirical sells is $450/m. A 10M cable would be frightfully expensive, and probably ill advised as I2S was not designed for long runs. Your best bet for a long length of digital cable is the ST glass fiber (AT&T) format - which would mean either an M2Tech EVO or Bel Canto Light Link paired with one of the Bel Canto DACs, some of the Wadia stuff, or one of the many vintage DACs that have ST inputs.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I find your description interesting. I posted elsewhere that the AP2 into a near 6-figure system with a Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2 was so transformative, the soundstage was expansive, illumined and highly refined. Out of the box the AP2 was a revelation, but (and that's a big but), letting it sizzle for 200+ hours opened up the soundstage and relaxed the overall presentation. Digitization? Hmm... It was anything but! With the AP2 It's so much easier to listen to long sets, literally 4 - 6 hour long sets! 
   
  Phillip has an interesting article (here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/files/Audiophilleo%20vs%20Evo-%20Part%20%202%20and%203.pdf) from a 'phile at Computer Audiophile, that believes the AP2 is closer to his 24/96 master recordings than the comparative unit.  
   
  I haven't listened to any of Steve's stuff. However, I'd love to see his specs more clearly defined. I believe, as far as jitter is concerned, that Phillip provides more thorough, comprehensive specs than anyone at this time. However, in that Steve hasn't provided any specs on his devices, doesn't mean his are less effective; it just means that there isn't anything to provide a direct comparison with other units.
   
  Phillip plans to provide a battery power supply this month that I hope to give a try. So, if there are any differences due to power supply anomalies, maybe this will be an equalizer?
   
  BTW, my buddy and I may already be realizing improvements since we have everything plugged into balanced power supply's from BPT and Equi=Tech, including the computing infrastructure. 
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I've been listening to the Audiophellio direct into my pre-dac, and using the USB cable (standard setup and no hub setup).  Sound has a lot more "digitization" than what I am used to with other converters.  A bit more of the mids/treble intensity.  Besides this, and it's subtle, the "most noticeable" thing is the lack of any soundstage depth.  I can literally sit next to my speakers and when the Audiophellio is inserted, the soundstage depth is so non-existing vs. my other transports that it literally sounds like there is no soundstage depth.
> 
> Has anyone else using this in a solid two channel system heard the same?  I can see people with speakers that don't have much depth to begin with not hear it...people using headphones, especially, would have a hard time hearing it.  But people with excellent soundstage depth, it would be interesting if you are hearing what I am too.
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I haven't listened to any of Steve's stuff. However, I'd love to see his specs more clearly defined. I believe, as far as jitter is concerned, that Phillip provides more thorough, comprehensive specs than anyone at this time. However, in that Steve hasn't provided any specs on his devices, doesn't mean his are less effective; it just means that there isn't anything to provide a direct comparison with other units.


 

 That would be nice, although if you ask Steve would probably be willing to fill you in on most of the details. If I remember correctly, he said in another forum that the OR4 with the Hynes regulator has around 150ps P-P jitter on its S/Pdif output.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Steve could better answer that, but you're unlikely to get any improvement from having the OR5 plugged in to the Overdrive. You can't just any old network cable you want with I2S. The jack may be RJ-45, but I2S is not Ethernet. You need an I2S cable, not a computer network cable. The I2S cable that Empirical sells is $450/m. A 10M cable would be frightfully expensive, and probably ill advised as I2S was not designed for long runs. Your best bet for a long length of digital cable is the ST glass fiber (AT&T) format - which would mean either an M2Tech EVO or Bel Canto Light Link paired with one of the Bel Canto DACs, some of the Wadia stuff, or one of the many vintage DACs that have ST inputs.


 
   
  10m of that cable is a bit silly indeed!  
 Thanks for the info. I was aware of the Bel Canto system but I don't have fiber cable running in the wall.
  I just took a quick glance at the Wadia/QSonix gear and that seems interesting. Will read up on it tonight, might be the solution I'm looking for.
   
  Edit: Or not, seen the QSonix prices.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Here's the AP1/2 jitter spec, although it's not clear that jitter is the entire story:
   
   
 [size=medium]      [size=0.7em]
 2.6 ps RMS phasejitter 10 Hz to 100 kHz. 
 < 5 ps RMS period jitter.
[/size] 





[/size] 
  It's worth noting that Phillip provides the most comprehensive jitter specification of any of the S/PDIF transports currently available.
   
  EDIT: To qualify, "Audeophilleo provides the most comprehensive jitter specification of any of the S/PDIF transports currently _*published*_." 
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That would be nice, although if you ask Steve would probably be willing to fill you in on most of the details. If I remember correctly, he said in another forum that the OR4 with the Hynes regulator has around 150ps P-P jitter on its S/Pdif output.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

An excellent article by Steve Nugent (linked from Phillip's Audiophilleo site) about jitter: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm


----------



## Szadzik

Subscribed.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I am wondering about the USB-hub mod for the AP.
  Is the better sound one gets with that hub compared to the sound used through a standard computer hub or even compared to straight from the computer?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> An excellent article by Steve Nugent (linked from Phillip's Audiophilleo site) about jitter: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm


 

 Thanks for the link - it goes some way toward explaining why transports are not so straightforward.  I agree with the author though that the transport should not be used to colour the sound, rather to ensure that as much intact digital information is passed onto the DAC as possible.  I like also how the article points out that measurements can be misleading, and I think this is especially the case with computer based transports.


----------



## borrego

"High value" can still be achieved if one goes the semi-DIY route: The "USB Transport" conceptual equivalence of the Audio-gd CD7: http://www.head-fi.org/t/580996/xmos-xs1-l1-usb-audio-2-0-reference-design-async-usb-audio-transport-for-149#post_8026912


----------



## AppleheadMay

Just received the Vaunix Lab Brick Hub today. That thing is built like a tank, looks nothing like ordinary USB hubs.
  Will try to make time to test it a bit over the weekend, together with all the rest I need to test.
  Very friendly people over at Vaunix I must say, and delivered in Europe three days after payment.
  I asked Scott of Vaunix to take a look at this thread and maybe enlighten us a bit about the advantages of the Lab Brick Hub. He was interested to know where I heard about his products.


----------



## BrainFood

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Just received the Vaunix Lab Brick Hub today. That thing is built like a tank, looks nothing like ordinary USB hubs.
> Will try to make time to test it a bit over the weekend, together with all the rest I need to test.
> Very friendly people over at Vaunix I must say, and delivered in Europe three days after payment.
> I asked Scott of Vaunix to take a look at this thread and maybe enlighten us a bit about the advantages of the Lab Brick Hub. He was interested to know where I heard about his products.


 


  How much did it come to in euros, after shipping/ taxes?


----------



## AppleheadMay

234€


----------



## bozebuttons

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Just received the Vaunix Lab Brick Hub today. That thing is built like a tank, looks nothing like ordinary USB hubs.
> Will try to make time to test it a bit over the weekend, together with all the rest I need to test.
> Very friendly people over at Vaunix I must say, and delivered in Europe three days after payment.
> I asked Scott of Vaunix to take a look at this thread and maybe enlighten us a bit about the advantages of the Lab Brick Hub. He was interested to know where I heard about his products.


 

 Looks interesting let us know how it works out.Looks like a good option over the Aqvox.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I believe Phillip is readying his new battery power supply, which should be available near the end of the month (Open! Open! Open!) There may also be a firmware update to facilitate the new battery power supply. The charging logic will automatically detect steaming data, and switch to battery operation. In the absence of data (after some set period of time), the charging circuit is enabled.* 
   
  *NOTE: I'm reading between the lines from some e-mail correspondence I've had with Phillip. 
   
  A well designed power supply, whether AC/DC or DC, should provide clean, linear power that hopefully provides improved sound over USB . In some ways' the Aqvox seems like a good solution and it appears to measure very well. The Vaunix Lab Brick Hub may provide similar benefits, but it's noise is not specified.


----------



## AppleheadMay

This I got from Scott Blanchard of Vaunix.
   
   
  Quote: 





> We did take great care to provide perfectly matched data lines, isolated digital ground and a well regulated and clean voltage.  We believe it's the best hub for the audio market.


 
   
  For me a good hub was necessary since I will be feeding three DAC's via USB.
  I have the Luxman, the W4S MINT is ordered and should be here end of the month/beginning February.
  The W4S DAC2 will be added by the end of February when my Zana is shipping.
   
  I can't connect all of them directly to my iMac.
  I made sure the Vaunix hub is on an internal hub with nothing else on it.
  The second internal hub is connected to two external hubs for mice/scanner/etc...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The Vaunix looks very well made!
  
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> This I got from Scott Blanchard of Vaunix.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I find your description interesting. I posted elsewhere that the AP2 into a near 6-figure system with a Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2 was so transformative, the soundstage was expansive, illumined and highly refined. Out of the box the AP2 was a revelation, but (and that's a big but), letting it sizzle for 200+ hours opened up the soundstage and relaxed the overall presentation. Digitization? Hmm... It was anything but! With the AP2 It's so much easier to listen to long sets, literally 4 - 6 hour long sets!
> 
> Phillip has an interesting article (here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/files/Audiophilleo%20vs%20Evo-%20Part%20%202%20and%203.pdf) from a 'phile at Computer Audiophile, that believes the AP2 is closer to his 24/96 master recordings than the comparative unit.
> 
> ...


 

 I think I should have left out some words that I have used because the AP2 wasn't a more "digital" type of sound.  Rather, it was just exaggerating the mids-highs, but the sound was simply like I had inserted an equalizer and boosted the midrange section heavily, along with the treble.  I don't think anything, as clean/clear as my system sounds, could make it sound "digital" due to the speakers #1 along with-amp-preamp (obviously room/recording)=99% of the equation for me.  Even with 80's junk recordings, the sound is very clean/balanced that there's not that sensation of that "compressed" and "digital" sound I heard with any other speakers in the past, though I also never had the other components that I feel really help things out a lot.  
   
  I could certainly listen for hours with the AP2, but it just would not sound ok for me.  I have been theorizing if "any" USB converter can even sound good in my system.  I know for fact that the Off Ramp was night/day superior that it literally made the AP2 sound very poor.  It was not something so subtle as to say this was better, that was better...the Off Ramp just flat out was like a real and true digital based product.  If I was convinced enough with the USB converter path, I would be in line for the OR5 without any doubt because what's $1200 if you know it's as good as any converter is going to sound now, and maybe even some good deal of time down the road.  But until I hear an OR5 in my system without having to pay some kind of re-stocking fee, I'd do this knowing it's a free trial.  At this point, though, and in my system, as I say, these converters just do not work for whatever reason it is.  To my ears, the sound is very much so subtracting than it is adding.  A quite silly comparison is going to Youtube (silly because we know that garbage quality of sound).  But even on Youtube, final mixes of songs being produced are "heavily" emphasizing the midrange/treble, much the same as what I have heard with the USB converters.  There is a very beautiful tune, and both my friend and I agreed that the final mix sounds absolutely terrible by comparison to the original or at least previous mix of the song.
   
  Recently, I spoke with a second person that sold his AP2.  I have only seen and spoke with both sellers of the AP2 to get an idea of their thoughts, without mentioning how it compares to this/that/etc...just how is is general and obviously why/what they replaced it with.  Considering how many of the AP2's that have sold, probably the most of any device aside from maybe a Hiface or other cheap converter.  First person said it was an incredible device, worked wonderfully in his secondary system, but that he sold it because it was a system made for family purposes (i.e. visitors), and it was a system that was simply too difficult for any normal person to turn on and make work.  This person uses some crazy mega buck computer setup for his main system at his office if I recall.  The recent person said he felt it was a slight upgrade from the Hiface, but was only an "ok" device.  He said that an Off Ramp 3 he once had is the only converter he has ever used that had a sound he would consider to be "quality"...he termed it as "elite", but point in case is a very outdated OR3 was able to transform his system, but the AP2 was only "ok", and the Hiface slightly inferior to the AP2.  This person now uses the Tranquility SE, but is going to be selling it soon.  He's still trying to find his way through a higher end USB based dac/converter in one solution or even something further up the scale in price.
   
  What I got from these two sellers is that seller 1, like the majority, loved the AP2, and speaks highly like probably 99% others out there do.  The second one has been through loads of equipment and continues to go through loads of it, but he had a very clear mind about what devices have been those that truly stand out and those that may be good, but are only "ok" vs. the truly good ones.
   
  In the end, I have seen only two of these for sale.  I have never seen an AP1 for sale.  This should be enough evidence that the AP2 works wonders for again, the 99% out there!
   
  I did not realize it, but Dave is correct in that the OR5 is still in production stages, and has not been officially released. There is a decent list waiting for the production model, but the confusing thing to me is how the OR4 is still up and with the price the OR5 will be, so I am, nor did I ask Steve what exactly I or anyone would be buying if they were to pay $1200, if anything.  It could be he is just not producing any Off Ramps at this time until the OR5 is set to go.  As Dave said it, and as I'll always say it, best to simply send an email if you or anyone is interested in it.
   
  AP2 gets battery supply for $450 additional, at least that was the price I got from Philip.  But add this up, and you now have basically the price of an OR5.  Still, I'd listen to both since I don't know what exactly the sound level of the device will be with this new mod.
   
  Regarding the article that Steve wrote, it is entirely biased.  It's like reading about why an amplifier designed a certain way sounds the best.  Reminds me of reading about the Linkwitz Orions and his LOADS of information...obviously the guy is a wealth of information and does know a thing or two about transducers, but his speakers are "ok" but at the same time rather poor in three different listening sessions I have heard them in.  So end of day, designers can write an entire library of books, but the best they can do is "promote" their products by justifying them via blah blah blah, and more blah...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I don't doubt that you heard a significant difference, that the OR had better synergy with the combination of components in the kit that you heard. What you describe makes sense when considering the importance of system synergy. Sometimes, depending on the aggregate of certain characteristics in a system, the sum becomes too much of one thing or another. Still, it makes one pause and wonder what the difference might be. Elsewhere on Head-fi are some remarkable real world measurements of the AP. If one considers the virtual elimination of jitter managed by the AP1/2 transport (well within its specification), then what is the difference? Perhaps not all S/PDIF implementations at the DAC/CDP interface are equal? Power? 
   
  I'm preparing to send my AP2 to Phillip for modification for use with his new PurePower Battery supply. It should be interesting to hear what difference the battery power supply provides, and whether or not it is the great equalizer. 
   
  (I felt that Steve's article was a fairly objective synopsis of his understanding of jitter, its sources, types, distribution and spectrum.)


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I don't doubt that you heard a significant difference, that the OR had better synergy with the combination of components in the kit that you heard. What you describe makes sense when considering the importance of system synergy. Sometimes, depending on the aggregate of certain characteristics in a system, the sum becomes too much of one thing or another. Still, it makes one pause and wonder what the difference might be. Elsewhere on Head-fi are some remarkable real world measurements of the AP. If one considers the virtual elimination of jitter managed by the AP1/2 transport (well within its specification), then what is the difference? Perhaps not all S/PDIF implementations at the DAC/CDP interface are equal? Power?
> 
> I'm preparing to send my AP2 to Phillip for modification for use with his new PurePower Battery supply. It should be interesting to hear what difference the battery power supply provides, and whether or not it is the great equalizer.
> 
> (I felt that Steve's article was a fairly objective synopsis of his understanding of jitter, its sources, types, distribution and spectrum.)


 


   
  When is the battery unit going to be commercially available?


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> AP2 gets battery supply for $450 additional, at least that was the price I got from Philip.  But add this up, and you now have basically the price of an OR5.  Still, I'd listen to both since I don't know what exactly the sound level of the device will be with this new mod.


 

 Just curious, did Philip explain the price hike for the new battery supply?  Back in Sept. when I was talking to him about this he quoted under $200 for the upgrade, but then also said he was having trouble getting it manufactured so it was on hold.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Here's what I know from e-mail correspondence with Phillip re the battery power supply. Again, I'm reading between the lines so take this with a glass of wine, a few grains of salt, or whatever truth serum you use for these types of posts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   

 I believe he is calling it PurePower 
 The AP1/2 will require modifications that effectively disable the internal galvanic isolated power supply; the modification will include another input for the battery power supply 
 The battery supply will become the primary power source; you will no longer be able to power the unit via USB, although you could probably use a USB barrel cable adaptor; however, that probably means that you'd be getting potentially noisy power straight from the USB supply (because the galvanic isolation was disabled? Not sure about this...)
 Implementing the modifications means that the AP1/2 and the PurePower batter supply are intended to be used together
 A new firmware update will also be required in order to take advantage of the PurePower battery supply
 In conjunction with the firmware update, the system will detect data and automatically switch to battery mode; in the absence of data--after n-idle minutes--the system will probably revert to charging mode
 I'm not sure how many hours the PurePower supply will be good for, but it better be at least 4 - 6 hours! Some of my listening sessions go into the wee morning hours!
 The pricing has not been finalized, but I suspect that the device is more sophisticated than the simple Aqvox AC option; I believe it also includes some kind of a display reflecting the state of the AP transport and battery (I'm guessing that Phillip might be using a similar display as his AP1; some of that might explain the price differential (we'll see if it's worth it!)
 An upgrade promotion will be offered to existing AP users
 Phillip is targeting the initial release date near the end of January 
   
  Remember, this is my personal understanding about what Phillip is doing. I'm sure there'll be additional information when it is released.


----------



## Audioexcels

1) I definitely understand when a component relies on synergy or not.  In the listening sessions vs. the OR and Emprical DAC, it was not about synergy.  I'm sure Steve "tailors" things based off his hours of laboring with components, then inserting them into his system, then sending them off to reviewers to confirm and re-confirm, etc. etc.  So indeed, he has a setup based on his own liking, but at the same time, what I heard had nothing to do with tailoring the sound any specified way, other than to have as good of USB converting possible.
   
  2) Let me ask you this about that article.  Lets say all that was written came to a result that the very best means of achieving best computer audio playback was a sound card?  Do you think he would have been making USB based devices?  I started to get into the first bits of the article, then did my best to skim through as much of the rest of it, it that boring...Steve is a great guy and I will not remove my impressions of his products with respect to USB conversion as I truly feel he has nailed this down and is the one for "any" manufacturer on this planet to beat out.
   
  3) Philip told me $450 extra for the battery version, but that figure of $200 made more sense, and well, as you put it, we have to really take it all with any expression we will at this point because until it is in production or you have yours back with the mod in it, we will not know pricing, nor will we know the difference.
   
  What I do not quite understand, however, is people have already used batteries with their AP2's, did say the sound increase was there, but was more or less subtle.  These same people feel the hub based setup is what took the device to sound that is more than just subtle.  I'll definitely be following along as I'd love to see what exactly Philip does to the unit, but only important to me, the sound of it.  Philip did post that article about Steve, and he also said he feels this battery version will compete or best the Off Ramp (pretty bold statement, but I guess a designer has to either have balls or arrogance))
   
  I'm most interested in how far out of the USB interface he can make this design...as in...if we try various attenuation values, will it result in a different sound or will the sound never change.  This is important from a financial standpoint because if there is no sound difference between various 6db-20db, etc. attenuation devices, it should also mean that USB solution is in fact completely off-grid, and should not require ANY fancy $$$$$ USB cables.  If a cheap $5-$15 diy USB cable can be made and sounds no different than even a $1 or $5K one, then the device was done correctly and we can consider the value of it to be VERY GOOD...it's like a free upgrade considering people say $200-$400 USB cables are basically the fine line cost wise of achieving excellent sonic quality.  I can only imagine those that have used the Vaunix and are using $200+ cables, two of them at minimum required, so $1200 total for AP2+Vaunix+two $200 USB Cables.
   
  Anyhoo, in spite my dis-like of the AP2 in my system, I'm still very interested in what Philip has up his sleeve and will be looking forward to hearing impressions once these devices get rolling to existing and new customers!
   
  Cheers


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Just curious, did Philip explain the price hike for the new battery supply?  Back in Sept. when I was talking to him about this he quoted under $200 for the upgrade, but then also said he was having trouble getting it manufactured so it was on hold.


 

 This is all he had to say to me and I won't edit what I had to say, but Philip claims it will beat what Steve has to offer.  This sets the table quite nicely I should say.
   
  Philip's words:
   
  "" I am coming up with a battery powered version which accoding to some early tester feedback will most likely *outperform devices like the empirical*. It will be about $450 more than the ap2.

If this interests you I can let you.know when this is available (sometime January)."


----------



## pompon

AP2 resolve details, it's probably why you think it's have emphasis on highs. The device do not modify the data.


----------



## shamu144

I would believe the performance of the stock AP2 in a very highly resolving system will likely depend on the USB power quality, varying from computer to computer, and even from different USB ports. When I added the Aqvox USB power in my system to the AP2, I exactly felt that it smoothed highs by a noticeable margin... So yes, slightly harsh sounding highs is possible with an AP2, despite the internal regenerative PS.
   
  And I am sure a clever battery solution well implemented would outperform the Aqvox box. Philip might be coming soon with what we could consider the ultimate converter.


----------



## tim3320070

I am unfortunately selling mine to fund other fun things in my life- in the Source FS Forum. Apologies for the cheap plug.


----------



## PedroH

I am using the Audiophilleo 1 connected to a Meier StageDac mainly to be able to play high resolution files via USB (as via USB this DAC only processes up to 48KHz).
   
  The question I have is: in the near future wouldn't it make sense for these emerging USB-SPDIF transports to be bundled into the DAC in a single product? It seems that we are dealing with weaknesses / obsolescence of our DACs by having to buy external components...


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> I am using the Audiophilleo 1 connected to a Meier StageDac mainly to be able to play high resolution files via USB (as via USB this DAC only processes up to 48KHz).
> 
> The question I have is: in the near future wouldn't it make sense for these emerging USB-SPDIF transports to be bundled into the DAC in a single product? It seems that we are dealing with weaknesses / obsolescence of our DACs by having to buy external components...


 

 Ideally yes.  I2S should also be better than SPDIF, direct soldering better than plug contacts, DAC controlled by same clock as asynch USB etc.  
   
  Would be interesting to look at which DAC's do USB better than an AP1/2, but my guess is they wouldn't be cheap (or even $1k more than reference DAC with inferior USB input)


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> I am using the Audiophilleo 1 connected to a Meier StageDac mainly to be able to play high resolution files via USB (as via USB this DAC only processes up to 48KHz).
> 
> The question I have is: in the near future wouldn't it make sense for these emerging USB-SPDIF transports to be bundled into the DAC in a single product? It seems that we are dealing with weaknesses / obsolescence of our DACs by having to buy external components...


 


   
  There are already a lot out there that do just this, but what I do not understand is many are actually "improved" when something like the AP2/MK3/Off-Ramp/etc. is put into the equation...makes absolutely no sense to me especially when some of these dacs are big bucks and should have no need to have to have any extra bs added to them.  

 Even though you have the AP1, have you considered using an SOTM USB card?  It is a very very low jitter source for your external USB based dac so you should not need any converter of any sort.  I'm surprised a lot of people have not gone this route because the card is only $300.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> Ideally yes.  I2S should also be better than SPDIF, direct soldering better than plug contacts, DAC controlled by same clock as asynch USB etc.
> 
> Would be interesting to look at which DAC's do USB better than an AP1/2, but my guess is they wouldn't be cheap (or even $1k more than reference DAC with inferior USB input)


 


  Check my response...I think an SOTM card is the way to go unless a person uses a laptop as their source.  Can even feed the SOTM with its own outboard linear PS, batteries, whatever.  This is what I would personally do if I owned a nice dac w/USB and was wanting to go USB to USB with it.  But as I also mentioned, why oh why...so many $$$$$$ USB based dacs, but they suck with USB conversion?????


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> I am using the Audiophilleo 1 connected to a Meier StageDac mainly to be able to play high resolution files via USB (as via USB this DAC only processes up to 48KHz).
> 
> The question I have is: in the near future wouldn't it make sense for these emerging USB-SPDIF transports to be bundled into the DAC in a single product? It seems that we are dealing with weaknesses / obsolescence of our DACs by having to buy external components...


 
   
  There are extremely capable USB DACs such as the Calyx that are available now. The Empirical Overdrive is reference class, and according to Steve, its USB input is now indistinguishable from the Off-ramp.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Check my response...I think an SOTM card is the way to go unless a person uses a laptop as their source.  Can even feed the SOTM with its own outboard linear PS, batteries, whatever.  This is what I would personally do if I owned a nice dac w/USB and was wanting to go USB to USB with it.  But as I also mentioned, why oh why...so many $$$$$$ USB based dacs, but they suck with USB conversion?????


 

 SoTM SUB controller really needs a dedicated music server where you can tweak hardware settings to get the best out of it.
   
  I have one on my workstation and it sounds much worse than the onboard USB 2.0 because on my motherboard A) It shares IRQ with all other PCI busses including graphics card and B) it shares bandwidth with the Lan adapter and C) needs a PCI slot
   
  Unless you can guarantee dedicated IRQ and full PCI bus bandwidth in all likelihood it will sound worse.  Definitely not a plug-in upgrade for the average workstation.
   
  .


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> SoTM SUB controller really needs a dedicated music server where you can tweak hardware settings to get the best out of it.
> 
> I have one on my workstation and it sounds much worse than the onboard USB 2.0 because on my motherboard A) It shares IRQ with all other PCI busses including graphics card and B) it shares bandwidth with the Lan adapter and C) needs a PCI slot
> 
> ...


 

http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music_servers/SOtM/SOtM_tX-USB.htm
   
  You say this is worse?
   
  Curious, but do you or have you used the AP2?  Wondering how you have liked it vs. the MK3.


----------



## leeperry

drez said:


> I have one on my workstation and it sounds much worse than the onboard USB 2.0 because on my motherboard A) It shares IRQ with all other PCI busses including graphics card and B) it shares bandwidth with the Lan adapter and C) needs a PCI slot
> 
> Unless you can guarantee dedicated IRQ and full PCI bus bandwidth in all likelihood it will sound worse.  Definitely not a plug-in upgrade for the average workstation.


 

 The IRQ numbers you see in the windows device manager on an ACPI compliant computer are all virtual, they all share the same hardware IRQ. In bus-master operations, the PCI slots should all provide the same performance. This said, yes, the price of this board is ludicrous.


----------



## cpalcott

Clean USB out of PC

 Is there any kind of consensus about how to get the cleanest signal possible over USB out of a PC? Some methods:

 SOtM tX-USB PCI - So I undertand that this FILTERS out noise, but does it do anything for galvanic ISOLATION. Does it need to. There have been mixed results with this card because some say you have to manage IRQ in order for it to sound good. How does one ensure this device does not share IRQs with other devices.

 USB Isolator - Like the Olimex provides galvanic isolation but does not filter. Does it need to. It can only pass audio up to 96. Can be bus powered or grid powered. Which is better? Does it matter.

 AQVOX USB PSU - I understand that this will help provide clean power to a bus powered device like the Audiophellio2, but does not provide galvanic isolation. Is it necessary?

 USB Hub - Like the Vaunix Brick USB Hub. Provies a solid power supply for Bus powered devices but does it provide galvanic isolation? Does it need to?

 USB Cable w/ No Powerline - Does a USB cable with the powerline cut achieve the same thing as galvanic isolation. Bus powered devices would need their own grid power like the AQVOX. Is this enough?

 Is any one of these items enough to clean the USB signal path or does it take a combination of devices? Which ones?

 I have been trying out the Audiophilleo2 and can say that the sound quality of the unit is certainly effected by the signal it receives. Is the John Kenny JKMK3 any better at cleaning the signal? Does it provide galvanic isolation Does it filter out noise?
   
  Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Has anyone compare to Audiophilleo to the Stello U3?
  As far as I found out, the Stello U3s circuit is used entirely in the Eximus DP-1 Dac from April music.
  If you read the thread here on HF and the reviews like 6Moons etc... on the DP-1, it seems to be a killer and outperforms just about everything in its class and well above.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Has anyone compare to Audiophilleo to the Stello U3?
> As far as I found out, the Stello U3s circuit is used entirely in the Eximus DP-1 Dac from April music.
> If you read the thread here on HF and the reviews like 6Moons etc... on the DP-1, it seems to be a killer and outperforms just about everything in its class and well above.


 

 I've seen a handful of comparisons on places like stereo.net.au, audiocircles, and possibly computeraudiophile.  Can't recall anyone preferring the stello but those comparisons I believe were all using coax out.  The DP-1 most certainly uses I2S internally so it's a different ball of wax.
   
  It would be quite interesting to compare the DP-1 using USB vs. OR5 using I2S to DP-1...


----------



## leeperry

bobeau said:


> The DP-1 most certainly uses I2S internally so it's a different ball of wax.
> 
> It would be quite interesting to compare the DP-1 using USB vs. OR5 using I2S to DP-1...


 

 Yeah, what we need is an affordable USB transport that outputs isolated I2S...when the market is flooded to death w/ coax, I can't seem to find any $500ish non-DIY/kludgy USB to I2S solution w/ serious clocking at all. The market needs to move on, I2S is the future. You can't isolate 480 MBit/s USB and S/PDIF is a highly flawed protocol(due to the slave mode clock recovery), so this strives for a more foolproof solution IMHO. Ah well, most DAC manufacturers go for a quick buck and don't care for I2S...so this will all end up being an egg/chicken situation I guess 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


cpalcott said:


> USB Isolator - Like the Olimex provides galvanic isolation but does not filter. Does it need to. It can only pass audio up to 96. Can be bus powered or grid powered.


 

 Just to confuse you even more, Firestone Audio just released an audiophile USB isolator: http://www.head-fi.org/t/588029/new-products-from-firestone-audio-the-firekey-lineM
   
  More infos here: http://www.wickeddigital.com.au/index.php/shop-by-category-find-a-product-type/product/view/5/282
   
  dunno what's in it, though...but it's the only non-DIY/kludgy audiophile USB isolation dongle that comes with a case AFAIK. A wild guess would be that it's a 4160 dongle, so win-win. And as usual implementation is everything, most other dongles were meant for industrial/hospital use...this one was specifically meant for connecting audio gear.
   
  I read that the Musiland would allow up to 24/96 through ADuM4160, I wonder how other transports would react? the Hiface doesn't work at all AFAIK...I'm cool w/ 24/96 max if it's isolated


----------



## pigmode

Yup, egg/chicken unfortunately. 
   
  I'd like to see comparisons between the OR4 and A2/w psu.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Yeah, what we need is an affordable USB transport that outputs isolated I2S...when the market is flooded to death w/ coax, I can't seem to find any $500ish non-DIY/kludgy USB to I2S solution w/ serious clocking at all. The market needs to move on, I2S is the future. You can't isolate 480 MBit/s USB and S/PDIF is a highly flawed protocol(due to the slave mode clock recovery), so this strives for a more foolproof solution IMHO. Ah well, most DAC manufacturers go for a quick buck and don't care for I2S...so this will all end up being an egg/chicken situation I guess


 
   
  John Kenny does.  Admittedly that falls in the DIY camp, although most seem to think pretty highly of the work he does.

 EDIT:  Perhaps the issue is the lack of budget DACs with I2S?  I think it's just newer tech and will take some time for the market to mature.


----------



## leeperry

bobeau said:


> Perhaps the issue is the lack of budget DACs with I2S?  I think it's just newer tech and will take some time for the market to mature.


 
   
  Well, m2tech ask $495 for a dumbed down DAC using a cheap opamp in its output stage off a SMPS wall wart...but yeah, it's got a I2S input: http://www.m2tech.biz/evo_dac.html
   
  Its I2S input is very obviously a gimmick of the worst kind...I love how this company always tries to hide the forest behind the trees, the same way they kept calling the hiface "low jitter" but never ever bothered providing any measurement.
   
  I2S is not new(circa 1986), S/PDIF is several decades old too...it's all going so sloooow =/


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





cpalcott said:


> Clean USB out of PC
> 
> Is there any kind of consensus about how to get the cleanest signal possible over USB out of a PC? Some methods:
> 
> ...


 

 Without someone doing measurements, we can't know for sure. I don't know about the Olimex only passing audio up to 96k. USB Isolation has nothing to do with the USB signal. What is isolated is the power supply. I power my isolater using the PSU from the Audio-gd Digital Interface. I need to try other things though I think to see if I can hear any difference.
   
  As for a USB cable with no power line, the computer wont recognise the device and think nothing is connected.


----------



## drez

I think the issue is that all of these USB isolators only work at full speed USB not high speed, so the limiting factor is the speed that the isolator will allow.
   
  IMO I havent seen any indication why the green key is any different to other USB usb isolators apart from who made it.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I2S is not new(circa 1986), S/PDIF is several decades old too...it's all going so sloooow =/


 

 Sorry, that was ambiguous - by newer tech I was speaking to usb convertors and the idea that computer as a source can actually be competitive with audiophile transports.  Before it always seemed to be giving up SQ for convenience... 
   
  Thanks for the pointer on the M2Tech DAC, was not aware of that.  Even if it's junky as least it's a start, and the price is right


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think the issue is that all of these USB isolators only work at full speed USB not high speed, so the limiting factor is the speed that the isolator will allow.
> 
> IMO I havent seen any indication why the green key is any different to other USB usb isolators apart from who made it.


 
   
  It's not an issue with USB 2.0, which the Isolator is. USB type labelling leaves much to be desired, as it can be confusing. From Wikipedia:
   
   
  Quote: 





> The original USB 1.0 specification, which was introduced in January 1996, defined data transfer rates of 1.5 Mbit/s "Low Speed" and 12 Mbit/s "Full Speed".[3] The first widely used version of USB was 1.1, which was released in September 1998. The 12 Mbit/s data rate was intended for higher-speed devices such as disk drives, and the lower 1.5 Mbit/s rate for low data rate devices such as joysticks.[4]


 
   
  USB 2.0 is labelled on devices as "USB Hi-Speed" and easily has enough bandwidth for 192 kbit/sec audio.
   
  Good point though about checking the capabilities of devices, however it's mainly an issue with S/PDIF and AES converters, as not all have the necessary clocks to handle the different audio rates (44.1, 48 and multiples of those).


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think the issue is that all of these USB isolators only work at full speed USB not high speed, so the limiting factor is the speed that the isolator will allow.
> 
> IMO I havent seen any indication why the green key is any different to other USB usb isolators apart from who made it.


 

 According to Vaunix, the Lab Brick does basically everything possible will still allowing for maximum USB 2.0 speed. Any more filtering, and you lose 480mbit capability. My hunch is that the Lab Brick powered by something like a Hynes linear PS (or a battery supply) in place of the wall wart is probably best, though I'd definitely like to see a comparison vs. the SoTM card and some of the other devices.
   
  You can cut the powerline from the source, but that 5V still has to be supplied from somewhere.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Where would one look for that Hynes linear PS? And what type exactly would be needed for the Vaunix?


----------



## leeperry

drez said:


> I havent seen any indication why the green key is any different to other USB usb isolators apart from who made it.


 
   
  As usual, implementation is everything. I compared several dongles on the Firestone Bravo(+Supplier DPS) and the Olimex sounded the best to my ears...but it wasn't either designed or specifically meant to be used on audio gear. This is the first commercial audiophile USB Isolator I'm seeing.
   


currawong said:


> Good point though about checking the capabilities of devices, however it's mainly an issue with S/PDIF and AES converters, as not all have the necessary clocks to handle the different audio rates (44.1, 48 and multiples of those).


 
   
  I'm not a math geek, but I believe you can't transport more than 24/96 over 12MBit/s...that's how I understood it anyway.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Where would one look for that Hynes linear PS? And what type exactly would be needed for the Vaunix?


 

 You order them from Paul's website. Bolder Cables also makes linear supplies, but they are more expensive. According to the Lab Brick website, the AC adapter is 12V, 24W. Unless I'm mistaken, that works out to 2A, which both the Hynes and Bolder supplies can do at 12V without any problem.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I found his site, thanks.
  I see he has a 12V model SR1-12 Supply, but it's listed at 0.6 A so I guess that won't work?
  I checked the wallwart thing that came with it and it has 0.5A input and 2A output.
  Those US plugs are indeed dangerous, managed to elctrocute myself while plugging it back in.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I found his site, thanks.
> I see he has a 12V model SR1-12 Supply, but it's listed at 0.6 A so I guess that won't work?


 

 Paul makes all kinds of stuff that he doesn't list on his site, I think you'd just have to ask for a 2A+ supply.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> As usual, implementation is everything. I compared several dongles on the Firestone Bravo(+Supplier DPS) and the Olimex sounded the best to my ears...but it wasn't either designed or specifically meant to be used on audio gear. This is the first commercial audiophile USB Isolator I'm seeing.


 

 I'll look forward to your review 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I can't get my Hiface to work with the OMLIEX isolator, not sure what to make with that.


----------



## bcwang

After being away from this thread for a while, I just caught up.  I wonder if Audioexcels has a faulty Audiophilleo.  It sounds like it got slaughtered by an OR4 in a test, but other posts he also seem to indicate it performs worse than a hiface in soundstage and close to other spdif sources in overall sound.  Pardon if I got that summary wrong, but that was my impression after reading these posts in reverse once.
   
  What would have been good is if Audioexcels takes a known good Audiophilleo that is broken in, powered with an AQVox (since we know the AP is sensitive to power supply), and directly connected it to the DAC.  This is pretty much as good as the AP will sound short of the battery pack mod as far as I know.  It wasn't clarified how the AP was powered in the comparison setup, as it could have been a highly noisy usb power while the OR4 had the advantage of it's own power supplies. 
   
  I myself use an AP2 with AQVox setup and it significantly outperforms other spdif output sources including various computer sound cards, motherboard spdif outputs, dvd/cd/blu-ray player digital outputs that I've tried.  The fact that Audioexcels finds the improvement minor to none makes me question if he indeed has a defective unit or if the AQVox supply makes so much difference that it is the missing link in his setup.  If the AQVox was also plugged into something that cleaned up the AC power that may help even more.
   
  Just my thoughts!


----------



## DigitalDirect

The soundstaging of the Audiophilleo is pretty much state of the art, as evaluated on my own $200K+ reference system and those of other audio enthusiasts.
   
  If the fellow thinks the hiFace (either the original or the Evo) sounds better, especially with respect to soundstaging, something isn't right, because they don't.  The jitter of the Audiophilleo is around 3 pS RMS, the hiFace original is perhaps 100X higher. Perhaps it's some kind of media player gotcha... garbage in, garbage out?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2
   
  I was just discussing this with my buddy this evening and we're just flabbergasted by the lii' grey wonder.
   
  Here's what I said about it in another posting:
   
  "I continue to be amazed, awe struck, mesmerized by how the AP2 compliments the Wyred 4 Sound DAC. I concur with the title for Amine's review, "…The Missing Link." I recall first hearing the (second) Sheffield Labs direct to disc recording of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Guests, "The Missing Linc." In the day, it was the standard bearer for what was to come. The Audiophilleo makes a similar impression!"   
   
  Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> The soundstaging of the Audiophilleo is pretty much state of the art, as evaluated on my own $200K+ reference system and those of other audio enthusiasts.
> 
> If the fellow thinks the hiFace (either the original or the Evo) sounds better, especially with respect to soundstaging, something isn't right, because they don't.  The jitter of the Audiophilleo is around 3 pS RMS, the hiFace original is perhaps 100X higher. Perhaps it's some kind of media player gotcha... garbage in, garbage out?


----------



## Currawong

I've pretty much decided that if I decide to attempt to better the AP, I'll get an OffRamp 5 and set up a direct I2S connection inside my Reference 7.1.


----------



## shamu144

What would it take to mod the Ref 7.1 to accept I2S ?

 More than I2S itself, I find attractive the possibility to send a software upsampled signal at 24/192 (could it take 24/384) and run the PCM1704 in NOS mode, hence playing with digital filters.
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> I've pretty much decided that if I decide to attempt to better the AP, I'll get an OffRamp 5 and set up a direct I2S connection inside my Reference 7.1.


----------



## Currawong

The DSP board's input and output is via I2S I'm pretty sure, so all it would take is to rig a riser where I2S input isn't connected so it can be bypassed. I have two BNC inputs on mine, using the full-size Neutrik sockets, so I can swap one out for an RJ45 jack for I2S if I want in the future, though I'd probably consider wiring it directly to a short external cable, as I'm sure the fewer connections, the better.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





bcwang said:


> After being away from this thread for a while, I just caught up.  I wonder if Audioexcels has a faulty Audiophilleo.  It sounds like it got slaughtered by an OR4 in a test, but other posts he also seem to indicate it performs worse than a hiface in soundstage and close to other spdif sources in overall sound.  Pardon if I got that summary wrong, but that was my impression after reading these posts in reverse once.
> 
> What would have been good is if Audioexcels takes a known good Audiophilleo that is broken in, powered with an AQVox (since we know the AP is sensitive to power supply), and directly connected it to the DAC.  This is pretty much as good as the AP will sound short of the battery pack mod as far as I know.  It wasn't clarified how the AP was powered in the comparison setup, as it could have been a highly noisy usb power while the OR4 had the advantage of it's own power supplies.
> 
> ...


 
  Break in was not the problem, unless I needed 1000 vs. 300 hours or something...
   
  I found the AP2 to be quite clean/clear/detailed vs. the Hiface...maybe it was designed to equalize the upper midrange section?  Hiface sounds much more like a "regular" transport.  So maybe people love the AP2 because it emphasizes certain regions their speakers are poor at, while the Hiface sounds so much more subdued and lacking life by comparison?  I don't know, but I didn't care much about comparing the two since neither is a finalized solution for my setup.
   
  Against the Off Ramps and Overdrive DAC, the AP2 was aggressive in that fairly similar, but stretching a bit more into the treble region.  All in all, however, it was vastly inferior in every single way to the Off-Ramp 4/5 and Overdrive DAC.
   
  I know that even an Off-Ramp 3 (Steve says this cannot compete in any way whatsoever with even a standard OR4) was night/day better for one of only two I AP2's I have ever seen for sale on the used.  We're talking a very old product here in the OR3.  Two people sent theirs back because a sound card was superior for their system.  
   
  But on a whole, with the used market being a solid indicator, I have seen two AP2's total for sale, that one with the person and his OR3 being far superior, and another than didn't think it was as good as his 3K pro-audio based transport+bigger buck DAC, but said it was amazing value and an exceptional product.  It goes to say/show that the AP2 is, even without the AQVox, for 99% of the buyers, something amazing for the money.
   
  At this point with USB audio, I would have to take in an OR5 with a money back guarantee to see just what the reference converter sounds like in my system.  I may not like it?  I have no idea until I can try it.  
   
  On a final note, the Monolith battery supply and NO supply was used with the Off-Ramp or the DAC in the listening session.  They were fed the exact same ac power as the AP2.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





digitaldirect said:


> The soundstaging of the Audiophilleo is pretty much state of the art, as evaluated on my own $200K+ reference system and those of other audio enthusiasts.
> 
> If the fellow thinks the hiFace (either the original or the Evo) sounds better, especially with respect to soundstaging, something isn't right, because they don't.  The jitter of the Audiophilleo is around 3 pS RMS, the hiFace original is perhaps 100X higher. Perhaps it's some kind of media player gotcha... garbage in, garbage out?


 
   
  Disregard what I said about the Hiface.  
   
  Let me ask you:
    
  1) Do you know how to measure jitter correctly?  Do you know how jitter is measured by companies and even reviewers, etc. people out there that provide the specs?  Do you know how jitter affects the sound?  Your 3pS spec is an interesting one.  I believe the OR4 measured over 300pS, yet, it makes the AP2 sound...poor...
   
  2) Since the Jitter specs mean so much to you, why do you have a 200K system?  Every component in your system can be equaled or bested by cheap priced components.  Your interest in jitter is nice, but in order to follow suit with your scientific argument, your system should cost $1-2K max since this amount should easily be enough to have the measurements to meet or beat a cost no object system.


----------



## FauDrei

Yes, I believe he knows...


----------



## RedBull

Sorry if this has been asked before.  Has anyone tried the digital volume control on the Audiophileo 1?
   
  Is it any good?  I'm a bit skeptic when I head 'digital volume control' and 'dither' though.
   
  I'm very interested to 'correct' my amp slightly channel imbalance.
   
  Thanks!


----------



## Audioexcels

I think the volume control does interact/interfere a little with the bit perfect concept, but it is said to be just fine all in all.  But this is just from what I have read so there should be more around here with the AP1 that would know how or if they think it does an adequate job.  It seems like a very very simple/basic design so I don't see why it would mess things up at all and should be transparent enough that you wouldn't notice much a difference?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I think the volume control does interact/interfere a little with the bit perfect concept, but it is said to be just fine all in all.  But this is just from what I have read so there should be more around here with the AP1 that would know how or if they think it does an adequate job.  It seems like a very very simple/basic design so I don't see why it would mess things up at all and should be transparent enough that you wouldn't notice much a difference?


 

 If it's anything like the digital volume controls on DACs, bits of resolution are thrown away as attenuation increases. If the source is 24/96 that's not much of an issue, but if it's redbook the damage could start to become noticeable. It's not a suitable replacement for a high quality linestage.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> If it's anything like the digital volume controls on DACs, bits of resolution are thrown away as attenuation increases. If the source is 24/96 that's not much of an issue, but if it's redbook the damage could start to become noticeable. It's not a suitable replacement for a high quality linestage.


 

 I'm pretty sure that's the case... is there any other way of altering volume in the digital domain?


----------



## RedBull

Ah, so it's still the same concept with digital volume control, it will affect resolution. 

Anybody has heard it for sure? I'm expecting miracles here


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> If it's anything like the digital volume controls on DACs, bits of resolution are thrown away as attenuation increases. If the source is 24/96 that's not much of an issue, but if it's redbook the damage could start to become noticeable. It's not a suitable replacement for a high quality linestage.


 

 The way I understand things, it is rather the opposite. A 24 bit DAC would allow you to use digital attenuation without loss (up to some degree) on 16/44 RBCD material, while there would be an immediate loss of resolution with 24/96 material.
   
  Here is a (theoretical) example.
   
  Let's assume that we live in a perfect world in which DACs and ADCs have actual 24 bit level of resolution, for the sake of simplicity. [Very few DACs and ADCs actually exceed the 20 bits resolution].
  24 bit of resolution means that we have a dynamic range of 144 db.
  16/44 RBCD has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 db.
  So, if one is using a 24 bit dac to read 16/44 material, one can have up to 48 db (144db - 96db) of digital attenuation before hitting the resolution of the 16/44 RBCD material, if the math of the digital attenuation is done correctly.
   
  However, we don't live in a perfect world and most DACs have a 120 db resolution limit, so we are down to 28 db of digital attenuation before decimation of 16 bits material. Moreover, DACs do not have a perfect low level linearity. For example, a 120 db DAC might be perfectly linear at -60db but deviate from linearity with 3 or 5 dbs at -110d for example (those interested can check Stereophile measurements of DACs linearity for real world examples).
  That is to say that a 28 db of digital attenuation might actually degrade the sound more than we suspect at first sight. While there might be zero loss at the digital domain if the math is done properly, there will be losses at the DAC output.
   
  Does this means that digital attenuation is evil? Well, if one wishes to listen to different material at different volume levels, one ought to use some kind of attenuation. Analog attenuation (whether it is via a regular volume potentiometer, a stepped attenuator...) at the attenuation stage will also create losses of resolution.
   
  The only good thing coming out of this is if the attenuation (whether digital or analog) is done properly won't be noticed much since we are talking about the lowest levels of the recordings. We are loosing what we won't be listening to anyway. So if the overall gain of the system is not too high, attenuating won't be much of an issue as long as one is using an excellent digital attenuation software or a quality linestage. From what I have read, it seems that the AP1 is using a good digital attenuation algorithm, which shouldn't be too difficult to do anyway.
   
  One last thing, whether the digital attenuation is done at 24, 32 or 64 bits, the weakest link is still the analog output of a DAC. So when people read that a certain DAC has a 32 bit digital volume level implementation, people should keep in mind the actual resolution of a DAC and the effect of the digital attenuation on the low level resolution of the DAC.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> A 24 bit DAC would allow you to use digital attenuation without loss (up to some degree) on 16/44 RBCD material,


 

 Great writeup.  But isn't this only true if you upsample?  A 16 bit stream otherwise played on a DAC capable of much more will be still 16 bits, just padded with a bunch of 0s, no?


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Great writeup.  But isn't this only true if you upsample?  A 16 bit stream otherwise played on a DAC capable of much more will be still 16 bits, just padded with a bunch of 0s, no?


 


  From my understanding, upsampling has nothing to do bit depth resolution in the context explained above. What I said about digital attenuation is true whether we are talking about 44.1K, 48K, ... or 384K.
  Meanwhile it is true only when there is no upsampling; indeed, as soon as you start upsampling, you are creating a new file and presenting something else to the DAC chip. Some DACs behave differently whether they are used at 44.1K or 192K (the Benchmark DAC upsamples all incoming streams to 110KHz because their DAC chip performs best at that particular frequency according to its designers).
 So I should have probably been more specific, by saying that we are attenuating for instance a 16/44 stream using a 24/44 calculation.
   
  Regarding what you said about a 16 bit stream played by a 16+ bit DAC, I do agree with what you said to some extent. The 16 bit data won't be magically transformed to something else just because it is played by a 24 or 32 bit DAC (i.e there will be no creation of new data).
  However, by looking at how dac chips behave, presenting a 16 bit stream padded to 24 bits can in some cases provide with better results at the analog outputs. Let's us take the PCM1704 dac chip for instace: if you look at page 4 of its data sheet (see here: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1704.pdf), you can see that the same -110 db signal looks like a sine wave when played at 24 bits but is barely recognizable when played at 20 bits. Given that the -110 db is above the noise floor of both 20 bit and 24 signals, it shouldn't matter if the DAC behaved similarly whether it was fed with 16, 20 or 24 bit data.
  As a result, padding with a bunch of 0s and presenting a 24 bit stream (of 16 bit file) to a 24+ bit DAC _might_ change or improve the sound under some specific conditions.
  I hope this helps answering your question.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Great writeup.  But isn't this only true if you upsample?  A 16 bit stream otherwise played on a DAC capable of much more will be still 16 bits, just padded with a bunch of 0s, no?


 

 And the AP1 doesn't upsample unless I'm mistaken. That's why I think the digital volume control is more of a concern with redbook files at the converter level rather than the DAC level. As I understand it, just as most "24bit" DACs are not actually 24bit, neither are 24bit recordings - they don't actually use all of that available range so it's not an issue to throw away 3 or 4 bits on what may actually be a 20bit recording anyway. Taking a 16bit recording down to 12bits is more problematic.
   
  My guess is that a $500 passive preamp and the AP2 would likely outperform the AP1 and its internal volume control.


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> As I understand it, just as most "24bit" DACs are not actually 24bit, neither are 24bit recordings - they don't actually use all of that available range so it's not an issue to throw away 3 or 4 bits on what may actually be a 20bit recording anyway. Taking a 16bit recording down to 12bits is more problematic.


 

  
  It is actually the other way around as I explained earlier. If you use digital attenuation on a true 20 bit recording playing on a true 20 bit DAC, you will start throwing away bits as soon as you attenuate.
   
  If you attenuate a 16 bit recording with a true 20 bits DAC, you have 24 db of possible digital attenuation before you start decimating the actual data in the 16 bit recording (assuming there is even data recorded at the 16bit/96db level). It is very simple math as long as the digital attenuation is done properly (which is the case of the AP1).
   
  I have chosen the AP2 because I didn't need the extra features of the AP1 (and because I could eventually attenuate digitally by a media player). However, it is simply wrong to imply that using digital attenuation will involve decimation of 16 bit data played on a 20/24 bits  DAC as soon as you start attenuating.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> the same -110 db signal looks like a sine wave when played at 24 bits but is barely recognizable when played at 20 bits. Given that the -110 db is above the noise floor of both 20 bit and 24 signals, it shouldn't matter if the DAC behaved similarly whether it was fed with 16, 20 or 24 bit data.


 
   
  Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding, but if a -110db signal is > 24 bits, then doesn't that mean it's being fed by a > 24 bit signal?  Shouldn't we be looking for discrepencies at graphs for -90db?  This idea seems further played out by running the -120 graphs where more havoc is wreaked by running at 24 and 20 (where it's just about flatlined).  
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> And the AP1 doesn't upsample unless I'm mistaken.


 

 It doesn't, but your source can.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> If you attenuate a 16 bit recording with a true 20 bits DAC, you have 24 db of possible digital attenuation before you start decimating the actual data in the 16 bit recording (assuming there is even data recorded at the 16bit/96db level). It is very simple math as long as the digital attenuation is done properly (which is the case of the AP1).
> 
> I have chosen the AP2 because I didn't need the extra features of the AP1 (and because I could eventually attenuate digitally by a media player). However, it is simply wrong to imply that using digital attenuation will involve decimation of 16 bit data played on a 20/24 bits  DAC as soon as you start attenuating.


 
   
  This makes sense to me if the attenuation is happening at the DAC level. What I'm confused about is if the attenuation is happening at the converter level, before it reaches the DACs input stage. If the volume is already reduced by the AP1 before it even reaches the DAC, isn't the DAC seeing an already reduced bitrate at its input stage? In other words, isn't it impossible to send both volume reduced _and _a bit perfect 16/44 signal to the DAC?


----------



## slim.a

This is going a little bit out of topic, so this my last post on the subject (in order to not derail this thread). There is plenty of material out there for those wishing to really learn about digital attenuation and its effect on the signal.
  
   
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> I'm confused.  If a -110db signal is > 24 bits, then doesn't that mean it's being fed by a > 24 bit signal?  Shouldn't we be looking for discrepencies at graphs for -90db?  This idea seems further played out by running the -120 graphs where more havoc is wreaked by running at 24 and 20 (where it's just about flatlined).
> 
> This just seems too much like free lunch.  Either you attenuate in the digital (alter data) or analog (alter signal).  A bunch of 0s offers no data to alter.
> 
> ...


 

 -110 db = 18.3 bit * 6 db/bit : in other words -110 db = 18.3 bit of resolution
  -120 db = 20 bit * 6 db/bit : in other words -120 db = 20 bit resolution
  - 144 db = 24 bit * 6 db/bit : in other words -144 db = 24 bit of resolution
   
  So you see, you can clearly resolve a -110 db signal with a 20 or 24 bit DAC.
  Moreover, have you ever looked at a graph of a 16 bit signal? The actual noise is at around -130 db. The 96 db SNR/DR is done through some calculation.
   
  There is no free lunch here, if you had read carefully my first post on the subject. I mentioned the non linearity of the DAC which would make an attenuated signal come out different from the non-attenuated signal in its lowest bits.
  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This makes sense to me if the attenuation is happening at the DAC level. What I'm confused about is if the attenuation is happening at the converter level, before it reaches the DACs input stage. If the volume is already reduced by the AP1 before it even reaches the DAC, isn't the DAC seeing an already reduced bitrate at its input stage? In other words, isn't it impossible to send both volume reduced _and _a bit perfect 16/44 signal to the DAC?


 
  The DAC is not seeing a reduced bitrate at its input stage.
   
  Let's say we start with a 16/44.1 file. Let's say we attenuate digitally with 6db through a perfect 24 bit software (it is actually very easy to do - 6db in digital attenuation). And let's say we output the resulting file in 24/44.1
   
  What we are actually doing is that the DAC is paradoxically seeing an increased bitrate incoming stream from the original 16 to the attenuated 24 bits. The change is in the peak level of the files! If the peak level in the 16/44 was 0db (full scale), the peak level in the attenuated 24 bit file would be - 6 db!
  That is how it works, digital attenuation does not mean that you are outputting a file a reduced bitrate; what you are doing is creating a file with a reduced peak level! Depending on the behavior of the DAC chip to different bit depth streams and the level of attenuation, the result is different.


----------



## bobeau

Okay, so I guess I stand to be corrected on this 
   
  This seems to explain the phenomena rather simply
   
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm


----------



## pompon

Here is my ultimate solution for quality.
   
  Active USB HUB powered with a battery pack.
  Battery are 6 x 1.2 volts NIMH (2100ma)
  Friend made me a small circuit (resistor + regulator 5volts) to give clean power for my Hub.
  While the hub don't take the current from the USB, the sound quality is greatly improved.

   
  - Darker background
  - More details (without adding global brightness)
  - Smooth musical presentation very natural and and in control
   
  * Why 2 adaptors on the circuits ... ? I tested 2 kind of battery and they used different connector.
   
  It was a proof of concept to evaluate if I could get even better and this is the case. I will test soon a linear lab powersupply like mastek (http://www.electronicsandradios.com/wpimages/variable-dc-power-supply-hy6003d.jpg) to see if I can bring things close to my battery pack.
   
  My solution is not ideal because this battery pack could probably power hub+ap2 for 5-15 hrs ... I don't know exactly ... so it's not a plug + forget solution.  But it's pretty amazing !


----------



## bcwang

That looks like a Deans Ultra connector. Was your second pack an RC racing pack? Maybe a 6 cell Nimh or Lipo pack? Did it not perform as well for some reason?


----------



## MayaTlab

Do we have any news about when the battery pack is supposed to be ready ? I read somewhere it was going to be released somewhere around late january / early february - and still nothing.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





pompon said:


> Here is my ultimate solution for quality.
> 
> Active USB HUB powered with a battery pack...
> 
> ...


 


   
  That sounds encouraging. Are the improvements worth taking further? How about a Red Wine PS?


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> That sounds encouraging. Are the improvements worth taking further? How about a Red Wine PS?


 
   
  Along those lines this might interest some folks:
   
  - 5v battery powered supply tested with audiophilleo
  - powers audiophilleo for approx 12 hours
  - flip a switch to use/recharge, takes 7 hours to recharge
  - caveat: must supply a dual usb cable to power the audiophilleo and cut the power leg on the source as it's a ps only (doesn't pass a signal)
  - also includes dc jack which the battery powered version of the audiphilleo is supposed to use
  - under $200
   
  http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews/item/339-kingrex-upower-5v-li-ion-battery-usb-psu


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Along those lines this might interest some folks:
> 
> - 5v battery powered supply tested with audiophilleo
> - powers audiophilleo for approx 12 hours
> ...


 


   
  Could this be used to power the "Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub" I have as well?
  It is now powered with a 12V - 24W AC/DC wall adapter.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Could this be used to power the "Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub" I have as well?
> It is now powered with a 12V - 24W AC/DC wall adapter.


 

 Hmm... probably not, it says it supplies 7.5v on the dc jack.  And without knowing the specs of the battery powered audiophilleo it may not work for that either.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Could this be used to power the "Vaunix Lab Brick USB hub" I have as well?
> It is now powered with a 12V - 24W AC/DC wall adapter.


 

 The Red Wine 12V battery supply should work. I think B-P-T also custom makes 12V battery supplies.


----------



## Jon L

Does KingRex sell just the battery power supply by itself, and for how much?
   
  Doesn't seem much different from 5V/12V DC out Li battery packs like these from eBay, pretty cheap:
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Portable-DC-12V-3800mAH-USB-5V-5600mAH-Li-ion-Rechargeable-Battery-Pack-/290648646473?pt=US_Batteries&hash=item43ac026349#ht_5342wt_1590


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The Red Wine 12V battery supply should work. I think B-P-T also custom makes 12V battery supplies.


 

 quite a nice device the RWA. Quite pricey as well I see, especially with a few options.


----------



## bobeau

jon l said:


> Does KingRex sell just the battery power supply by itself, and for how much?
> 
> Doesn't seem much different from 5V/12V DC out Li battery packs like these from eBay, pretty cheap:
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Portable-DC-12V-3800mAH-USB-5V-5600mAH-Li-ion-Rechargeable-Battery-Pack-/290648646473?pt=US_Batteries&hash=item43ac026349#ht_5342wt_1590


 
   
  Nice!  Surprised no one has brought this up before.  

  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> quite a nice device the RWA. Quite pricey as well I see, especially with a few options.


 

 Check out the link above, 12v dc.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Ah, that's more like it! For that price i can give it a try with a few of my USB hubs.
  Thanks for the link!


----------



## pigmode

This raises the question of what exactly do you get for your money, with audiophile grade battery PSUs from the likes of Red Wine?


----------



## Currawong

I'm going to try the Vaunix USB hub, at a rather horrendous cost to see if it can give me the same result as what I'm using now, but allowing greater than 24/96 throughput.


----------



## Bloodoath

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I'm going to try the Vaunix USB hub, at a rather horrendous cost to see if it can give me the same result as what I'm using now, but allowing greater than 24/96 throughput.


 

 Good luck.  That's quite a bit more than I'd like to spend on a USB hub even for good audio.


----------



## pigmode

^ Lol, think of it as good audio with backup features. 
   
  I guess that solution requires an additional USB cable?


----------



## Bloodoath

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ^ Lol, think of it as good audio with backup features.
> 
> I guess that solution requires an additional USB cable?


 
  I believe it would.


----------



## bcwang

currawong said:


> I'm going to try the Vaunix USB hub, at a rather horrendous cost to see if it can give me the same result as what I'm using now, but allowing greater than 24/96 throughput.




Why not just get the AQVOX?


----------



## pigmode

Paul Hynes has a power supply that looks USB connector compatible. Its unclear whether he has or will continue to build such units, but the cost should be close to the Vaunix. 
   
   
  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=77837.0
  http://www.paulhynesdesign.com/page7.html


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





bcwang said:


> Why not just get the AQVOX?


 

 Further than that I would probably just hold off for now and wait for the improved AP casing to come out.  Getting power from the dc in rather than USB, which will be deactivated, could potentially offer greater sonic benefits.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


bobeau said:


> Further than that I would probably just hold off for now and wait for the improved AP casing to come out.  Getting power from the dc in rather than USB, which will be deactivated, could potentially offer greater sonic benefits.


 

 The idea's been in the pipeline for months now, with no signs of a finished product actually showing up on the market anytime in the near future.  Hard to say if it's worth the wait, given we don't know how long said wait will be.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> bobeau said:
> ...


 


   
  I was just about to pull the trigger on an A2--not sure what I'll do now. Otoh a $1k + Audiophilleo is not quite what I'm looking for at the moment. Or maybe it is. [shrugs]


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Hopefully, Phillip at Audiophilleo will provide an update soon. The battery supply was supposed to be ready the end of February... Not too many day's left for that.
   
  I know that he's disabling the regenerative power supply in the current models. Those of us with AP 1/2's will need to send them in for modification. My question is what would be the difference with just adding something like the Paul Hyne design, or the AQVox with the supply intact? Does the lower impedance of the battery supply make that much of a difference?


----------



## pigmode

Phillip just told me it will be available for order in a couple of days. Forgot to ask if that meant *ready to ship* (duh). Can anyone else take up the slack?


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


pigmode said:


> Phillip just told me it will be available for order in a couple of days.


 

 Thanks for the update.  I'll keep an eye on the website.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





bcwang said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's 240V. Japan is 100V. With this hub, I could use it with multiple devices.


----------



## pompon

Look my DAC ...
   
  I will try to remove my BNC connector and wire to solder directly a COAX cable. This way, I will not have to use adaptors at all ! Cheers !
   
  For fun, I tried BNC-RCA adaptor on my friend's DAC. After we tried his BNC-RCA gold plate adaptor and it's not the same sound. The gold give little bit less details but much more body and ambiance in the music. It's quite interesting to try and it's not expansive to tweek the coloration we prefer.


----------



## sphinxvc

Gaining interest in the AP2.  Subscribed.


----------



## pigmode

I decided to order the existing non-batt. powered A2 for several reasons.
   
  - the reported possibility for the elimination of direct USB input option on the revised A2
  - interest in a Hynes linear PS
  - question on recharge modality of the Audiophilleo batt. PSU. USB recharging would for me be a no-go.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm in a similar boat. I already have the AP2 and love the lil' gray box which hangs off my Wyred 4 Sound DAC.
   
  My question is, "Do you get the same benefits powering the AP2 (stock) with an external battery (or the Hynes), versus disabling the internal regenerative supply (mod required for operation with the new PurePower Battery)?
   
  From the looks of it, the Hynes linear PS will be a better source than any battery option due to its much lower impedance. However, does the internal regenerative PS (TDK) negate any benefits of the external supply?
   
  Do we have any power supply folks on the thread?   
   
  EDIT: From e-mail discussions with Phillip, the USB option will still be available, but the regenerative PS will be disabled. Without the PurePower Battery PS, the AP1/2 will receive whatever power is supplied from the source, possibly supplying noisy power, and thereby negating the benefits of isolation.   
  
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I decided to order the existing non-batt. powered A2 for several reasons.
> 
> - the reported possibility for the elimination of direct USB input option on the revised A2
> - interest in a Hynes linear PS
> - question on recharge modality of the Audiophilleo batt. PSU. USB recharging would for me be a no-go.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm in a similar boat. I already have the AP2 and love the lil' gray box which hangs off my Wyred 4 Sound DAC.
> 
> My question is, "Do you get the same benefits powering the AP2 (stock) with an external battery (or the Hynes), versus disabling the internal regenerative supply (mod required for operation with the new PurePower Battery)?
> 
> ...


 
   
   
   
  For my uses that would be de facto USB option disablement, and reliance on external power. 
   
  A Hynes PS with the existing A2 would use USB in/USB out, thereby retaining regenerative PS functionality. *My question is are there any concerns with the adding of a 2nd USB cable into the mix? *
   
  I'm interested in Phillips' solution to his PurePower implementation, in terms of the pathways of his digital and power connections. Will there be innovations and improvements, or just a workmanlike USB in/out?
   
  Edit: Is the PurePower A2 a one box solution? 
   
   
   
   
  [from Audiophilleo website]
   
 The regenerative power supply has these advantages:

 Critical S/PDIF output circuitry is isolated from noisy USB power, insuring consistent sound regardless of the computer used
 It provides galvanic isolation, so the output stage couples to the DAC without requiring a transformer.


----------



## sphinxvc

The lack of information on the upcoming models is unfortunate.  Hopefully the Audiophilleo site will be updated soon.  I'm somewhat in the same boat as others, wanting to pull the trigger but not knowing whether to wait.  My tax refund is itching to leave my bank account.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> The lack of information on the upcoming models is unfortunate.  Hopefully the Audiophilleo site will be updated soon.  I'm somewhat in the same boat as others, wanting to pull the trigger but not knowing whether to wait.  My tax refund is itching to leave my bank account.


 

 Off-Ramp 5s are always available


----------



## barbes

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> The lack of information on the upcoming models is unfortunate.  Hopefully the Audiophilleo site will be updated soon.  I'm somewhat in the same boat as others, wanting to pull the trigger but not knowing whether to wait.  My tax refund is itching to leave my bank account.


 


 I've been in e-mail contact with Philip at Audiophileo over the last week and he reports that the battery-powered version will be on sale (and live on his site) in a week or so.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


davebsc said:


> Off-Ramp 5s are always available


 






 ..a little too rich.
   
  Quote: 





barbes said:


> I've been in e-mail contact with Philip at Audiophileo over the last week and he reports that the battery-powered version will be on sale (and live on his site) in a week or so.


 

 Ah.  Anyone know how much the PS will be?  Around $500?  I think I read as much a few pages back, but I can't find it now to verify.  That's definitely too rich for me too -- perhaps it's better, as Pigmode said, to get the existing AP2 if you're NOT planning to get a PS?  (while retaining the option of buying a Hynes PS)


----------



## pigmode

I'll have to lower my earlier resistance to a USB recharge feature, partly because I should be able to use a cheap powered USB hub for recharging. The Wavelink HS, which also uses USB recharge, would be the other reason.  
   
  Here are Paul Hynes' thoughts in regard to using external power with the A2. Based on the questions raised, at this point I would be inclined not to look into any second party power solutions.
   
  The A2 (battery) looks more and more appealing, but its price range puts it in the category of the Wavelink, which I would have to consider in my upgrade choices.
   
   
   
   
   
  It would appear that the Audiophilleo 2 takes it’s power from USB and regenerates a new supply from this via a galvanically isolated arrangement.

 I have not inspected an Audiophilleo 2 so cannot comment on what would be required internally to patch an external supply into it and upgrade any on-board regulation.

 Regards
 Paul


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I've heard that the introductory price will be $399.  
      
   
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'll have to lower my earlier resistance to a USB recharge feature, partly because I should be able to use a cheap powered USB hub for recharging. The Wavelink HS, which also uses USB recharge, would be the other reason.
> 
> Here are Paul Hynes' thoughts in regard to using external power with the A2. Based on the questions raised, at this point I would be inclined not to look into any second party power solutions.
> 
> ...


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I've heard that the introductory price will be $399.


 


   
  The Wavelink HS is $.9k.
   
  Just got word that "around Wednesday" it should be available for order on the website. I have an A2 arriving Mon--what to do....


----------



## drez

Is that power supply AND AP2 or just power supply???


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The $399 is only for the PS. You'll still need the AP2. So, the total price will be closer to $1K. The price of the combined AP2 and the battery power supply are in the same ballpark as the Wavelength HS2 S/PDIF transport alone! On the face of it, the AP2 with the battery power supply looks to be a better financial investment. (Of course, Phillip still has to release the battery power supply!)
   
  My other concern with the W/HS is that it does not specify jitter specifications or conditions under which it is claimed, "WaveLink has significantly better jitter capabilities than most transports."


----------



## WarrenR

Hi all.
   
  Been keeping tabs on a AP for some time now.  Price has been one factor.  Also, the possible appearance of an updated AP.
   
  Now I have just scanned through the previous couple of pages I have seen that a new battery powered AP is imminent.  Some possibly mentioned a introductory offer for $399.
   
  This has really piqued my interest for sure.
   
  I take it info is scarse till this thing actually shows up on the AP website.
   
  I take it performance will be the same, if not better than the current AP?
   
  Cheers.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





warrenr said:


> Now I have just scanned through the previous couple of pages I have seen that a new battery powered AP is imminent.  Some possibly mentioned a introductory offer for $399.
> 
> Cheers.


 

 As Rdr. mentioned above, that is for only the actually battery pack.  The total cost will be about $1k.  
   
  Personally, I would try to get the new model with usb regen disabled and use one of the el cheapo battery packs listed a couple pages back (ie. around $30-40).


----------



## slim.a

I received the Aqvox USB power supply last week and I found the improvement (over regular USB power) to be quite interesting. It is both subtle and profound at the same time.
   
  First, while using the Wireworld Ultraviolet cable, there is almost no change in the tonal balance after adding the Aqvox power supply. By that, I mean that there is no obvious change in the bass/mids/highs section relative to each other. However, what changes is how smooth the high end becomes. On the other end of the spectrum, the bass didn't change much and became perhaps a little bit more defined.
   
  What did change however, after inserting the Aqvox USB power supply in the mix, is the harmonic richness and diversity of the Audiophilleo. The AP2 was already good, but things just got better.
   
  One of the most surpising new characteristics was the increase in details. The AP2 was already detailed, but with the Aqvox, it seemed even more detailed. Even though it is rather cliché, I started noticing new things on recordings I was already familiar with. To make sure, I wasn't just hallucinating an increase in details, I fired an old test CD, Soundrama - The Pulse. This test CD contains tracks of natural sounds recorded at extremely low levels (it is the only album where the max amplification in my system is barely enough). The end result is that differences in low level details between DACs become much more easier to spot. To cut a long story short, I noticed (repeatedly) new details that were very hard to distinguish previously.
   
  Finally, the soundstage increased considerably in depth. Curiously, the "front" of the soundstage remained stable but the depth increased tremendously. The width didn't change but the height and size of instruments became much better defined. This is especially noticeable with high quality recordings where you can not only guess with pinpoint accuracy the location of the instruments (and performers) but also their relative sizes without producing much effort.

 Overall, while the changes in each category can be qualified in the subtle category (the more transparent the components downstream, the more evident the change is), the overall change is rather substantial.
   
   
A few additional thoughts/observations:
   
  I believe that it was a nice idea from Aqvox to feed the power directly to the USB input and not feed it through the USB cable. In other words, it seems to me that Aqvox solution makes more sense than feeding the AP2 through a USB hub which involves the use of 2 USB cables and requires that the "clean" power supply goes through the USB cable. In theory their approach makes sense as there is no possible interference, no matter how small it might be, between the data and power lines of the USB cables. That is assuming that the AP2 is a perfect async device that is not affected by the data line of the USB cable, which brings me to the next point.
   
  Although I know that there is no clear explanation for it, I noticed a very small difference between my 2m/6ft Wireworld Ultraviolet USB cable and a 0.75m/2ft pure silver based cable, with the Aqvox in place. I ended up preferring the Ultraviolet one by a tiny margin but I find it very strange that an async device can still be affected by the quality of the USB cable (when the power supply is the same). It is mentioned in the 6moons Auralic ARK MX+ review that XMOS and TI usb chips use 4KB buffers while their own system use megabytes worth of buffer. Perhaps that with tiny buffers in the async devices, it is not as asynchronous as we might thing, which might explain why people have found differences with different OSs (OSx, Windows, Linux...) and different media players? In any case, regardless of the possible explanations, it is interesting to see that there is still room for improvement even though the AP2 was already decent sounding from the start.
   
  With the improvement brought by the Aqvox power supply, it is clear that the optional battery supply offered by Audiophilleo will be interesting. However, at those prices ($600 for the AP2 + $400 for the battery supply), the Audiophilleo becomes more expensive than the Wavelength usb converter and almost as expensive as the Empirical Audio Off ramp 5. I wonder how they will compare?


----------



## hifimiami

Thank you Slim, your article is excellent. I have been contemplating the purchase of an AP2 but have been hesitant because of the Power Supply issue. In my mind I cannot justify a $400 Power Supply for a $600 component. The AQVOX at $160 seems a more reasonable alternative.


----------



## bobeau

slim.a,
   
  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the AQVOX.  You echo my thoughts for the most part, it's subtle but effects so many things that on overall coherence it really makes it worth it if you compare it to the price of the AP2.  Esp if you've lived with it for some time and take it out of the chain you can really tell.
   
  My take on the difference in usb cables (I _think_ I notice it, but if so its rather subtle) is probably due to the construction of the cable, where the power and data are physically isolated due to the nature of the cable's flat construction.  I also have the ultraviolet and this is vs. the stock cable that comes with the AP2.  I think the best gains afa this goes probably can be had if you can disconnect the power fully from the computer side - there are pricy cables that isolate to two connectors, but one could probably take a stock cable and physically modify it.


----------



## sphinxvc

Can the aqvox be used with the updated version of the APs soon to be released?


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Can the aqvox be used with the updated version of the APs soon to be released?


 

 Unfortunately no, because the usb regen ps will be disabled.   The battery powered APs will be powered by a DC jack.


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The $399 is only for the PS. You'll still need the AP2. So, the total price will be closer to $1K. *The price of the combined AP2 and the battery power supply are in the same ballpark as the Wavelength HS2 S/PDIF transport alone! *On the face of it, the AP2 with the battery power supply looks to be a better financial investment. (Of course, Phillip still has to release the battery power supply!)
> 
> My other concern with the W/HS is that it does not specify jitter specifications or conditions under which it is claimed, "WaveLink has significantly better jitter capabilities than most transports."


 


  I'm not aware that the Wavelink has a successor. Interesting... because it's not in the main site.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





> With the improvement brought by the Aqvox power supply, it is clear that the optional battery supply offered by Audiophilleo will be interesting. However, at those prices ($600 for the AP2 + $400 for the battery supply), the Audiophilleo becomes more expensive than the Wavelength usb converter and almost as expensive as the Empirical Audio Off ramp 5. I wonder how they will compare?


 

 Excellent review as always.  In Steve from Empirical's system, I heard the OR4, OR5 (beta 1 stage...went to beta 2 stage, then now production stage), Overdrive DAC, and the AP2.  All cabling the same and no battery pack used for an of the Empirical stuff to keep things on equal level.  AP2 sounded like a "budget" device vs. a "sophisticated" device.  That's the only way I can put it.  To the benefit of the AP2, I'd be willing to bet the OR5 can handily beat the nearly $3K Sonicweld Diverter.

 Cheers and thanks again for the nice review and your excellent contributions as always!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Excellent review as always.  In Steve from Empirical's system, I heard the OR4, OR5 (beta 1 stage...went to beta 2 stage, then now production stage), Overdrive DAC, and the AP2.  All cabling the same and no battery pack used for an of the Empirical stuff to keep things on equal level.  AP2 sounded like a "budget" device vs. a "sophisticated" device.  That's the only way I can put it.  To the benefit of the AP2, I'd be willing to bet the OR5 can handily beat the nearly $3K Sonicweld Diverter.
> 
> Cheers and thanks again for the nice review and your excellent contributions as always!


 

 This is why I've always felt that the AP2 makes sense as a $500 device, but does not make sense as a nearly $1K device. It runs straight into the OR5, a fight which it will lose. I'm anxious to see the results of the planned shootout between the OR5 and the Diverter HR. I just don't see $3K in that thing.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm not sure I follow your logic. 
  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> This is why I've always felt that the AP2 makes sense as a $500 device, but does not make sense as a nearly $1K device. It runs straight into the OR5, a fight which it will lose. I'm anxious to see the results of the planned shootout between the OR5 and the Diverter HR. I just don't see $3K in that thing.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm not sure I follow your logic.


 

 About AP1 vs. OR5, or OR5 vs. Diverter?


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I'm anxious to see the results of the planned shootout between the OR5 and the Diverter HR. I just don't see $3K in that thing.


 


   
  I'm not. Steve (OR designer) has put too many set conditions into the ring, in an attempt to make a simple audition into a grudge match with his competition. Its distracting and quite off putting.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2. I'm skeptical of so-called "shootouts." Everyone gets into a tizzy, starts using it to justify a decision or not... 
  
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'm not. Steve (OR designer) has put too many set conditions into the ring, in an attempt to make a simple audition into a grudge match with his competition. Its distracting and quite off putting.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'm not. Steve (OR designer) has put too many set conditions into the ring, in an attempt to make a simple audition into a grudge match with his competition. Its distracting and quite off putting.


 


  Yes.  The only way to do a real/genuine shootout is to have the two setup in say, some best room of a show, and have people walk in and sit down for 10-20 minutes, and write down what they hear under a/b switching conditions.  This way you have completely unbiased information.  If you have a shootout where things have to be setup as the designer wants them to be setup, then it's obviously a pointless and unfair situation.
   
  Did you get a chance to have a listen to the AP2 yet and if so, how do you like it so far?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

And I wonder about the motivation--is it for a personal decision, or? Seems if it's based on a decision on which one to get, an arrangement with the vendor's would be simpler. Indeed, that's what my wife does with Zappos and shoes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...  
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Yes.  The only way to do a real/genuine shootout is to have the two setup in say, some best room of a show, and have people walk in and sit down for 10-20 minutes, and write down what they hear under a/b switching conditions.  This way you have completely unbiased information.  If you have a shootout where things have to be setup as the designer wants them to be setup, then it's obviously a pointless and unfair situation.
> 
> Did you get a chance to have a listen to the AP2 yet and if so, how do you like it so far?


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Did you get a chance to have a listen to the AP2 yet and if so, how do you like it so far?


 


   
  I had a huge scare last night and early this morning. Initial set up was to a 5' bluejeans BNC cable (DAC end: BNC > RCA adaptor). The sound was a nightmare with imaging all scrunched up, the mids and HF pushed forward and blaring, and the bass loose and flabby. Almost unlistenable. This with the same cable that allowed my MK3 JKSPDIF to perform so well.
   
  The A2 direct connection was set up with a DAC end BNC > RCA adaptor. It sounds like most or all issues were instantly resolved. It would also seem that I am now hearing the A2, rather than the effects of the SPDIF connection, which might be guessed (?)  as a lesson in impedance mismatching between cable length and connector terminations on the component end. 
   
  The A2's mids and highs are still more forward that the JK MK3, but not overwhelmingly with quality recordings. I will let it settle in for the next 150 hr.
   
   
   
   
   
   
  * See disclaimer in my sig. 
   
  Parametric equalizer settings Amarra
   
 f 2500, dB 2.5, Q 1.8
 f 6000, dB 1.0, Q 1.0
 f 7500, dB 1.0, Q 1.0
 f 10450, dB 5.0, Q 1.8


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> And I wonder about the motivation--is it for a personal decision, or? Seems if it's based on a decision on which one to get, an arrangement with the vendor's would be simpler. *Indeed, that's what my wife does with Zappos and shoes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 LOL about your wife)  She should stick with 6pm...it's a better price IMHO.
   
  I think the motivation thing is something to be considered because in the end, even if we declared a best of USB converters, would it even matter?  Would it boost the ego of the product maker?  In the end, if it was declared as the best USB converter, but people had conflicting feelings about it as they do with ANY product that arrives on the market, it would hurt any future sales for that company and/or make them highly suspect.
   
  For me, I know the Off Ramp is the very best out there in the category of USB converters.  There may be something that can equal it, with the differences coming down to subtleties and personal preference.  AP2 is just not on the same playing field.  I was hoping it would be just for the sake of money savings, but also because in many cases, I have heard cost no object or claims of best in the world systems, and they were far from being that (and something I would never even own!).  Unfortunately, just wasn't the case for the AP2, though I still have continued interest in the product because people such as Slim or the user that mentioned the hub concept, the battery pack just about to become available, etc. etc.  I will not own one again, but it does not mean I cannot enjoy reading about how others are enjoying it, and what stuff is learned along the way to help improve it.  It's nice to see people happy in the end!


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> *I had a huge scare last night and early this morning. Initial set up was to a 5' bluejeans BNC cable (DAC end: BNC > RCA adaptor). The sound was a nightmare with imaging all scrunched up, the mids and HF pushed forward and blaring, and the bass loose and flabby. Almost unlistenable.* This with the same cable that allowed my MK3 JKSPDIF to perform so well.
> 
> The A2 direct connection was set up with a DAC end BNC > RCA adaptor. It sounds like most or all issues were instantly resolved. It would also seem that I am now hearing the A2, rather than the effects of the SPDIF connection, which might be guessed (?)  as a lesson in impedance mismatching between cable length and connector terminations on the component end.
> 
> The A2's mids and highs are still more forward that the JK MK3, but not overwhelmingly with quality recordings. I will let it settle in for the next 150 hr.


 
   
  Perfectly described in my case when I used the AP2 directly connected.  I actually wondered if I shouldn't have been as lazy as I was and purchased a BNC-Female RCA to run a coax cable into it since I love his coax cable that I have.  I'm glad you got things in order quickly enough!!!  Most have said the burn in helped deal with that initial "bite" of the AP2, so it should sound good once settled in.  Depending on your setup, you could even try to go direct in on the USB side as well...
   
  Did you ever try the MK3 with a direct connect vs. using a coax cable?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

One of the benefits of the AP device is the elimination of the cable, as well as the cost of the cable (not that a good digital cable is all that expensive). The AP2 default is no cable; the AP1 is adjustable. Are you patching this to the Neko? 
   
  It will be interesting to hear what you think about it after you run it in a bit, and have grown accustomed to the difference.
   
  Let us know how things progress!  
   

  
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I had a huge scare last night and early this morning. Initial set up was to a 5' bluejeans BNC cable (DAC end: BNC > RCA adaptor). The sound was a nightmare with imaging all scrunched up, the mids and HF pushed forward and blaring, and the bass loose and flabby. Almost unlistenable. This with the same cable that allowed my MK3 JKSPDIF to perform so well.
> 
> The A2 direct connection was set up with a DAC end BNC > RCA adaptor. It sounds like most or all issues were instantly resolved. It would also seem that I am now hearing the A2, rather than the effects of the SPDIF connection, which might be guessed (?)  as a lesson in impedance mismatching between cable length and connector terminations on the component end.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

6pm... I don't know if I want to show her another shoe site... and I don't _believe_ she frequent's Head-Fi, so I'm safe for now (fingers crossed). 
   
  The AP2 was the starting point for me and not having heard any of the Empirical devices from Steve, I'm not sure I want to start, yet. It would mean the possibility of having to go through all the sell, buy, upgrade thingy. I'm trying to simplify. I'll give Phillip's battery PS a whirl and see what difference it makes. 
   
  However, my experience with the AP2 has been very positive so far, and I'm convinced that unless you use the I2S (via HDMI, and a possibility with the OR) or some kind of a S/PDIF transport (for me, the AP2), the sound quality possible with the Wyred 4 Sound DAC will not be realized. So, the AP2 is a permanent fixture/requirement for that DAC. In my buddies six figure system, the lil' AP2 is a revelation. 
   
  It sounds like there may be some synergies going on in these systems. Mine, and my buddy's reference system in a custom Rives Audio designed media room, use extensive power conditioning, including the power to the CPU's (Mac's) used for data streaming. Steve N. at Empirical seems to emphasize the need for proper power for his devices with options for battery and Hynes. So, it will be interesting to see where Phillip's battery supply takes his AP1/2 devices.
   
  Of course, if you're just starting out, based on the $ alone, it makes a lot of sense to give the OR stuff a priority, especially if you can swing the ($) change. Who knows, maybe I'll end up there too. 
   
   
  Quote: 





> !
> 
> Originally Posted by *Audioexcels* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...


----------



## sphinxvc

Pigmode, really looking forward to more thoughts from you on the AP - especially compared to the Jkeny.


----------



## pigmode

^  I am happy enough with it already, to think the PurePower PS might be a good upgrade . Time will tell, as I will *probably* not early adopt.
   
Also:
  - Did not try the JKenny with direct connection.
  - I am using the A2 connected to the Neko SPDIF RCA.
   
   
  I'm still interested in the OR5. If one is looking at these devices how can you not be? At the same time I'm hoping and expecting CDPs with similar clocking technology already built in. We shall see.
   
  Its too bad Empirical isn't following the same model as Audiophilleo, TTVJ/Millet, Neko and others who are promoting @ home auditions. There is a market consisting of audio enthusiasts who given the chance of auditioning within their own systems, will jump up and buy components they otherwise might not have gambled on. I'm one of them having unexpectedly bought my Millet Arete/Volcano and Neko D100 after such auditions.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

As a starting point, the AP2 reveals what is possible with these types of transports. And who knows what the PurePower PS will provide.
   
  Considering that the AP devices provide the most comprehensive and the lowest jitter of all the USB converters currently available (one of, if not the primary claimed benefit of all these types of devices), it would be an interesting study on what specific mechanisms make the most difference from a sound quality perspective. Some members mention, here and elsewhere, that the OR is audibly superior. If the AP bests it from a jitter perspective, what are the other parameters that make up the difference? Is it RF? Power? USB implementation? 
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ^  I am happy enough with it already, to think the PurePower PS might be a good upgrade . Time will tell, as I will *probably* not early adopt.
> 
> Also:
> - Did not try the JKenny with direct connection.
> ...


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I had a huge scare last night and early this morning. Initial set up was to a 5' bluejeans BNC cable (DAC end: BNC > RCA adaptor). The sound was a nightmare with imaging all scrunched up, the mids and HF pushed forward and blaring, and the bass loose and flabby. Almost unlistenable. This with the same cable that allowed my MK3 JKSPDIF to perform so well.
> 
> The A2 direct connection was set up with a DAC end BNC > RCA adaptor. It sounds like most or all issues were instantly resolved. It would also seem that I am now hearing the A2, rather than the effects of the SPDIF connection, which might be guessed (?)  as a lesson in impedance mismatching between cable length and connector terminations on the component end.
> 
> The A2's mids and highs are still more forward that the JK MK3, but not overwhelmingly with quality recordings. I will let it settle in for the next 150 hr.


 

 Quote:


rdr. seraphim said:


> One of the benefits of the AP device is the elimination of the cable, as well as the cost of the cable (not that a good digital cable is all that expensive). The AP2 default is no cable; the AP1 is adjustable. Are you patching this to the Neko?
> 
> It will be interesting to hear what you think about it after you run it in a bit, and have grown accustomed to the difference.
> 
> Let us know how things progress!


 


   
  In my personal set-up, one of the interesting things I found about the AP2 is that it is far less sensitive to the quality of the digital cable than did my previous transports. When using BNC to BNC cables (i.e proper 75 ohms terminations), I find that the differences are not dramatic between different cables and the stock BNC to BNC adapter/connector.
   
  With that being said, I find that my 1.3m Oyaide DB510 and my 1m Hifi Cable & Cie Sobek BNC to BNC cables have a more open soundstage (and slightly less upfront sound) than the stock BNC to BNC adapter. I also have an 18ft. Belden BNC to BNC cable which offer a very smooth sound in comparison to the rest of the cables, with a slight loss in overall resolution. For those who think that the AP2 is too bright in their systems, they might want to try a very long Belden cable (which are relatively far more affordable in comparison  with the rest of the cables). There is a theory behind using long cables but I won't go into it.
   
   
  Overall, I think that there are perhaps possible gains in "upgrading" the BNC to BNC adapter to a "better" one. I was expecting the adapter (i.e. no cable) to beat the cables I have but it doesn't seem to be systematically the case. Or perhaps that I have got it wrong and that the problem lies in some weird interaction between the transport and DAC. In any case, if somebody has a link to a "good" BNC to BNC adapter, I am willing to experiment.
  
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> *The AP2 was the starting point for me and not having heard any of the Empirical devices from Steve, I'm not sure I want to start, yet*. It would mean the possibility of having to go through all the sell, buy, upgrade thingy. I'm trying to simplify. I'll give Phillip's battery PS a whirl and see what difference it makes.
> However, my experience with the AP2 has been very positive so far, and I'm convinced that unless you use the I2S (via HDMI, and a possibility with the OR) or some kind of a S/PDIF transport (for me, the AP2), the sound quality possible with the Wyred 4 Sound DAC will not be realized. So, the AP2 is a permanent fixture/requirement for that DAC. In my buddies six figure system, the lil' AP2 is a revelation.
> 
> It sounds like there may be some synergies going on in these systems. Mine, and my buddy's reference system in a custom Rives Audio designed media room, use extensive power conditioning, including the power to the CPU's (Mac's) used for data streaming. Steve N. at Empirical seems to emphasize the need for proper power for his devices with options for battery and Hynes. So, it will be interesting to see where Phillip's battery supply takes his AP1/2 devices.
> ...


 

 I too haven't heard the Empirical Off Ramp transport and I am not in a hurry to do so, as it will _probably_ end up being better than I currently have.
   
  However, while it might make sense to spend $1000+ for USB transports in some systems, I am wondering if it sometimes better to look for a DAC that is properly built for USB from the ground up. I do have a lot for the achievement made by Steve at Empirical Audio when it comes to USB transports (I have read mostly praise about his OR products) but with all the turbo-clocks and battery power, the price (of the transport + associated DAC) is getting close to those of exceptional USB/Firewire DACs (such as the Phasure NOS1 USB DAC and the Weiss 202).
   
  Finally, it seems that all of these devices need a lot of care to "set-up". Steve N. apparently insists on battery power while the AP1/2 have been reported to sound different depending on what kind of USB power they are being fed. So the consistency of the results is far from being easily predictable. Even on the same system, I have noticed that the AP2 can sound very different with Fidelizer on or off. In my Windows 7 based notebook, Fidelizer improves the sound (of all media players) considerably and brings it very close to the results obtained with some Linux Editions I tried. It seems that we have yet to reach a state where USB converters are totally immune to the quality of the computer.
  Hopefully future USB transports (and maybe things like the OR5) will be immune to such differences in the computer side.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> I am wondering if it sometimes better to look for a DAC that is properly built for USB from the ground up. I do have a lot for the achievement made by Steve at Empirical Audio when it comes to USB transports (I have read mostly praise about his OR products) but with all the turbo-clocks and battery power, the price (of the transport + associated DAC) is getting close to those of exceptional USB/Firewire DACs (such as the Phasure NOS1 USB DAC and the Weiss 202).


 

 Very true, once I get the AP2 the total cost of my "source" investment will be just $700 short of a Weiss 202 retail.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
   
  Then again, who knows how good Firewire sounds?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> 6pm... I don't know if I want to show her another shoe site... and I don't _believe_ she frequent's Head-Fi, so I'm safe for now (fingers crossed).
> 
> The AP2 was the starting point for me and not having heard any of the Empirical devices from Steve, I'm not sure I want to start, yet. It would mean the possibility of having to go through all the sell, buy, upgrade thingy. I'm trying to simplify. I'll give Phillip's battery PS a whirl and see what difference it makes.
> 
> ...


 

 LOL again about what you said with your wife roaming head-fi))...You never know where the kitties go now do ya?)  I'm sure you are definitely safe here as women can enjoy audio, some even be audiophiles, but majority see it as another "great, it's football season again, lovely"!....
   
  Sounds like you should get that OR5 over to your friend's place and accidentally slip it in when he's not looking to see what he thinks...LOL)!!!  Maybe he would not even notice the difference if you can be so sneaky or he would ask you what you've been up to this time)  
   
  I think sticking to the AP2 route is a way to go with what you said.  If you were just starting out, you could reverse time and hopefully get them both in on a trial type basis to know for sure which you wished to proceed with now and future going.  Both are products that seem to be progressive, at least I know for sure with the Off-Ramps, they can be upgraded through time all in all.  AP2 may become AP3 or something down the road if Philip finds something that works better...and it may not fit into the AP2 box or one may not be able to upgrade to the latest thing.  But who knows.  At this point, I don't see any changes coming for at least a few years since this battery pack, especially if it does well, will keep things steady for another 2 years minimum while he may elect to continue developing.
   
  Off Ramp, believe it or not, does excellently off a stock Mac.  Maybe the upgraded computer would yield more quiet results, but even Steve said the Monolith supply, superior to the Hynes by a lot (according to Steve), does improve the sound, but not by much, as in, it's more of a subtle type of thing.  I heard the Off Ramps without any extra supply but I have no idea if Steve has some crazy line conditioners in the rig, but I'm guessing he probably does.  I use line conditioners, old school types, and they are phenomenal for my components.  I thought it was a complete hoax, but one day, I was switching in a line conditioner that had been blowing fuses because I wanted to see what the cause was, and if all was good, planned to sell it.  Well, I turned everything on, and seconds later it blew the fuse.  My mind was in "not thinking" mode, but in spite only a few seconds and only doing this to see if I could sell it with the knowledge that it was working correctly and the buyer would not be upset obviously, I heard this night/day difference in the sound as if it was moving right through instead of going through some clogged line.  I asked my wife if she heard it but she wasn't paying attention.  Sure enough, when I plugged in only the audio components that did not shut the unit down, the sound was indeed literally night/day as if a clogged line just pushed out the dirt and was free/transparent/incredible to say the least.  I still do not understand how this can be possible, how it literally was a night/day difference, but I'll take it, and especially like that it was not defective in the end)
   
  Keep trucking away with the AP2!  Hopefully the future has great things for it.  Cheers!!!


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Excellent stuff as usual about the cables and the AP2.  I'm best guessing that my cable along with an attenuator may have done the trick.  I felt the same way about the BNC direct connector itself...it's only metal but is it quality enough or would even having some attenuator on it be a better choice???  It sounds like you figured out at least some alternatives to create a sound you like while Pigmode found the direct do the trick for him.  Seems like we are all getting varying results doing one thing or another which is a good thing since it brings more information to the table for us to trial/error/experiment with.
   
  I mentioned it above, but will re-state that Steve has said the Monolith does not make much of a difference with the OR5, where in previous Off Ramps, it did.  And he says the difference is not much of anything.  Me thinks because the Monolith will be made in small quantities and take a lot of time, he's marketing/lobbying for the OR5 OR that he really does not hear much of a point in having the Monolith with the OR5 as he does with prior Off Ramps.
   
  I like that you have discovered the Fidelizer.  I continue to see people post different new audio engines and the sound quality improvements, so it's good to know we have come so far, but we are still quite a bit a distance away, as well as having that distance include not just software, but that USB section/side of the equation with relation to converters and dacs....I also mentioned above that it seems that the way to go, if one likes the sound, is the better USB Dacs that have the superior converters in them so you don't have to deal with multiple boxes and keep it much more simple.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I think what a lot of this is telling us is that digital audio systems are not as straightforward as they might initially seem - just take a look at this interview:
   





   
  IME I have come across numerous components that have better on-paper performance than others, yet sound worse in a given system than technically inferior parts.  From my limited experience in audio I have preferred Furutech BNC cable/connectors to the Oyaide DB510 with its more expensive parts, AudioGD's DIR9001 to their WM8805 digital receiver, linear phase to minimum phase oversampling filters, software upsampling to hardware upsampling.  It may sound a bit stupid but even with digital systems synergy and implementation are still more important than choosing components based on specification alone.  For reference I found the DB510 and WM8805 way too forward in my system and much preferred the alternatives - but this could likely change if I use other components later.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


drez said:


> I think what a lot of this is telling us is that digital audio systems are not as straightforward as they might initially seem - just take a look at this interview.


 

 Interesting, I had never seen that even though I own an Antelope converter.  I'm curious just how good the "over-controlled" dejittering portion of the Zodiac's circuit is compared to something like an AP2 (in ps RMS jitter units)..


----------



## Currawong

My Vaunix USB hub arrived. I've only tried it using one device plugged in so far, but my subjective impression of the results with the Audiophilleo are very good, no doubt helped by the fact I can now up-sample to 176k to the Metrum Octave.


----------



## AppleheadMay

The thaught crosssed my mind to power the Vaunix with something like this.
  Would that be any use?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The new PurePower VLN battery power supply is now available. See here: http://audiophilleo.com/purepower.aspx


----------



## ROBSCIX

So I am to take these last few posts as many of you are firm believers in the negative affects of jitter on a digital audio system?


----------



## WNBC

From their website..........
*"We’ll bundle a PurePower VLN Digital Power Pack and a new Audiophilleo1 for the special introductory price of $1399, or just $999 with the Audiophilleo2 (prices valid until 30 June, 2012)."*
  
  Isn't the price of the AP2 ($579) + VLN ($399) = $978 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  It's been years since I took college calculus but even this one is strange to me.
   
  What will be the price of the VLN after the promotion?
   
   
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The new PurePower VLN battery power supply is now available. See here: http://audiophilleo.com/purepower.aspx


----------



## leeperry

I don't mean to threadcrap or anything, but his "Want to have your system sound even more like the real thing?" sales pitch for a $1.4K transport sounds a bit sarcastic to me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  The real thing doesn't use coax IMHO. More like Firewire, async USB or isolated I2S. $1.4K can already buy you a pretty sweet sounding DAC in its own right. Coax is a flawed and obsolete protocol, nothing's gonna change that IMHO.


----------



## bobeau

It's a bit confusing, but if you click thru to the purchase page you'll realize you can't buy the power pack _alone_.  $399 is what it costs for existing AP users to send in their device to be upgraded + power pack.  So basically existing users get a small price break as an incentive.   Although it's not clear if you can still just buy a regular AP2 and then upgrade a few months down the road for slightly less as well.
   
  I'll say this though - as an engineer I can appreciate what he did here, it appears to be a pretty neat piece of tech.  I hope we can get some back to back comparisons of this against a regular AP2 driven with hub/AQVOX/battery on the usb side.
   
  Quote: 





wnbc said:


> From their website..........
> *"We’ll bundle a PurePower VLN Digital Power Pack and a new Audiophilleo1 for the special introductory price of $1399, or just $999 with the Audiophilleo2 (prices valid until 30 June, 2012)."*
> 
> Isn't the price of the AP2 ($579) + VLN ($399) = $978
> ...


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I don't mean to threadcrap or anything, but his "Want to have your system sound even more like the real thing?" sales pitch for a $1.4K transport sounds a bit sarcastic to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I agree, but where is coax mentioned on the site?


----------



## pompon

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The new PurePower VLN battery power supply is now available. See here: http://audiophilleo.com/purepower.aspx


 
  I wonder if USB cable still matter.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That's a good question, but like some of the other users on the thread believe, the cable may be less sensitive than under original conditions. I'm only speculating, but it seems to hold true for Empirical Audio stuff as well, that with a properly designed transport, the cable becomes less critical. I personally like to eliminate any possibility of variation, so I'll use what I have, and combine it with the little bugger that comes with the new PS. It also keeps thing as consistent as possible, i.e. I'm using the same USB cable for the data stream, and the 12" USB cable supplied with the unit will only power the ARM processor and OLED. Well, that's my hope anyways.
   
  Just shipped my AP2 this afternoon, so we'll see what comes of it. 
  
  Quote: 





pompon said:


> I wonder if USB cable still matter.


----------



## WNBC

You are probably right but that means a small savings of $22 for existing customers because I can buy the whole thing for $999 and you existing owners will pay a total of $978 ($579 + $399) if you buy the new power supply.  Don't get me wrong, $22 is 10 cups of drip coffee but I think you guys deserve a bigger savings as loyalists 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> It's a bit confusing, but if you click thru to the purchase page you'll realize you can't buy the power pack _alone_.  $399 is what it costs for existing AP users to send in their device to be upgraded + power pack.  So basically existing users get a small price break as an incentive.   Although it's not clear if you can still just buy a regular AP2 and then upgrade a few months down the road for slightly less as well.
> 
> I'll say this though - as an engineer I can appreciate what he did here, it appears to be a pretty neat piece of tech.  I hope we can get some back to back comparisons of this against a regular AP2 driven with hub/AQVOX/battery on the usb side.


----------



## WNBC

Skepticism is good.  I am really interested in this product because I want to squeeze maximum performance out of my computer rig.  I could put that money toward a good CD player to get that analog flavor but computer audio will be my future.  
   
  So looking forward to the opinions and reviews.
   
  Getting a loaner would be killer in attracting potential buyers but as far as I know there are no loaners so making the plunge is tough.  I could spend 1K on this bridge or I could put that toward a Decware Taboo or another headphone.  Choices, choices, choices......
  
  Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I don't mean to threadcrap or anything, but his "Want to have your system sound even more like the real thing?" sales pitch for a $1.4K transport sounds a bit sarcastic to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I don't mean to threadcrap or anything, but his "Want to have your system sound even more like the real thing?" sales pitch for a $1.4K transport sounds a bit sarcastic to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   
  I have to agree here. The Audiophilleo and other devices like it just seem a way to upgrade an older Dac.
  I don't really see the point when one has a well designed 192/24 async Dac already.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *AppleheadMay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I have to agree here. The Audiophilleo and other devices like it just seem a way to upgrade an older Dac.
> I don't really see the point when one has a well designed 192/24 async Dac already.


 
   

  How many good USB/Firewire DAC's can you name - maybe the Calyx, the Weiss DAC2, the Antelope Zodiac?  Very few DAC's get USB right, and those that do often cost way too much.  USB isn't ideal anyway - computer audio has too many pitfalls and takes a lot of work to sound good IME.
   
  My previous point is that nothing is clear cut in audio gear - and digital systems are no exception.  What about the DACport - that uses an excellent adaptive (non asynch) USB chip.  I agree that I2S should be better but so far there is no universal standard for I2S and it seems only viable for connecting same-manufacturere gear.
   
  Other preconceptions such that USB should be better when clocked by the same oscillator as the DAC chips have also been shown all too often not to hold true.  
   
  I would rather buy an expensive USB-COAX converter and the DAC I want than buy some overpriced DAC I don't want with a good USB implementation.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





currawong said:


> My Vaunix USB hub arrived. I've only tried it using one device plugged in so far, but my subjective impression of the results with the Audiophilleo are very good, no doubt helped by the fact I can now up-sample to 176k to the Metrum Octave.


 


   
  IIRC, you had synergy issues with the A1 in your 009 Stax system. If this is correct, it would be interesting to see how the Vaunix will affect that situation.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The sad truth about a "well designed DAC" is that you don't know how well designed it is until you try it out, including all the possible variations on the product. Saying it is "well designed" is not enough.
   
  E.g. Wyred 4 Sound markets the DAC 1/2 with references to the benefits of the ESS chip, "ESS Time Domain Jitter Eliminator®," and on the face of it, based on the marketing materials and white papers (on the ESS site), any of the inputs should produce the same high quality output. Even the engineering staff at W4S pooh-poohed the notion of improved performance and sound quality by pairing it with a S/PDIF transport like the AP2 or the OR4/5; "it _shouldn't_ make a difference." Yet, the pairing takes it into a different league; who knew it could possibly be that much better? Justifiably, all the reviewers of the DAC 2 focus on its asynchronous USB interface. After all, the vendor claims a certain level of performance "as is," or "out of the box," the idea being that "it is well designed." And it probably is, to the level that the engineering staff took it. 
   
  However, I am convinced that most users and reviewers of the W4S DAC have not heard what sound quality is inherent in the product via a good quality S/PDIF transport. At least In the case of the W4S DAC paired with the AP2, "Theory drools, reality rules."


----------



## Currawong

I've owned at least one CD/DAC, the Cambridge 840c, that seemed totally unaffected by the transport used. Some people have commented that they couldn't notice any difference with the transport used with a PS Audio PerfectWave either. I agree totally that expensive DACs should not be affected by the transport. I think if I was starting from scratch I'd likely buy the PerfectWave for this reason. However, in my case, all but one of my DACs don't have USB input and I only ever intend to use a computer as a source, so it's relevant to me. I could just sell all my DACs and get a PerfectWave, but I happen to _like_ the particular DACs I own.
   
  A couple of years ago "USB input" on a DAC meant the manufacturer had tacked on the BB PCM2706/2707 chip to their design. Now, with more developments, there has been considerably more research and design in this area, as well as with the overall design of digital input, with the result that, from my experience of things, the quality has gone up considerably.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





> How many good USB/Firewire DAC's can you name - maybe the Calyx, the Weiss DAC2, the Antelope Zodiac?  Very few DAC's get USB right, and those that do often cost way too much.  USB isn't ideal anyway - computer audio has too many pitfalls and takes a lot of work to sound good IME.


 
   
  They come at a cost indeed but not necessarily. I hear a lot of good about the Onkyo Dac1000 at about $700 if I remember correctly? I don't know if the Zodiac is good but they have three price categories and I doubt the most expensive 384k one is needed for anything. But agreed, most of the good Dacs will be at least 2k+.
   
  But at what price comes the Audiophilleo? 1k now with the battery option? There are other alternatives that do the same for less but from reading comparisons I get they don't attain the same quality level of the AP.
  There is one though, the Sonicweld Diverter HR at 3k. These prices have to be added to the price of your Dac to be able to compare cost/quality. And I don't think the Audiophilleo will sound as good with a $200 Dac as it can with a $1000 Dac either. So where does it start to sound good? 2k anyway me thinks.


----------



## WNBC

Definitely as an owner of the W4S DAC-2 and never having heard a higher end DAC would like to try the AP2.  The problem is that it is a $1K leap of faith for a $1.5K DAC.  So getting a chance to hear one of these at local meet would be great in nudging me in the direction of the AP2.
   
  However, I've used a Marantz SACD player (SA-8003) fed directly into my DAC-2 via S/PDIF and compared that with USB input from my computer and can say that I did not hear anything that would make me claim S/PDIF was significantly better or worse than USB input.  I sold my CD player as I saw computer audio as my future.  To me, this means that the USB implementation is really good or S/PDIF out of the Marantz was ok.  Having never heard another SACD player and liking the Marantz I am inclined to say the USB implementation on the DAC-2 is good.  Naturally I could be wrong which leads us back to the AP2. 

  
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The sad truth about a "well designed DAC" is that you don't know how well designed it is until you try it out, including all the possible variations on the product. Saying it is "well designed" is not enough.
> 
> E.g. Wyred 4 Sound markets the DAC 1/2 with references to the benefits of the ESS chip, "ESS Time Domain Jitter Eliminator®," and on the face of it, based on the marketing materials and white papers (on the ESS site), any of the inputs should produce the same high quality output. Even the engineering staff at W4S pooh-poohed the notion of improved performance and sound quality by pairing it with a S/PDIF transport like the AP2 or the OR4/5; "it _shouldn't_ make a difference." Yet, the pairing takes it into a different league; who knew it could possibly be that much better? Justifiably, all the reviewers of the DAC 2 focus on its asynchronous USB interface. After all, the vendor claims a certain level of performance "as is," or "out of the box," the idea being that "it is well designed." And it probably is, to the level that the engineering staff took it.
> 
> However, I am convinced that most users and reviewers of the W4S DAC have not heard what sound quality is inherent in the product via a good quality S/PDIF transport. At least In the case of the W4S DAC paired with the AP2, "Theory drools, reality rules."


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





wnbc said:


> Definitely as an owner of the W4S DAC-2 and never having heard a higher end DAC would like to try the AP2.  The problem is that it is a $1K leap of faith for a $1.5K DAC.  So getting a chance to hear one of these at local meet would be great in nudging me in the direction of the AP2.
> 
> However, I've used a Marantz SACD player (SA-8003) fed directly into my DAC-2 via S/PDIF and compared that with USB input from my computer and can say that I did not hear anything that would make me claim S/PDIF was significantly better or worse than USB input.  I sold my CD player as I saw computer audio as my future.  To me, this means that the USB implementation is really good or S/PDIF out of the Marantz was ok.  Having never heard another SACD player and liking the Marantz I am inclined to say the USB implementation on the DAC-2 is good.  Naturally I could be wrong which leads us back to the AP2.


 


   
  I would think a $1K upgrade to a $1,5K Dac isn't money well spent and I am skeptical just like you and don't believe you would get better sound that way than going straight through the USB input of your Dac, since the Dac is claimed to be pretty good and it's one of the latest generation.
   
  However, I can't make any judgements since I never heard the AP so if you would have a chance to try that at a meet I am surely interested in your impressions.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Especially, "The Audiophilleo and other devices like it just seem a way to _upgrade an older Dac._" (Italics mine.) This makes sense because it's a great way to extend one's investment, especially if you've already spent a good chunk of cash. However, it begs the question, how old of a DAC does it makes sense to use one of these? Reports are that even more recent DAC implementations benefit from these type of transports.
   
  Which brings us back to the question, what DAC's have implemented well designed inputs so that the output sounds the same, regardless of input or transport? 
   
  EDIT: I'll give a shot at answering my own question. The Empirical Audio Overdrive DAC with USB is supposed to be one such animal. It's fully configured as "signature" at $4K. The only options Steve sells after that are USB and I2S cables (from Locus Design.) 
  
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I have to agree here. The Audiophilleo and other devices like it just seem a way to upgrade an older Dac.
> I don't really see the point when one has a well designed 192/24 async Dac already.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Especially, "The Audiophilleo and other devices like it just seem a way to _upgrade an older Dac._" (Italics mine.) This makes sense because it's a great way to extend one's investment, especially if you've already spent a good chunk of cash. However, it begs the question, how old of a DAC does it makes sense to use one of these? Reports are that even more recent DAC implementations benefit from these type of transports.
> 
> Which brings back the question, what DAC's have implemented well designed inputs so that the output sounds the same, regardless of input or transport?


 


   
  Agree. The number of DACs with later generation async USB designs is a still a small but growing segment. DACs have their own sound signatures, and without a good selection, buyers are limited in the ability to tune their component chain. Outboard USB convertors help fill this gap, even if only in the interim.


----------



## WNBC

So would you say that the AP2 gets one to the equivalent of a hi end transport?
  If you look at it like that then one can spend $1-2K on an excellent transport/CD player or $1K on getting one's computer to be that hi end transport.  Would that be the way to look at the role of the AP2?
  
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Which brings back the question, what DAC's have implemented well designed inputs so that the output sounds the same, regardless of input or transport?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The AP is just one such solution. The Empirical Audio OR 4/5 are also highly regarded (superior for some), and in base configuration, they are close enough in price (OR = $1299 vs AP2 = $1000, at least with the new PS). However, if you add some of the options to the OR, it can easily scale to $2250 (super clock and Hynes linear PS), which is an altogether different level, cost wise. You can even add the Monolith battery PS for another $1299, which makes the overall solution closer to $3300 (sans the Hynes PS, and assuming that the Monolith would be equivalent). In any case, now the price of the OR is closer to the SonicWeld Divert at $3K.
   
  The Empirical Audio Overdrive DAC starts to look better and better! 
   
  I'm not sure that I'd consider the computer to be a hi-end transport, but I may be misinterpreting your question.  
  
  Quote: 





wnbc said:


> So would you say that the AP2 gets one to the equivalent of a hi end transport?
> If you look at it like that then one can spend $1-2K on an excellent transport/CD player or $1K on getting one's computer to be that hi end transport.  Would that be the way to look at the role of the AP2?


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm not sure that I'd consider the computer to be a hi-end transport, but I may be misinterpreting your question.


 


  Can I ask why not?


----------



## WNBC

I think you answered my question which was does the AP2 get your digital files that are stored on your computer transport to sound more hi end or analog, comparable to an excellent CD player.  
   
  If we consider these OR or AP USB bridges as an extension of our computers then in my mind computers can be hi-end transports.  I could be wrong and transports are only meant to be used in the context of CD players.  I use the term to mean anything that has the capacity to play music.   
  
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The AP is just one such solution. The Empirical Audio OR 4/5 are also highly regarded (superior for some), and in base configuration, they are close enough in price (OR = $1299 vs AP2 = $1000, at least with the new PS). However, if you add some of the options to the OR, it can easily scale to $2250 (super clock and Hynes linear PS), which is an altogether different level, cost wise. You can even add the Monolith battery PS for another $1299, which makes the overall solution closer to $3300 (sans the Hynes PS, and assuming that the Monolith would be equivalent). In any case, now the price of the OR is closer to the SonicWeld Divert at $3K.
> 
> The Empirical Audio Overdrive DAC starts to look better and better!
> 
> I'm not sure that I'd consider the computer to be a hi-end transport, but I may be misinterpreting your question.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The AP is just one such solution. The Empirical Audio OR 4/5 are also highly regarded (superior for some), and in base configuration, they are close enough in price (OR = $1299 vs AP2 = $1000, at least with the new PS)...
> 
> The Empirical Audio Overdrive DAC starts to look better and better!


 


   
  Just to update on OR buying terms, he mentioned to me a 30 day money back. From what it sounds like, the OR5 will enter production phase in 1-4 weeks. He recommended the Hynes regulator for S/DIF use, and from what I gather the basic model should not be handicapped.
   
  The OD DAC (love that name) is indeed a potential player, along with the Eximus DP-1, Ayre QB-9. In the meantime I have an S/PDIF only DAC that I bought for its sound qualities, the right USB converter should do fine, and indeed I was very happy with the JKenny MK3.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Well, it may be a sensitive question for some, and there's more to it than probably meets the eye. It was only in the context of the S/PDIF, USB or I2S interface that I was using the term "transport." Not to obfuscate, but here's a good historical discussion on the question of the transport related to CDPs, and why it's so important. I believe the author has done an excellent job with it and has addressed it in his own products (which are almost always highly regarded): http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html
  
  Quote: 





robscix said:


> Can I ask why not?


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Well, it may be a sensitive question for some, and there's more to it than probably meets the eye. It was only in the context of the S/PDIF, USB or I2S interface that I was using the term "transport." Not to obfuscate, but here's a good historical discussion on the question of the transport related to CDPs, and why it's so important. I believe the author has done an excellent job with it and has addressed it in his own products (which are almost always highly regarded): http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html


 

 Not a sensitive question. I am just curious as to why you would say that?
  I was asking you, for your opinion not a link to somebody elses.
   
  So you are saying that is the weak point IYO of the PC based audio system, is the connection method to the DAC?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

My bad choice of words. The URL only describes some of the mechanics related to CD transports and the S/PDIF interface that we are discussing.  
   
  Yes. Based on my own experience, the interface between the PC and DAC, be it USB, I2S or S/PDIF, is one of the mechanisms that translate to the overall SQ equation. 
  Quote: 





robscix said:


> Not a sensitive question. I am just curious as to why you would say that?
> I was asking you, for your opinion not a link to somebody elses.
> 
> So you are saying that is the weak point IYO of the PC based audio system, is the connection method to the DAC?


----------



## DaveBSC

I think the XMOS chip and Thesycon drivers have changed the game as far as USB DACs are concerned. It's been interesting to watch the transition as asynchronous mode technology has progressed. The earliest models (Ayre, Halide, ART, etc) were all Streamlength based. Steve opted for M2Tech's system for the OR4/5 and Overdrive, but now everybody seems to be shifting to XMOS. I assume its much easier to implement than the older stuff considering the more rapid pace in USB DAC development these days.
   
  If you already have a S/Pdif only DAC, or one with a useless PCM270x based USB input, I think the converters still make sense, and will continue to for the near term. Spending more than $1500 or so for a converter doesn't really make sense anymore though, unless you have something like an MBL 1611F that you want to use with a PC. New DACs like the April Music Eximus or the asynchronous equipped PS PWD put a lot of pressure on the converters at the top end. Even if the Diverter HR is better than the OR5, spending $3K on it is kind of silly.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> My bad choice of words. The URL only describes some of the mechanics related to CD transports and the S/PDIF interface that we are discussing.
> 
> Yes. Based on my own experience, the interface between the PC and DAC, be it USB, I2S or S/PDIF, is one of the mechanisms that translate to the overall SQ equation.


 


 I agree with you in that the interface can vary the sound quality depending on the quality of the interface, I don't think that translates to the PC as being a bad "transport" like any other audio system it is only as strong as the weakest link.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Agreed, and I use a Mac and PM for streaming my music media. It's not quite like the analogue days when the turntable and cartridge were critical components to the delivery of music. Arguably, most any decent PC today provides the necessary streaming and storage capabilities needed for listening to music. (You can even use an iPad--up to 48KHz--for streaming with the AP2.) So, I'm not sure that one PC is more "hi-end" than the next. I could just as easily use a Windows machine, although I prefer OS X. I was referring to the S/PDIF interface as the transport, not the PC itself. 
   
  Quote: 





robscix said:


> I agree with you in that the interface can vary the sound quality depending on the quality of the interface, I don't think that translates to the PC as being a bad "transport" like any other audio system it is only as strong as the weakest link.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I think the XMOS chip and Thesycon drivers have changed the game as far as USB DACs are concerned. It's been interesting to watch the transition as asynchronous mode technology has progressed. The earliest models (Ayre, Halide, ART, etc) were all Streamlength based. Steve opted for M2Tech's system for the OR4/5 and Overdrive, but now everybody seems to be shifting to XMOS.


 


   
  Isn't the Wavelink HS Streamlength and XMOS? Have you tried it?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Isn't the Wavelink HS Streamlength and XMOS? Have you tried it?


 

 It doesn't use the TAS2010 like the other Streamlength stuff?


----------



## pigmode

Maybe not then, as that was a description on a DAC info page. No mention at Wavelength.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> *I'm not sure that I'd consider the computer to be a hi-end transport, but I may be misinterpreting your question.  *


 

 What cdp or transport would you consider a better option?  I know many rave about the Shigaclone, but your thoughts here?


----------



## AppleheadMay

I do not see why a CD transport would be any better than a dedicated music server or a computer configured for the job as long as you feed the signal into a quality Dac or network player.
  Some highly regarded manufacturers are abandoning the CD already, others are heavily into digital streaming. Linn, Classe, Naim, just to name a few.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I do not see why a CD transport would be any better than a dedicated music server or a computer configured for the job as long as you feed the signal into a quality Dac or network player.
> Some highly regarded manufacturers are abandoning the CD already, others are heavily into digital streaming. Linn, Classe, Naim, just to name a few.


 

 Some paranoid ppls will worry that PCM data will have jitter introduced in the process of being ripped to a hard drive.  I personally don'y have enough expertise to say whether or not this is possible or not.
  All I can say is that a lot of streaming and computer based systems have been observed to be superior to CD transports not only in usability but also in sound quality.  
  Availability of hi-res music files tips the balance further in favor of hard-drive/streaming systems.  IMO though computer as transport takes a lot of work and a dedicated machine.


----------



## barbes

Quote: 





drez said:


> Some paranoid ppls will worry that PCM data will have jitter introduced in the process of being ripped to a hard drive.  I personally don'y have enough expertise to say whether or not this is possible or not.
> All I can say is that a lot of streaming and computer based systems have been observed to be superior to CD transports not only in usability but also in sound quality.
> Availability of hi-res music files tips the balance further in favor of hard-drive/streaming systems.  IMO though computer as transport takes a lot of work and a dedicated machine.


 


 In my system, and a lot of systems these day, the computer combines the roles a CD player, a tape deck, and a receiver would have played not long ago.  For the last two functions, at least, the resulting quality is far superior to what was (and when you consider what those three boxes would have cost, it makes a dedicated laptop or the like seem not so pricey).  In my system (laptop/Audiophilleo2/RWA Isabellina) streamed material - Pandora, MOG, NPR concerts, etc. - sound great, despite being relatively low-bitrate files.  The Audiophilleo has made the difference between my being willing to listen to those sources and actually really enjoying them.  And it's made my lossless CD source material sound even better than before.
   
  These converters plus a DAC may not be the most efficient solution possible, by some measure or other, but they give wonderful flexibility.  I love my RWA gear - I use their amp as well - and went through a lot of happy experimentation tube rolling to get it as I wanted.  I absolutely would not want to throw all that away in favor of another DAC that I might not like as much but has better USB implementation.  I'm delighted with the current setup.  (And this converter is small and, in use, invisible.  I have a New York living room without a vast amout of space and the A2 hangs neatly out of sight behind the existing setup.)


----------



## bobeau

So, has anyone taken the plunge?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





barbes said:


> In my system, and a lot of systems these day, the computer combines the roles a CD player, a tape deck, and a receiver would have played not long ago.  For the last two functions, at least, the resulting quality is far superior to what was (and when you consider what those three boxes would have cost, it makes a dedicated laptop or the like seem not so pricey).  In my system (laptop/Audiophilleo2/RWA Isabellina) streamed material - Pandora, MOG, NPR concerts, etc. - sound great, despite being relatively low-bitrate files.  The Audiophilleo has made the difference between my being willing to listen to those sources and actually really enjoying them.  And it's made my lossless CD source material sound even better than before.
> 
> These converters plus a DAC may not be the most efficient solution possible, by some measure or other, but they give wonderful flexibility.  I love my RWA gear - I use their amp as well - and went through a lot of happy experimentation tube rolling to get it as I wanted.  I absolutely would not want to throw all that away in favor of another DAC that I might not like as much but has better USB implementation.  I'm delighted with the current setup.  (And this converter is small and, in use, invisible.  I have a New York living room without a vast amout of space and the A2 hangs neatly out of sight behind the existing setup.)


 
   
  Fully agree here.
  I like the ease of use I have from having my whole CD collection stored in one library.
  I also like the addition of Internet radio and Spotify, which is what I think you mean by receiver.
   
  And indeed, the only reason I can think of to get an AudioPhilleo is if I had a DAC that was special in sound signature to me and not capable of 192/24 yet, like the Isabellina or Yamamoto Dacs just to name two examples.
   
  One thing in favor of CD players from my point of view is SACD capability.
  I recently saw a Marantz SA7 for sale for little money (I think it was between 2 and 3000€ for a player that costed well above 7000). Marantz is well nown to make really good players and this was their best. Now three years ago I would have bought it in a heartbeat but now I am not interested in it anymore.
  Marantz has another very good SACD player at an affordable price but it can only be found second hand, the SA8004.
  But for me I think their top universal player they have for the moment (UD7006) that is very affordable and plays SACD as well as BluRay will do just fine for the 20 or so SACDs I have.


----------



## pompon

I heard Shigaclone vs audiophilleo ... they both very good.
  Shigaclone is more toward the bass, richness and musicality while AP is more toward the details, focus.
  AP2 was little bit more 3D, more laid back, fill less the room.
   
  When I compare my copper wire and silver wire ... it's the same thing. If I want neutrality, details, focus, 3D ... I put silver. Copper is little bit fuzzy (not too much) but it's more forgiving.
   
  I can change the sound of my AP2 simply put GOLD plate BNC-RCA connector and I can add the good COAX cable. I am able to come pretty close to the Shigaclone if I want be little bit less on the detail side.
   
  We was on VERY good powercord on a dedicated power line. I have not heard on stock powercord but my friend told me he tried and it's a big drop in the quality using stock powercord.
   
  Shigaclone 50$ + 400$ powercord = price of my audiophilleo! 
   
  Anyway .. who want really put back CD in cd player to listening music ? 
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> What cdp or transport would you consider a better option?  I know many rave about the Shigaclone, but your thoughts here?


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


drez said:


> Some paranoid ppls will worry that PCM data will have jitter introduced in the process of being ripped to a hard drive.  I personally don'y have enough expertise to say whether or not this is possible or not.


 

 That would be a serious problem if true.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> That would be a serious problem if true.


 

 It shouldn't be. EAC should be able to rip bit-exact from the original, and you can check the CRC values with the AccurateRip database if you're unsure. You can have jitter in your playback chain from the hard drive, but the process of ripping the CD shouldn't introduce any errors.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Well, at this point, I'm a strictly computer guy, streaming my media via S/PDIF to a DAC. I don't ever see myself reverting to CDs, aluminum, gold, Blu, or otherwise. I'm almost finished ripping my CD collection via XLD to HD, and buying my lossless music via the Internet. That's all. 
  
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> What cdp or transport would you consider a better option?  I know many rave about the Shigaclone, but your thoughts here?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The plunge? You mean the AP2 and the PurePower VLN battery PS? 
  
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> So, has anyone taken the plunge?


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


davebsc said:


> It shouldn't be. EAC should be able to rip bit-exact from the original, and you can check the CRC values with the AccurateRip database if you're unsure. You can have jitter in your playback chain from the hard drive, but the process of ripping the CD shouldn't introduce any errors.


 

 Isn't it conceivable that one could have a bit-exact copy of the original CD _plus _jitter introduced during ripping?  If not, why not?  What prevents timing errors in that phase?  
   
  Maybe I'm being paranoid, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, but if I'm going to concern myself with jitter enough to spend $580 to combat it, I should be clear on this phase too.


----------



## MayaTlab

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> Isn't it conceivable that one could have a bit-exact copy of the original CD _plus _jitter introduced during ripping?  If not, why not?  What prevents timing errors in that phase?
> 
> ...


 

 Because there is no timing involved with data, if I'm correct. Only with streams. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I believe to be true, explained in teletubbies terms :
   
  What's on a CD is data. Basically, it's a series of 0 and 1, but no timing is involved. But each file carries with it informations, including metadatas for example, but crucially here, an indication of its sample rate. So your player basically goes : ok, read track 2... oh, it's a 44100 hz file... and then play the series of 0 and 1 at the correct frequency. Because it converts data into a stream, that's why you're able for example to see where it's playing in the track. On the other hand your DAC receives a stream of 0 and 1 more or less precisely timed, without having access to the extra information (for example, it doesn't know the name of the track, or even its frequency indication, it only deduces it from the incoming stream). That's where jitter becomes an issue.
   
  Please do correct all the mistakes above (there must be some), I'll die less stupid if you do so.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





mayatlab said:


> Because there is no timing involved with data, if I'm correct. Only with streams.


 
   
  As far as I know, that's how it works. Ripping is different from reading in real time, as on a CD player. EAC can slow down its read, or re-read as it needs to in order to ensure that the ripped data is bit for bit exact. A checksum is then created, and if one bit is different from another rip of the same pressing in the AR database, it won't match.


----------



## sphinxvc

Makes sense.


----------



## pompon

I am fool ... I will take the plunge and order the battery option for my AP2 because I want the best !


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I am fool ...


 


   
  Not really, its a secured 30 trial period.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





mayatlab said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I recall reading a very good description of how CDs work. I'm not sure this is the same one, but it is similar to what I read years ago.
   
  http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-43-1


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The plunge? You mean the AP2 and the PurePower VLN battery PS?


 

 Yes...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I sent my AP2 to Phillip on the 8th for modification; he should receive the unit on Monday. I'm not sure what the timing will be at this point as I understand the firmware is being finalized. Hopefully, I'll have the new battery PS in the next couple of weeks. We'll see! (Err, hear!)  
   
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Yes...


----------



## drez

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> As far as I know, that's how it works. Ripping is different from reading in real time, as on a CD player. EAC can slow down its read, or re-read as it needs to in order to ensure that the ripped data is bit for bit exact. A checksum is then created, and if one bit is different from another rip of the same pressing in the AR database, it won't match.


 

 Hopefully that is how it works - but to me a CD contains PCM data that is timing dependant (to my understanding this is why you cannot just copy the files from a CD to your computer hard drive) - I hope that EAC checks for the integrity of the transfer of the timing factor between the CD and the ripped file as well as bit matching.  As you know a PCM audio stream can be bit-perfect while still containing jitter.  Of course this may or may not be a problem as I have not yet seen any tests done on this process.  If this is a problem it means that the CD-reading portion of the computer is still as important as it is on CD-playing transports.  I wonder if high-end music servers pay much attention to the CD-drives they use?
   
*EDIT*: I understand that EAC can use error correction and has its own mechanisms to improve data integrity but how do these compare to the technologies applied in high end CD players in terms of timing rather than bit accuracy?
   
  Sorry this is probably getting a bit off-topic, maybe needs another thread?


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I sent my AP2 to Phillip on the 8th for modification; he should receive the unit on Monday. I'm not sure what the timing will be at this point as I understand the firmware is being finalized. Hopefully, I'll have the new battery PS in the next couple of weeks. We'll see! (Err, hear!)


 

 Awesome (+ pompom too).
   
  So I don't recall, were you running it with normal usb power?  
   
  When it arrives, I'd consider sending my AP2 + AQVOX your way for a comparison.


----------



## pompon

Not with the upgrade ... it's definitive ... no comeback possible. It's why I not order right now. I will try to wait at least 1 review ...  but I don't think will be easy to have review with someone able to test with another AP stock. By memory, it's not easy to tell.
   
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ot really, its a secured 30 trial period.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I heard Shigaclone vs audiophilleo ... they both very good.
> Shigaclone is more toward the bass, richness and musicality while AP is more toward the details, focus.
> AP2 was little bit more 3D, more laid back, fill less the room.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the comparison.  It is very much appreciated.  A few questions:
   
  1) Is your friend's Shigaclone what you would consider a well built and has top notch (Black Gates Caps, excellent transformers, resistors, along with properly mounted/balanced either enclosed or not)?
   
  2) I don't think the power cable means much of anything, but if he says he needs it in order to make the thing sound good, that's an automatic deduction without a doubt.  And Shigaclone done correctly first with good parts, then with extra parts that they discovered to improve the sound=about $400-$500 or so.  So if he has a full blown Shigaclone or even just a plain ole regular one, parts are at minimum $200-$500 on up...that's not including that crazy cable...LOLOLOL!!!  
   
  3) It sounds to me that the Shiga is inferior to the AP2 when you can do things to make the AP2 sound more "rich-room filling-etc." OR "more details-3D-clarity", etc. etc.  Can't really do that with the Shiga now can ya?  Well, maybe there is a way, but it sounds like the AP2 is way more simple to deal with to make sound adjustments if that's your thing.  Any way you splice it, the AP2 is in the very least as good, but I would say better due to flexibility, let alone you can run everything through it "driver less" and never get up and toss a cd in there again.
   
  From a review I read, the Jkeny MK2 was as good as a highly modded Shigaclone and I know Shahrose and a number of others feel the MK2 is nowhere near the same class/level as the MK3 and I know we have been through all this before that the MK3 and AP2 are essentially one and the same.
   
  Always curious, however, about just how modded your friend's Shiga is and the above questions answered.  I know people that absolutely 100% swear by the Shiga and I know oh too many that will swear by literally "anything" usb converter based.

 Peace!


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Well, at this point, I'm a strictly computer guy, streaming my media via S/PDIF to a DAC. I don't ever see myself reverting to CDs, aluminum, gold, Blu, or otherwise. I'm almost finished ripping my CD collection via XLD to HD, and buying my lossless music via the Internet. That's all.


 


  Ahhhh, gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification and it's obvious why one would transition, but only if the pc was a superior transport even at a low budget cost point vs. top shelf cd transports.  As was stated in this thread and as I have seen elsewhere, the Shigaclone, noted to be superior to very expensive transports and even having some "unique" sound vs. anything else out there, is matched or bested by the AP2.  I think there is a fine art to putting vinyl on the table, but a disc onto a platter isn't exactly anything special to me.  It's still a physical element, but again, it's no more engaging than having to get on the computer and find music.  I think now about how digital via pc is so "convenient", yet, if we just listened to our library of music, I can "easily" have a cd playing well before I can get to that same track and have it playing via computer unless I've obviously got the computer up/running/music collection right at my fingertips and set to type in the song/artist and go...even then, I still think I can beat it walking up, grabbing the cd, pushing the on button, eject, and pop in, track whatever...


----------



## MayaTlab

Quote: 





drez said:


> Hopefully that is how it works - but to me a CD contains PCM data that is timing dependant (to my understanding this is why you cannot just copy the files from a CD to your computer hard drive) - I hope that EAC checks for the integrity of the transfer of the timing factor between the CD and the ripped file as well as bit matching.  As you know a PCM audio stream can be bit-perfect while still containing jitter.  Of course this may or may not be a problem as I have not yet seen any tests done on this process.  If this is a problem it means that the CD-reading portion of the computer is still as important as it is on CD-playing transports.  I wonder if high-end music servers pay much attention to the CD-drives they use?
> 
> *EDIT*: I understand that EAC can use error correction and has its own mechanisms to improve data integrity but how do these compare to the technologies applied in high end CD players in terms of timing rather than bit accuracy?
> 
> Sorry this is probably getting a bit off-topic, maybe needs another thread?


 

 I believe a CD doesn't contains PCM data. It contains whatever data it contains, be it jpegs, txt files, wav, etc. It's your CD drive that converts the data into a PCM stream. As it's data, I think timing is of little importance, with error corrections and buffers. There is a difference between playing a music file on a CD (that's a stream) and copying / ripping / extracting that file on your computer (that's data). Again, I may be wrong.
  On the other hand there are "jitter stats" when ripping CDs - so indeed it may very well be involved, but I guess it's minimal.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





mayatlab said:


> I believe a CD doesn't contains PCM data. It contains whatever data it contains, be it jpegs, txt files, wav, etc. It's your CD drive that converts the data into a PCM stream. As it's data, I think timing is of little importance, with error corrections and buffers. There is a difference between playing a music file on a CD (that's a stream) and copying / ripping / extracting that file on your computer (that's data). Again, I may be wrong.
> On the other hand there are "jitter stats" when ripping CDs - so indeed it may very well be involved, but I guess it's minimal.


 
   
  Audio CDs use the Redbook format, which is different to the format used for data CDs.  Have a read of this link and the site:

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html


----------



## drez

To hopefully defuse my off-topic, apparently CD-ripping does not record timing information, only a sequence of bits, and therefore bit accuracy is all that matters.
   
  With EAC set up (and a decent cd reader) properly and rips rated at 100% there *should* not be any jitter introduced.  Apart from setting up EAC correctly there is no need for concern apparently.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That's how I understand it as well. However, EAC for Windows is a requirement for ripping, as is XLD, the equivalent on OS X. These ripping products, correctly set up, produce the same results.  
  
  Quote: 





drez said:


> To hopefully defuse my off-topic, apparently CD-ripping does not record timing information, only a sequence of bits, and therefore bit accuracy is all that matters.
> 
> With EAC set up (and a decent cd reader) properly and rips rated at 100% there *should* not be any jitter introduced.  Apart from setting up EAC correctly there is no need for concern apparently.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote: 





mayatlab said:


> On the other hand there are "jitter stats" when ripping CDs - so indeed it may very well be involved, but I guess it's minimal.


 

 Anymore information on this?  
   
  (I'm not sure why there's so much consternation over this being "off-topic," by the way, I see it as very much relevant.)


----------



## AppleheadMay

What about not ripping CD's with a program but simply dragging and dropping the files on them to your computer?
  If I do that I get a playable AIFF file. Or doesn't that make any difference?


----------



## pigmode

I'm not sure what others are experiencing, but my A2 has undergone marked change in the last of a 70+ hr burn-in. Coming from a JKenny MK3 I'd have to say the A2 has moved from irritating to promising, although I may still be sending it back in a week or so. There's a Wavelength Wavelink HS due to arrive sometime this week.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I felt that the differences were fairly significant at 100 hours, with continual changes through 200, and smaller after that. It became so relaxing to listen to after that, it was easier to listen to entire symphonies, sometimes several in a row. Oh, it was really fun with acoustic, choral, pop and jazz too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. 
   
  EDIT: Will love hearing your impressions of the Wavelength too!
   
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'm not sure what others are experiencing, but my A2 has undergone marked change in the last of a 70+ hr burn-in. Coming from a JKenny MK3 I'd have to say the A2 has moved from irritating to promising, although I may still be sending it back in a week or so. There's a Wavelength Wavelink HS due to arrive sometime this week.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sphinxvc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Anymore information on this?
> 
> (I'm not sure why there's so much consternation over this being "off-topic," by the way, I see it as very much relevant.)


 

 I should prbably clarify - EAC has features designed to handle jitter, but in my understanding if your drive has accurate stream then jitter should not be a problem.
   
  In my understanding jitter is only important in so far as it can influence the bit accuracy of the rip as no timing information is stored in the ripped audio file.  If you get EAC to rip with 100% rated accuracy then there is no need for concern over jitter AFAIK.
   
  Apparently some record labels have found that writing/pressing CD's introduces jitter - IMO yet another reason to eliminate CD's altogether and just sell us the (ideally high-res) WAVE files.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I felt that the differences were fairly significant at 100 hours, with continual changes through 200, and smaller after that. It became so relaxing to listen to after that, it was easier to listen to entire symphonies, sometimes several in a row. Oh, it was really fun with acoustic, choral, pop and jazz too
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   
  Today was the first time I really clicked with the A2--it was all about the music. Looks like I'll continue the burn in process.
   
  I plan to share comparisons with the Wavelink.


----------



## pompon

If we can know what is "a2" ... stop using short words ...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pompon said:


> If we can know what is "a2" ... stop using short words ...


 


  How about A-2?))


----------



## Currawong

I think you guys are confused with the timing information recorded on CDs that tells the CD player how fast it should be spinning and jitter which has to do with digital recoding and transmission. They are two completely separate things.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Or in Canadian, Ay, too!


----------



## DaveBSC

New kid on the block, priced right at the AP2 with battery and Wavelength HS.
   

   
http://www.thecableco.com/Product/Tabla-USB---SPDIF-Converter


----------



## pigmode

^ I considered it, but the question kept coming up of how €599 became $995. Glad to learn the "downside" of battery power, and sure would like to blow up my soundstage.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ^ I considered it, but the question kept coming up of how €599 became $995. Glad to learn the "downside" of battery power, and sure would like to blow up my soundstage.


 


  Maybe they meant 599GBP))
   
  Looks like the Jkeny, but uses the same thing as any portable device uses to charge it via USB.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


davebsc said:


> New kid on the block, priced right at the AP2 with battery and Wavelength HS.
> 
> http://www.thecableco.com/Product/Tabla-USB---SPDIF-Converter


 
   
  That thing's been around for a while: http://www.head-fi.org/t/550037/human-audio-tabla-hirez-usb-interface-with-lifepo4-batteries
   
  They have a junior version of it as well: http://www.human-audio.com/humanaudioeng_tabla_pico.html


----------



## DaveBSC

Ah I see. Just noticed it in the Cable Co news letter, that's why I thought it was new.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


davebsc said:


> Ah I see. Just noticed it in the Cable Co news letter, that's why I thought it was new.


 

 Guess they just got it in.  I didn't know of there being a US retailer for the thing up until you linked that, so that's good to know.  If I'm bored and I have a grand to burn, maybe I'll take the plunge.


----------



## WarriorAnt

After reading this thread I've got my eye (or ear) out for a used Audiophilleo2 at a good price.  Want to try one out with my W4s DAC-2.


----------



## grokit

nvm


----------



## pigmode

The silence is deafening, isn't it? I'm anticipating great things...


----------



## sridhar3

Anybody know how long it takes to get it back once you send it in for the mod?


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


pigmode said:


> The silence is deafening, isn't it? I'm anticipating great things...


 

 While we wait, how's the Wavelength?


----------



## pigmode

^Sorry, I've been a little worn out recently from burning in and integrating two S/PDIF converters. It can be a fun process and the results potentially gratifying, but its also distracting when experimenting with a system one is basically happy with. Anyway...
   
  The Wavelink HS has a balanced fullness in the midrange. In comparison the AP2 pushes its mids slightly forward, something which is easily apparent with female vocals where the voice to a small degree recesses those sounds surrounding it. The forward mids of the AP2 also brings a slight warmth overall (not to say that its warm) and that's not bad thing, but a bow to personal preference more than anything else.
   
  With high frequencies the Wavelink is extended and detailed, even over the AP2. It excels with transients and has a nicely developed decay, bringing out a wonderful tonality with acoustic instruments. Its upper and lower bass is tauter and less reserved than what I recall with the MK3, and the AP2 holds the middle ground in this respect. 
   
  Take my comments on the MK3 with a grain of salt as its been out of my system for 3 weeks, but I consider the AP2 a small improvement over it, and the Wavelink a small but significant improvement over the AP2. I could be possibly be happy with either of the other two, but not without a period of remorse.


----------



## pompon

I had occasion to hear tonight the Hiface MK3 battery to AP2 + (hub powered with a 5 volts battery (a small DIY circuit) to avoid to use the wallwart coming with the hub).
  Was a quick test ...
   
  We was 4 ... they asked me to do stop after 10 sec on the hiface.  I consider AP much better ... not the same level or performance period.


----------



## alexhl

The Offramp5 is also good. Keep in mind that there will be a MK2 hiface soon and eventually will be modded by JK


----------



## drez

I think what you will find with transports is that synergy, as in the level and type of jitter in the SPDIF signal, SPDIF voltage and risetime will affect the how you perceive the performance of a transport.
   
  John Darko has tested a lot of DAC and transport combinations and for him, the AP works better with some DAC while the mk3 works better with others.  I think AP can sometimes have too low of certain types of jitter for some DAC's to sound natural.
   
  Different DAC's use different SPDIF receiver chips, a lot nowdays use WM8805, some still use DIR9001, not sure which other chips are used.  These chips operate differently to each other, some are more succeptible to SPDIF voltage, produce different jitter at the output and generally differ in the way they manage jitter.  With my last DAC I could change SPDIF receiver and preferred the sound of a less sophisticated receiver with my transport (DIR9001) as it sounded less forward.  With a different transport, or a different DAC, this receiver might sound better.
   
  So the performance of any one transport with any one DAC can vary because of numerous factors.  Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the computer used plays a role also.  This is supported by the varied impressions of the AP with different DAC's we have seen in this thread and elsewhere.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


pigmode said:


> ^Sorry, I've been a little worn out recently from burning in and integrating two S/PDIF converters. It can be a fun process and the results potentially gratifying, but its also distracting when experimenting with a system one is basically happy with. Anyway...
> 
> The Wavelink HS has a balanced fullness in the midrange. In comparison the AP2 pushes its mids slightly forward, something which is easily apparent with female vocals where the voice to a small degree recesses those sounds surrounding it. The forward mids of the AP2 also brings a slight warmth overall (not to say that its warm) and that's not bad thing, but a bow to personal preference more than anything else.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks, Pigmode, for the impressions.  
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I think what you will find with transports is that synergy, as in the level and type of jitter in the SPDIF signal, SPDIF voltage and risetime will affect the how you perceive the performance of a transport.
> 
> John Darko has tested a lot of DAC and transport combinations and for him, the AP works better with some DAC while the mk3 works better with others.  I think AP can sometimes have too low of certain types of jitter for some DAC's to sound natural.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm curious to see what kind of effect these transports are having on FR.  As in...which one has the least impact in FR.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> I'm curious to see what kind of effect these transports are having on FR.  As in...which one has the least impact in FR.


 

  Funny thing is these are all bitperfect apparently, yet people perceive frequency shifts
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Something more complicated than just more/less jitter is happening IMO.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That would be an interesting test, and I've wondered myself what differences would be uncovered since clean power would be available to the entire system, not just the clocks.  
   
  The new AP2 PS seems to be a bit late in arriving, but hope to see it this next week. 
  
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Awesome (+ pompom too).
> 
> So I don't recall, were you running it with normal usb power?
> 
> When it arrives, I'd consider sending my AP2 + AQVOX your way for a comparison.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

See _*bold italics*_. This brings us back to "what is really going on" with transports. What are the mechanisms involved with these things? How could too low jitter be detrimental to the music? Or do ultra-low jitter transports level the playing field with DACs so that the DAC and the receiver, combined with the analogue output become the limiting factor? 
  
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I think what you will find with transports is that synergy, as in the level and type of jitter in the SPDIF signal, SPDIF voltage and risetime will affect the how you perceive the performance of a transport.
> 
> John Darko has tested a lot of DAC and transport combinations and for him, the AP works better with some DAC while the mk3 works better with others.  I think AP can sometimes have _*too low of certain types of jitter*_ for some DAC's to sound natural.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I believe that if you were to measure any of these devices regardless of the transports, the FR would be typically ruler flat 20 - 20K (or more depending on the sampling rate). A rather crude analogy would be measuring most SS amplifiers--on the bench under strictly resistive loads, they measure very flat. However, putting them in the real world with real loads/interfaces, then differences begin to appear. 
  
  Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> Thanks, Pigmode, for the impressions.
> 
> ...


----------



## pigmode

I'm convinced jitter is just one part of the equation. It makes for good ad copy but doesn't hold up in terms of consistency in the real world.


----------



## slim.a

The interactions between the transport and the DAC are indeed far more complex than many people imagine.
   
  As an example, one can read stereophile's measurement of the Empirical Audio OR4 here: http://www.stereophile.com/content/empirical-audio-ramp-4-usb-format-converter-measurements
  The OR4 has slightly higher jitter (in the high frequencies) than the Halide Bridge. Yet when both units are run as USB transports, there significantly less jitter at the DAC output when using the OR4 as a transport.
   
  There might be other parameters at play that explain (further) the differences we hear when listening to different transports.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2 - I agree. It appears that AP has set the jitter standard for _most_ S/PDIF transports (except this from MSB, a $10K option: http://www.msbtech.com/products/galaxy.php), so we need to look elsewhere for other contributing mechanisms that make a difference. 
   
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'm convinced jitter is just one part of the equation. It makes for good ad copy but doesn't hold up in terms of consistency in the real world.


----------



## slim.a

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> This brings us back to "what is really going on" with transports. What are the mechanisms involved with these things? How could too low jitter be detrimental to the music? Or do ultra-low jitter transports level the playing field with DACs so that the DAC and the receiver, combined with the *analogue output become the limiting factor*?


 

 Your last point is very interesting.

 In my system, I have the possibility to connect the DAC with the headphone amp either through regular RCA or through ACSS/current mode (those who have audio-gd gear should be familiar with these terms).
  After spending many months with my set-up, I had come to think that both type of connections were more or less equivalent (when using good quality cables on both) with slight differences between the two methods.

 After upgrading to the AP2, and especially with the AQVOX, I have found that there is far more distortion on the RCA type of connection. Whatever the AP2+AQVOX combination is doing, it seems that my system is not able to fully keep up with increased speed. Also, it also possible that that very small distortion was already present. Who knows?
  In the grand scheme of things those are subtle differences but they do seem to exist as far as I can tell.
   
  So, indeed, the analog output might turn out to be an important factor. Most probably it is a combination of the digital receiver, impedance, filter, DAC type, grounding, analog stages... that govern the results of transport/DAC interactions.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





slim.a said:


> The interactions between the transport and the DAC are indeed far more complex than many people imagine.
> 
> As an example, one can read stereophile's measurement of the Empirical Audio OR4 here: http://www.stereophile.com/content/empirical-audio-ramp-4-usb-format-converter-measurements
> The OR4 has slightly higher jitter (in the high frequencies) than the Halide Bridge. Yet when both units are run as USB transports, there significantly less jitter at the DAC output when using the OR4 as a transport.
> ...


 

 Yep, jitter seems to be only one factor. For what it's worth, Steve said that the OR5 with the USB regulator cuts jitter in half compared to what Stereophile measured with the OR4.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Steve's getting there on the jitter specs.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, do you own the OR4 or OR5? 
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Yep, jitter seems to be only one factor. For what it's worth, Steve said that the OR5 with the USB regulator cuts jitter in half compared to what Stereophile measured with the OR4.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I had occasion to hear tonight the Hiface MK3 battery to AP2 + (hub powered with a 5 volts battery (a small DIY circuit) to avoid to use the wallwart coming with the hub).
> Was a quick test ...
> 
> We was 4 ... they asked me to do stop after 10 sec on the hiface.  I consider AP much better ... not the same level or performance period.


 


http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/john-darkos-blog/item/344-a-ramble-through-digital-audio-transports
   
  "How does the Audiophilleo compare to the JKSPDIF?  I get asked this question a lot.  I've tried them both with a wide array of budget DACs over many, many months.  There really isn't that much to separate them sonically.  I could happily live with either (in the long-term) but I distinctly preferred the JKSPDIF with the Metrum Octave - it seemed to bring out more elasticity and tame some of the glassiness."
   
You did say the AP2 was beaten by the Xonar ST until you made that hub setup.  Maybe the same is holding true about the hub setup vs. battery power with these USB converters?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I believe that if you were to measure any of these devices regardless of the transports, the FR would be typically ruler flat 20 - 20K (or more depending on the sampling rate). A rather crude analogy would be measuring most SS amplifiers--on the bench under strictly resistive loads, they measure very flat. However, putting them in the real world with real loads/interfaces, then differences begin to appear.


 

 Exactly.  How can one explain the science of anything audio based that shows flat FR, but in the system we are subjectively evaluating, the two components sound vastly different.  I like to listen with my own ears rather than explain something that can be explained, but is pointless when we are subjective listeners, not objective listeners.


----------



## sphinxvc

Just to clarify, I meant measurements under a real load.  Like the Anax mod measurements by Purrin.  Now that I think some more about it though, I think the shifts *may *be too minute to reliably notice.  Still, it would be good to see.  From what I have read so far of Pigmode's impressions, it would seem the Wavelength HS is the most transparent.
   
  Anyway, I had borrowed HD800s from another head-fier [TMoney] for three weeks, and when I went to go drop it off Friday, we spoke about my plans to buy a AP2 (or similar) for a while.  
   
  After listening to his SR-009s some, he commented that in his experience, they were the only cans to make the HD800s sound "veiled"!  I agreed.  TMoney advised moving up to a thinner, faster transducer would probably yield more of a gain than an AP2.  
   
  So now my plans are up in the air, and I'm not sure which $600 investment would give me the most ROI.  On the other hand, I don't think dynamic transducers are that good, and I'm not sure I want a $2K one.  In the long run it might be better to invest in my source.  
   
  Anyway, didn't meant to get off topic here guys, just thinking out loud.


----------



## kLevkoff

Interface converters.... AKA "Numbers, Jitter, and what else???"
   
  The problem here is that we ARE all subjective listeners... and we humans, myself included, simply cannot be trusted to separate objective reality from subjective expectations. It's like the experiments with wine; cheap wine in an expensive bottle DOES taste better.... personally, however, I'd rather not pay $1000 for a fancy bottle (I figure I can train myself to avoid those psychologically-based "differences", increase my enjoyment, and save a ton of money  )
   
  A good start is to separate the engineering facts from the voodoo - so at least we can align our expectations with facts rather than fleeting illusions in smoke and mirrors.....
   
  When we discuss analog audio, there is indeed a lot to discuss. There is one theoretical perfect "source", and an almost infinite number of ways in which what we have can vary from it. For example, the frequency response can be ruler flat, but there could be added second harmonics (which WILL show up on a spectrum analysis as extra content in high frequencies - it isn't magic). There is also the possibility that certain types of things (like extra second harmonics) MAY affect our human perception of the sound out of proportion to the numbers. Adding 1% of second harmonic distortion is far more of a change than boosting the same frequencies by 1%. Every change may affect the way it sounds in new and interesting ways. If two things REALLY sound different, but "measure the same", then you simply aren't measuring the right thing, or your measurements aren't accurate enough.
   
  Some of us may even say that some changes (even though they make the result less accurate) "sound good"; adding second harmonics may make the result "more lifelike" (just like spray painting a dead tree can make it "look more alive"), but, just like adding paint, doing so cannot be said to make the result more accurate even though it sounds better. How do you KNOW that it's the right color green; how do you know that particular tree isn't a different color; and, finally, do you want your picture of that tree to be "pretty" or accurate?
   
  Digital audio consists of DATA; aka numbers. The information itself (on a CD or audio file) is absolutely JUST NUMBERS. There is NO TIMING information in there; no jitter; no possibility of jitter. The only way jitter can make any difference to data is if it is so bad that it causes some device along the way to get the numbers wrong (which can happen). The numbers ARE the same, whether you read them off a hard disc, or a CD, or a punch tape - unless there are actual errors. Anyone who claims differently is simply deluding themself. If you RIP a CD (accurately), copy it to a hard disk, and then burn it to a CD-ROM, as long as the numbers remain correct, it IS all the same data and DOES sound the same. There is no magic ingredient that can be lost or added. The only "other factor" is whether there is jitter at a point where it can affect the D/A conversion.
   
  JITTER is important in two places; the two conversions. Any jitter present at the initial A/D conversion will mess things up. We don't discuss that here, however, because the damage is done long before we get that CD or file, and so there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even try to "remove it in retrospect" because we have no way of knowing what it was when it was introduced. What we are concerned about is jitter at the point of the D/A conversion - which certainly DOES affect the sound. Jitter causes ERROR; it causes DISTORTION. The ideal amount of jitter is zero, and there is no such thing as "good jitter" unless and except if you happen to like the distortion produced by the interaction with a particular flavor of jitter and a particular DAC. Jitter will never make the sound more accurate. It can, however, be removed or reduced to zero.
   
  When a digital signal with jitter is converted to analog, extra "junk" is created in the output signal. This junk is created BY THE CONVERSION PROCESS because the jitter interferes with it. You can call it noise or distortion, but it is absolutely extra stuff that doesn't belong there. What type of extra junk, and how much, is determined by how much jitter, how the DAC itself works, and a few other related issues. If you have two devices with similar jitter that sound different, then the jitter they have must be of different types (correlated or uncorrelated, frequency spectrum OF THE JITTER).
   
  The USB output of most computers has an amazingly LARGE amount of jitter (1000's of picoseconds), which causes quite noticeable distortion if it's allowed to continue on to the DAC. Devices like the Audiophilleo (or the Hiface) use USB asynch mode so THEIR clock controls the signal. If they are doing their job correctly, ALL jitter originally present in the source is eliminated; and all the jitter that remains is that contributed by THEIR circuitry. If any such devices were perfect at their job, then they would sound the same - because their output would be the right numbers, and nothing else. Obviously, if there are real differences to be heard, then they are NOT perfect. (Assuming, though, that they do even a pretty good job, any jitter, or sound character, of ANYTHING before them - be it fancy USB cable, gold CD or CD-r, hard drive, SSD, or barbed wire, will be totally deleted.... and replaced with the sound of the interface converter and its clock. Some, like the V-Link, produce a lot of their own jitter; which may still be more benign than the computer's jitter - or not. Others, like the Audiophilleo, produce very very little.) The same numbers DO sound the same, regardless of where they are gotten from or how they are stored. If you compare the numbers, and they are the same, and you play them on the same equipment, the output IS the same. If you hear a difference, then you are imagining it - sorry. Play the same recording from a CD, a CD-R, or a hard drive - if all three are bit perfect, and have no jitter (or the jitter is successfully removed), then they ARE the same. If they sound different then either the numbers are different or the source device is somehow causing jitter that is being passed through to the DAC.
   
  Once the USB converter turns the signal into something like S/PDIF, it needs to get that signal to the DAC. Here is another spot where things can get messed up (jitter can creep back in). At this point, it is up to both the output circuitry on the converter (the S/PDIF sender) and on the DAC (the S/PDIF Receiver) to avoid adding jitter again (or try to). The S/PDIF cable, while it won't technically add jitter, can make it more difficult for the sender and receiver to do a good job - and so CAUSE jitter to get added. The ideal cable would do as little as possible to cause jitter. The ideal sender and receiver will in turn do their best to NOT be sensitive to the cable. (Again, if there were ten perfect cables, then they would all sound identical, because none would add any jitter or encourage it to be added by the sender and receiver. If you compare ten cables, and they sound different, then you are comparing their FLAWS, and not some magical property or "personality" of each. It is THE FLAWS that have personality, not the desired function.)
   
  kLevkoff


----------



## kLevkoff

A transport is A TRANSPORT.
   
  The Audiophilleo converts one form of data into another. It takes USB, re-clocks it, and sends it back out as S/PDIF - both of which are forms of digital data.
   
  If the Audiophilleo (or the HiFace, or whatever) were to work perfectly (and remove ALL jitter), then it would impart no character to the sound whatsoever.
  Since none are perfect, each does indeed impart its own "flavor" (amount and spectrum) of JITTER to the output.
  Beyond that, they do NOTHING.
   
  They do NOT change frequency response (although enough of the right kind of jitter could introduce harmonics).
  They do NOT change the speed or rhythm of the sound (they are all accurate to very few parts per MILLION in terms of speed).
  They do NOT change the numbers at all (unless you use an optional digital volume control).
  They either introduce some new distortion in the form of the products of their jitter contribution or they do not.
   
  The subject really IS a lot simpler than it has been made out to be.
  Perfect data with zero jitter (delivered at the DAC) would be the best result possible; the goal is to approach that target as closely as possible.
   
  Yes, it is POSSIBLE that one device might produce more jitter, but of a type that is less annoying than that produced by another one....
  but it is still a "one dimensional issue".
   
  [I'm afraid it's a bit like claiming that "solid state equipment sounds too analytical".
  Isn't that just a polite way of saying "it sounds totally accurate, and I rather wish it didn't"? ]
   
   
  kLevkoff


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


>


 


   
  I don't think you're too far off topic in regards to the Audiophilleo 1/2 (PurePower). Any such upgrade is bound to raise farther reaching questions of the overall system at hand.
   
  For myself I consider the AP2/Wavelink an upgrade for a system that will probably remain static (more or less) for up to a year. I think an amp upgrade fits into those parameters as the basic sound signature of the HD800 based system remains the same. I define my system by the HD800, because it is built to optimize its performance for the Senn. I agree that before looking into the next level of amplification, I need to explore the 009 as well. 
   
  I'm not quite ready to conclude the Wavelink is significantly more transparent than the MK3 and AP2. More extended and with slightly higher resolution perhaps, but each of the three seems quite transparent. I also still have questions as to how the effects of an S/PDIF convertor is affected by system synergy, and more specifically how the DAC and connection method (from the S/PDIF convertor) can influence sound variation.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> [I'm afraid it's a bit like claiming that "solid state equipment sounds too analytical".
> Isn't that just a polite way of saying "it sounds totally accurate, and I rather wish it didn't"? ]


 

 Solid state doesn't have a single sound, and more than tube amps have "a sound". A component will sound how you design it to. Krell and Levinson, both SS, very different. The CD-DA files that exist on audio CDs are not read in packets the way a CD-Rom drive will read data. Timing is very much an issue. Any $20 computer CD-Rom drive can read your Word document, provided the disc isn't scratched beyond repair. There's no timing involved. Digital audio doesn't work that way, otherwise Esoteric would have no need to bother with the VRDS. 
   
  There's more to a CD transport than _just _the amount of jitter present at the S/Pdif output. The same is true with USB converters. Everything matters.


----------



## WarriorAnt

This brings me to perhaps an off topic question while I wait for someone to sell me a used *audiophilleo-2.*    I used to have a THETA Transport connected to my DAC to listen to CDs but now I rip my CDs to a hard drive.  I'm wondering how important the physical CD drive  is in a situation where just the files are being ripped or transferred to an HD?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> This brings me to perhaps an off topic question while I wait for someone to sell me a used *audiophilleo-2.*    I used to have a THETA Transport connected to my DAC to listen to CDs but now I rip my CDs to a hard drive.  I'm wondering how important the physical CD drive  is in a situation where just the files are being ripped or transferred to an HD?


 

 Go back a couple of pages. There was a big discussion on EAC and whether ripping a CD would introduce any sort of timing error.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Go back a couple of pages. There was a big discussion on EAC and whether ripping a CD would introduce any sort of timing error.


 


  Well I know of the issues pro and con of ripping but I'm talking about the importance of the physical transport itself.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Yep. On a MAC, use XLD; on a PC, use EAC. 
   
  I '_believe_' that we concluded that jitter was a non-issue when ripping to HD? 
  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Go back a couple of pages. There was a big discussion on EAC and whether ripping a CD would introduce any sort of timing error.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Yep. On a MAC, use XLD; on a PC, use EAC.
> 
> I '_believe_' that we concluded that jitter was a non-issue when ripping to HD?


 

 I think that is the conclusion we reached - a properly set up modern DVD reader with EAC writing to a disk with no other I/O while the rip is taking place should be 100% accurate as far as it is possible.
   
  As far as digital is digital, jitter is jitter etc this is true BUT typical computer transport setups are much more complicated than this.  Not all SPDIF receivers are the same, not all DAC's use the same galvanic isolation, not all DAC chips have the same characteristics.  Ideally one could read off the data at the end of the Digital input before oversampling and compare it to the data that is being fed to measure how much jitter and what type of jitter, what freuency etc each system produces, then one could say which system is producing the highes digital fidelity.  Or you could also measure the distortion of the analogue output.  This would be very useful to do if you are designing a DAC, but not really all that useful if you are chosing a DAC or transport to purchase.  Additionally not all USB or PCI soundcard drivers work the same, and computer hardware, playback software, drivers, OS all affect the latency and jitter of the data which the transport can fetch and DO make a considerable difference even when the best asynchronous transports are used.
   
  The problem is also that while certain types of jitter create certain types of distortion, distortion is not just distortion.  Some of the DAC's with the lowest on-paper distortion sound far inferior to DAC's with far more distortion if used incorrectly.  Certain forms of distortion actually sound good - there are certain aspects of a musical recording which you really don't care to hear and which distract from appreciation of the music itself.  Clipping artifacts, coughing in the audience, other low level details can be laid bare by certain DAC's but add little to the musical experience.  Frankly I am quite happy to forgo certain low level details that are mostly distracting, while focusing on intentional aspects of the music.
   
  This does not mean that I don't think that the technical performance of a digital tranport is important, just that there are other subjective results of this performance that I am more interested in obeserving for myself, and which I cannot predict purely by looking at specifications.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





drez said:


> - there are certain aspects of a musical recording which you really don't care to hear and which distract from appreciation of the music itself.  Clipping artifacts, coughing in the audience, other low level details can be laid bare by certain DAC's but add little to the musical experience.  Frankly I am quite happy to forgo certain low level details that are mostly distracting, while focusing on intentional aspects of the music.


 
  Again I do not mean to derail this thread but I do not understand the above statement.  Having professionally edited and mixed audio for 24 years I am wondering what type of low level detail you consider distracting?  Certainly artificial artifacts injected into the listening experience are of course unwanted but there is much low level detail and cues derived from that low level detail in most recordings that is important and essential to the musical experience at hand?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Again I do not mean to derail this thread but I do not understand the above statement.  Having professionally edited and mixed audio for 24 years I am wondering what type of low level detail you consider distracting?  Certainly artificial artifacts injected into the listening experience are of course unwanted but there is much low level detail and cues derived from that low level detail in most recordings that is important and essential to the musical experience at hand?


 

 What I meant to say is what is more important, the finer details of a musicain moving on their chair, turning pages, audience coughing or the dynamic shading and tonality of the music? IMO really aggressive mico/detail can be distracting from the overall musical composition but really this was a bit of a throw-away statement from me to be honest but my general thought was this: what is more important, hearing the recording or appreciating the music.  This of course is another throw-away statement as there are no universal agreed standards for incisive/aggressive detail and whether it adds or detracts from music, it probably depends on the recording, production, mastering, as well as personal preference.  The general idea of my statement was to challenge the idea that all distortion always has a negative impact on music which IMO simply isn't true (or isn't simply true.)
   
  Popular, rock and heavy metal recordings are full of clipping distortion from dynamic compression - and I could not stand some recordings on my last DAC.  On this one I can hear the clipping but it isn't as aggressive.  On the downside I can no longer clearly understand conversations going on in the background between band members, but really how important is it to hear this?  I have heard some recordings where details have an "on or off" quality where they just appear out of nowhere and disappear again without any attack or decay. All the important details are still clearly audible, but then again I might change my mind once I hear a different DAC and transport setup that totally changes my perspective.  I don't think this has anything to do with the transport though - I think most of it is down to the DAC's oversampling filters, but personally I have heard SPDIF receiver with technically higher jitter levels sound better than technically worse counterparts.  This is probably coloration but it is hiding shortcomings in my previous DAC/amplifier, or my computer, or the recordings, but the result is given the gear I was using the, subjectively better music reproduction.
   
  I mean I could probably get comparable results using an AP, ultra detailed DAC, and a tube amplifier, or use a technically inferior transport with a technically inferior DAC and a transparent amplifier.  I personally haven't tested enough equipment to say which approach would sound better though to be honest.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Solid state doesn't have a single sound, and more than tube amps have "a sound". A component will sound how you design it to. Krell and Levinson, both SS, very different. The CD-DA files that exist on audio CDs are not read in packets the way a CD-Rom drive will read data. Timing is very much an issue. Any $20 computer CD-Rom drive can read your Word document, provided the disc isn't scratched beyond repair. There's no timing involved. Digital audio doesn't work that way, otherwise Esoteric would have no need to bother with the VRDS.
> 
> There's more to a CD transport than _just _the amount of jitter present at the S/Pdif output. The same is true with USB converters. Everything matters.


 


  I personally believe implementation is everything.  But then we have the many things already mentioned such as the USB at the computer side of the equation, the USB conversion on the DAC side, the noise levels or whatever inflicts sound cards, clocks used where exactly?, what types of clocks to use since many even go custom since they don't like the sound of the mega buck one the manufacturer has to offer, then software, drivers...there's such a long extreme list that it's threads like this one that truly help one to at least hope to understand what exactly is happening because the more the thread unwinds, the more we are seeing very interesting input/feedback regarding what people are hearing, what they have done to then hear something different, what seems to then sound best after trials of a few different things, and the list again goes on and on.
   
  BTW, amps are indeed very different.  Even in the low-mid-whatever range...you name it, and each has its own sound.  I personally like amps that are as transparent as possible, adding as little to nothing of the designer's house flavor, so when it is inserted into a system, you can't say, oh yes, sounds like it was done by X company or designer.  I've seen many give reviews on "neutral" amps, ones that should fit the transparency I speak of, but upon hearing them, I only hear a different sounding low-fi, mid-fi, whatever amp...nothing at all transparent about it in any way whatsoever.  This all said, in spite amps are indeed different and easily pointed out as being different, they are quite darn alike...i.e. after hearing a truly transparent amplifier (not saying it's some best in the world thing), "every" other amp is identical, in as much as it is different to another one.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I'm not quite ready to conclude the Wavelink is significantly more transparent than the MK3 and AP2. More extended and with slightly higher resolution perhaps, but each of the three seems quite transparent. I also still have questions as to how the effects of an S/PDIF convertor is affected by system synergy, and more specifically how the DAC and connection method (from the S/PDIF convertor) can influence sound variation.


 

 This is very important.  Think of it like this:  1) How would the MK3 have sounded directly connected to your dac.  2) How about a direct connection of the AP2 on the USB side?  3) How about a direct connection of both Coax+USB?  4) How about de-soldering ALL coax/USB taps, and tap in the converters so nothing but silver solder is between your dac and transport?  5) This all said, how about the "effect" of using cables?  What exactly do cables do?  I know I never felt a cable could make a difference as a coax, but I was greatly incorrect.  I like the coax cable so much I still wonder what would have happened had I tried the AP2 w/my coax instead of going direct into my dac?  What about transformers to cut down the signal/reflections/etc.?
   
  Just so many variables, but in the end, if these USB converters are truly just a system synergy based thing, I don't know that one is every really better than another.  I certainly would never discount system synergy because I have to hear something like the Off Ramp in my own system to say, no, USB converters for whatever reason are not my cup of tea.  I've heard enough that they are fine, but I don't ever feel like they do anything but "change" the sound in a "very" minute kind of way.  In other words, getting out even a cheapo dvd player not even considered to be any good as a transport, sounded much superior to the stock Hiface which should theoretically, in spite not being the best converter, do a better job as a transport.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> What I meant to say is what is more important, the finer details of a musicain moving on their chair, turning pages, audience coughing or the dynamic shading and tonality of the music? IMO really aggressive mico/detail can be distracting from the overall musical composition but really this was a bit of a throw-away statement from me to be honest but my general thought was this: what is more important, hearing the recording or appreciating the music.
> 
> I mean I could have got the same results using an AP, ultra detailed DAC, and a tube amplifier, or use a technically inferior transport with a technically inferior DAC and a transparent amplifier.  I personally haven't tested enough equipment to say which approach would sound better.


 
   
  I cut out bits because this is important, being that you introduced the most important aspect of audio reproduction=subjectivity and also amount of music systems we have heard, especially in our house or other people's homes.  IMHO, ALL reproduction for the most part, that I have ever heard, be it at shows, hi-fi shops, homes, wherever, are aimed at the reproduction of the recording.  Even the designer of my speakers had intentions the same as these others.  But what I hear with my speakers is so far different than anything I have heard ever before.  Sure, you can analyze them, but what gets me is how engaging they are to the extent that from day 1, even using sub-par equipment, I felt like wow, this is amazing sound...no, it's not the detail of a Raal ribbon, it's not a smaller more analytical Tad mid, it's not a Tad woofer, etc. etc. etc. But it has this sound that makes music sound literally live, alive, an "experience".
   
  When I last heard a "hi-fi" sound, I explained to the person that my sound is very alive/live/clear/clean/leaves you with the music rather than behind the music and watching the recording display whatever it has to display, this person said his is very musical/live also.  He felt his sound was what I was describing in my sound.  Lo and behold, his sound was yet...more of the same hi-fi stuff I have heard too too many times.  Most importantly, this system was a very good representation of how 99% out there hear things or like to hear things or are used to hearing things.  I don't want to say I have some unique sound because I've heard tons of unique sound...LOL..just saying those that are geared towards what my speaker designer is also geared towards cannot get away from that analysis of the recording aspect, even when a load of layers/information aren't even being revealed on these systems, but that can be heard on mine (again, pay no attention to me saying my system is so this or that because it is compromised/flawed/etc. just as anyone else's is...and importantly, subjective).
   
  What I gained from this experience, however, was very important because it did help me to sorta understand a little bit more about USB converters, USB based DACs, etc. etc.  It also provided a theory that I have involving my personal system's sound vs. the more typical hi-fi sound.  In my system, for example, a USB converter sounded like it horn loaded my speakers.  It was extremely aggressive and it was not good for my system at all.  In the system above that I heard it in, it sounded very mellow, relaxed, even weak compared to the USB converter and USB DAC we had been listening to and could compare it with.  Though I have not tried the superior USB converter in my own system, I do have a feeling it will not be so over the top aggressive BUT, it could indeed reduce/impact negatively the sound I am hearing, especially with my pre-dac.  I really have to question this aspect of things because when my pre-dac was in this system, the soundstage did indeed expand greatly and it was very very impressive.  However, with the aggressive USB device I had in home, the soundstage was forward and actually stopped at a point very close to the speakers, as in, What happened to my soundstage depth???  My guess is the reference based USB converter will allow the soundstage to expand (though I am not certain), enabling my pre-dac to work in harmony with it rather than having it reduce/deduct/subtract from its qualities/virtues (again uncertain), and provide a more detailed vs. aggressive sound.  BUT, it could flat out interfere with things, produce way too much aggression, and sound like I have even greater sensitive honking horn drivers than the other lesser to my ears USB converter did to my speakers).
   
  Will definitely investigate and report back about this.  Maybe by that time, people will have the battery packed AP and we may find some sort of grounds of similarity...or not)
   
  Cheers!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I cut out bits because this is important, being that you introduced the most important aspect of audio reproduction=subjectivity and also amount of music systems we have heard, especially in our house or other people's homes.  IMHO, ALL reproduction for the most part, that I have ever heard, be it at shows, hi-fi shops, homes, wherever, are aimed at the reproduction of the recording.  Even the designer of my speakers had intentions the same as these others.  But what I hear with my speakers is so far different than anything I have heard ever before.  Sure, you can analyze them, but what gets me is how engaging they are to the extent that from day 1, even using sub-par equipment, I felt like wow, this is amazing sound...no, it's not the detail of a Raal ribbon, it's not a smaller more analytical Tad mid, it's not a Tad woofer, etc. etc. etc. But it has this sound that makes music sound literally live, alive, an "experience".
> 
> When I last heard a "hi-fi" sound, I explained to the person that my sound is very alive/live/clear/clean/leaves you with the music rather than behind the music and watching the recording display whatever it has to display, this person said his is very musical/live also.  He felt his sound was what I was describing in my sound.  Lo and behold, his sound was yet...more of the same hi-fi stuff I have heard too too many times.  Most importantly, this system was a very good representation of how 99% out there hear things or like to hear things or are used to hearing things.  I don't want to say I have some unique sound because I've heard tons of unique sound...LOL..just saying those that are geared towards what my speaker designer is also geared towards cannot get away from that analysis of the recording aspect, even when a load of layers/information aren't even being revealed on these systems, but that can be heard on mine (again, pay no attention to me saying my system is so this or that because it is compromised/flawed/etc. just as anyone else's is...and importantly, subjective).
> 
> ...


 

 I think I may have overgeneralised a bit but the idea I was putting forward is that in most systems that aren't used in recording studios there is some sort of euphonic distortion going on to either cover up shortcomings in the transducer or the recordings.  Whether this is done with the DAC, transport or amplifier is a bit academic and a matter of personal preference and budget (esp in case of tube amplifiers)  What the audible, subjective results of the individual forms of distortion is what matters.
   
  I would really like to try an AP in my system, and thank heavens they have a trail system going, but to be honest I would probably be better off spending the money elsewhere given that the AP and mk3 are pretty close.  I think very soon we will see a lot more XMOS transports apart from just the Wavelink HS, Anedio U2 and Stello U3 and given the performance of the Wavelink I can't see why the others mentioned here would be far behind.  I also want to try the Tabla pico...  But I should probably stop tweaking USB input as IMO mk3 is probably close enough not to warrant the cost of changing transports...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think I may have overgeneralised a bit but the idea I was putting forward is that in most systems that aren't used in recording studios there is some sort of euphonic distortion going on to either cover up shortcomings in the transducer or the recordings.  Whether this is done with the DAC, transport or amplifier is a bit academic and a matter of personal preference and budget (esp in case of tube amplifiers)  What the audible, subjective results of the individual forms of distortion is what matters.
> 
> I would really like to try an AP in my system, and thank heavens they have a trail system going, but to be honest I would probably be better off spending the money elsewhere given that the AP and mk3 are pretty close.  I think very soon we will see a lot more XMOS transports apart from just the Wavelink HS, Anedio U2 and Stello U3 and given the performance of the Wavelink I can't see why the others mentioned here would be far behind.  I also want to try the Tabla pico...  But I should probably stop tweaking USB input as IMO mk3 is probably close enough not to warrant the cost of changing transports...


 

 I think testing any of these others would be a waste.  If you are going to test anything, I would test the Off Ramp 5 w/Hynes.  But that's $1600+ Shipping so that better be damn good or you really blew big time money (not that you couldn't get most of it back).
   
  What do you do to get the best sound from the MK3?  Did you see some of my mentionings above regarding coax+USB delete or just direct connect of USB or Coax (i.e. eliminating as many wires as is possible just like the AP2 concept)?
   
  One other thing I considered is the batteries that are in use with the MK3 or with the AP2.  I have heard differences in batteries before.  I have actually heard three different battery packs (to run a preamp), and only one was any good.  Others were still better than electricity, but didn't stand out like this one did.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I think testing any of these others would be a waste.  If you are going to test anything, I would test the Off Ramp 5 w/Hynes.  But that's $1600+ Shipping so that better be damn good or you really blew big time money (not that you couldn't get most of it back).
> 
> What do you do to get the best sound from the MK3?  Did you see some of my mentionings above regarding coax+USB delete or just direct connect of USB or Coax (i.e. eliminating as many wires as is possible just like the AP2 concept)?
> 
> One other thing I considered is the batteries that are in use with the MK3 or with the AP2.  I have heard differences in batteries before.  I have actually heard three different battery packs (to run a preamp), and only one was any good.  Others were still better than electricity, but didn't stand out like this one did.


 

 I think building a dedicated computer would be useful as the computer side of a transport is very important but often overlooked component IMO, but I am waiting for the new Intel chips.  Direct USB would be possible but would require crawling on the floor to turn on and off, plus I am a bit skeptical about "tweak of the month" as often any change can be perceived as an improvement.  Would be easier to test with other transports that don't need a switch flipped.  I think it is easier and cheaper to buy a good SPDIF cable than a good USB cable, so using USB adapter makes a lot more sense than using SPDIF adapter IMO, so crawling might be worth the effort until Ivy bridge comes out.  The AP owner have no excuse not to try


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think building a dedicated computer would be useful as the computer side of a transport is very important but often overlooked component IMO, but I am waiting for the new Intel chips.  Direct USB would be possible but would require crawling on the floor to turn on and off, plus I am a bit skeptical about "tweak of the month" as often any change can be perceived as an improvement.  Would be easier to test with other transports that don't need a switch flipped.  I think it is easier and cheaper to buy a good SPDIF cable than a good USB cable, so using USB adapter makes a lot more sense than using SPDIF adapter IMO, so crawling might be worth the effort until Ivy bridge comes out.  The AP owner have no excuse not to try


 
   
  Dedicated computers are definitely a good idea, particularly on the Windows side as you can run JPlay in its full hibernation/zero latency mode. Chris from Computer Audiophile has repeatedly mentioned in his reviews that his CAPS computer (just an Atom board with a switch mode PSU and a SoTM USB card) is able to outperform $5K custom designed servers, and that's using JRiver.
   
  Any particular reason you're waiting for Ivy? Other than the integrated GPU improvement, it's not all that different from Sandy B, just a die shrink.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Dedicated computers are definitely a good idea, particularly on the Windows side as you can run JPlay in its full hibernation/zero latency mode. Chris from Computer Audiophile has repeatedly mentioned in his reviews that his CAPS computer (just an Atom board with a switch mode PSU and a SoTM USB card) is able to outperform $5K custom designed servers, and that's using JRiver.
> 
> Any particular reason you're waiting for Ivy? Other than the integrated GPU improvement, it's not all that different from Sandy B, just a die shrink.


 

 AFAIK Ivy Bridge should have more performance for less power usage, and JPlay seems to be getting more and more power hungry, should also be out in about a month.  I'm not sure about going with the low powered 't' and 's' models as you could always underclock a 'k' model just as easily right?  With lower powered processors and win 8 beta some people have reported needing to increase buffer size, ideally I would want to spec something that can run win 8 with JPlay extreme engine, direct link playing high res files.  Not really sure which processor I would need for this, so I have been waiting to see what Ivy B brings.  At this point for me it was either music server or transport upgrade or buying more cable supplies, then doing hookup wiring etc etc bit of a bad spiral investment wise imo


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


audioexcels said:


> One other thing I considered is the batteries that are in use with the MK3 or with the AP2.  I have heard differences in batteries before.  I have actually heard three different battery packs (to run a preamp), and only one was any good.  Others were still better than electricity, but didn't stand out like this one did.


 

 What battery was that?
   
  As in battery type, was it LifePo4 based, something else?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> AFAIK Ivy Bridge should have more performance for less power usage, and JPlay seems to be getting more and more power hungry, should also be out in about a month.  I'm not sure about going with the low powered 't' and 's' models as you could always underclock a 'k' model just as easily right?  With lower powered processors and win 8 beta some people have reported needing to increase buffer size, ideally I would want to spec something that can run win 8 with JPlay extreme engine, direct link playing high res files.  Not really sure which processor I would need for this, so I have been waiting to see what Ivy B brings.  At this point for me it was either music server or transport upgrade or buying more cable supplies, then doing hookup wiring etc etc bit of a bad spiral investment wise imo


 

 Core i3 2120T is 35W, 2.6Ghz. Really only necessary if you want to use completely passive cooling. The fastest Sandy i3 is 2125, 3.3Ghz at 65W. You'd need a cooling fan for that, but you could run it slow enough to be inaudible. The Ivy Bridge Core i3 models will be the same clock rate as the current 2125, just at 55W. Performance per clock will probably be up a small amount. Where Ivy's improvements have more impact is with Core i5. Current i5s are 95W and 65W for the S models. Ivy will be 77W, 65W, and a 45W 3570T model at 2.3Ghz. I don't think JPlay can actually use a quad core CPU, so that's probably unnecessary.
   
  The dual core, 35W 3470T at 2.9Ghz is probably the best Ivy for a dedicated JPlay machine, but that's not due till June.


----------



## K3cT

For you Jplay users, 4.2 is out by the way. Support for a seekbar and gapless playback is way, way long overdue.


----------



## kLevkoff

Batteries... again.... and understanding them...
   
  When you're running an ANALOG circuit (like a preamp or headphone amp), then the power source you're using has an effect on the sound because the signal is directly dependent on it. (If, for example, the ground or rails are noisy, then some of that noise MAY find its way through the circuit to the output.) This is simply NOT TRUE for digital signals. Any signal source, like a PC, AS LONG AS IT PUTS OUT ALL THE RIGHT NUMBERS AT THE RIGHT TIMES, cannot sound different than any other. So the important thing is that it do so, and not lose any numbers along the way.
   
  Of course, PCs do a lousy job of meeting that requirement because all USB implementations have truly horrendous amounts of jitter. This is why you want an ASYNCH USB converter or DAC input - because it takes the timing away from the PC. Now the PC provides the right numbers and the asynch input provides the timing.... which is now entirely dependent on the clock in the converter or DAC.
   
  The Audiophilleo (I have an AP1), assuming it meets its claims, which it seems to, has a ridiculously good clock. According to reviews, for example, it's about 100 TIMES cleaner than the clock in the V-Link. So, presumably, using any PC that doesn't drop data, and an AP, you now have perfect numbers with damn-near perfect timing. So why the battery? Well, the output of the AP is digital, so it doesn't care (numbers ARE still just numbers), but the AP is still connected to the PC's noisy ground and power buses via the USB cable; its power regenerator is STILL connected to them and, being a high-frequency power supply itself, may well generate some noise of its own. Running the output circuitry from a battery removes that last bit of connection between them, which may well enable some DACs to do their job better, specifically because it allows the DAC to be isolated from the computer better. HOWEVER, the output of the AP is still just numbers. It isn't analog, so there's really no reason to even imagine that the particulars of the battery would make any difference whatsoever to the sound - because the battery doesn't "touch" the analog portion of things at all.
   
  Since, at this point, the ONLY contribution the PC and converter can make to the sound is jitter (which, by definition, is always a BAD contribution), it seems quite unlikely that another converter, which does the conversion orders of magnitude worse than the AP, could sound better - unless, of course, someone likes the type of distortion caused by jitter. The only real question is whether any of us can actually hear the difference, or whether a cheaper (and worse) one won't actually sound audibly worse.
  (Incidentally. the Ap1 lets you verify that your PC or other source is bit perfect - which, once and for all, eliminated that part of the equation.)
   
  I can't imagine that, beyond this point, we hearing anything OTHER THAN the differences between the various DACs themselves -
  now that the source and the converter are now "arbitrarily perfect".
   
  The AP battery is a very cool battery (anybody else know a battery that graphs its own performance).... but it's just a battery.


----------



## kLevkoff

"Elimination of certain low-level details" = euphonic distortion.
  Yeah, really.


----------



## kLevkoff

Coax (S/PDIF) vs USB
   
  S/PDIF is clocked by the sender - so the timing (and jitter) can be no better than the sender. The senders, however, tend to be pretty good.
  It is also dependent on the quality of the receiver and cable.
  With S/PDIF, a bad cable CAN make things worse (of course it cannot make them better).
   
  Old style (NON-asynch) USB is clocked by the sender - so the jitter is dependent on the sender. PCs are notoriously BAD when it comes to jitter.
  In fact, PCs are all probably so bad that even the worst cable can't do much harm.
   
  ASYNCH USB is clocked by the receiver or converter (or DAC). This eliminates the sender as a source of jitter and puts the responsibility firmly on the part of the receiver.
  With asynch USB, the signal is "cleaned" AFTER the USB cable. This means that, assuming your converter or DAC is doing its job perfectly, the cable makes no difference whatsoever.
  (Since nothing is perfect, the cable may make some slight difference - although this is the place where we MOST need double-blind testing to be certain we aren't imagining it.
  Also, the better the converter - and the AP is right at the top of the list - the LESS difference it is even possible for the cable to make.
  Put simply: any difference the cable might make is part of the "stuff" that the converter is supposed to be eliminating.)
   
  The job of something like the AP is NOT to somehow "reveal" the difference between cables;
  its job is to dry clean the signal so that you DON'T hear any difference because the difference (if there was any) has been removed
  and all you have left is perfect numbers delivered at the correct time.
  This is a very simple goal: perfect numbers at perfect times
   
  At that point it's up to the DAC to do a good job of turning those perfect numbers back into analog audio.


----------



## kLevkoff

Batteries (and filtering).
   
  The MOST important criteria for a power supply in most circuits is impedance. In general, you want the battery to provide as low a source impedance as possible.
  The main reason batteries may sound better than an AC supply is that they have low noise, and a very low source impedance.
   
  Different types (and ratings) of batteries have different capabilities.
   
  Lead-acid batteries tend to have a lower impedance than most other types.
  Higher-current capacity batteries tend to have lower impedances
  (so a 12V 10AH lead acid battery will almost certainly sound better than a 12V 1AH NiMH battery pack - assuming your circuit cares -
  and both will sound a helluva lot better than penlight alkalines)
   
  But everyone here (and everywhere else) seems to be forgetting FILTERING.
  To make that battery into a BETTER power supply, add a filter capacitor to it!
  Capacitors usually reduce noise, but they always drastically lower the source impedance.
  Yet nobody seems to be discussing the option of adding filter capacitors to their battery pack.....
  [For some really cool fun, you can now get a 2 FARAD 2.5V ultracapacitor for a few dollars;
  four of those in series would give you 500,000 microfarads at 10V of filtering - in a package the size of a pack of cigarettes]
   
  Any of you who insist that batteries sound better than AC power really should be experimenting with filtering


----------



## kLevkoff

The best place to spend those upgrade $$$$$
   
  Once you have a computer that can deliver the proper bits at more or less the proper time, spending more money there is simply a waste. Likewise, once you have a very good ASYNCH USB input of some sort, the timing and jitter gremlin is dead (or, at least, gravely injured). If you're using a NON-asynch USB input, then you really should upgrade to asynch ASAP. You now have the right numbers at near-perfect timing. At that point, the component where you can still get some bang for your buck is the DAC itself.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> Coax (S/PDIF) vs USB
> 
> S/PDIF is clocked by the sender - so the timing (and jitter) can be no better than the sender. The senders, however, tend to be pretty good.
> It is also dependent on the quality of the receiver and cable.
> With S/PDIF, a bad cable CAN make things worse (of course it cannot make them better).


 


   
  What exactly is a quality cable, and what makes a cable bad?
   
  What are the possible effects of either?


----------



## sphinxvc

Interesting posts kLevkoff.  What's your take on battery powered USB hubs?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> ASYNCH USB is clocked by the receiver or converter (or DAC). This eliminates the sender as a source of jitter and puts the responsibility firmly on the part of the receiver.
> With asynch USB, the signal is "cleaned" AFTER the USB cable. This means that, assuming your converter or DAC is doing its job perfectly, the cable makes no difference whatsoever.
> (Since nothing is perfect, the cable may make some slight difference - although this is the place where we MOST need double-blind testing to be certain we aren't imagining it.
> Also, the better the converter - and the AP is right at the top of the list - the LESS difference it is even possible for the cable to make.
> Put simply: any difference the cable might make is part of the "stuff" that the converter is supposed to be eliminating.)


 

 Which is why people use high end cables with any of these converters, and claim "large" differences in the sound with them?  You can blind test anything and it'll sound exactly the same.  Just do the challenge and win big money if you think you can prove abx testing wrong.
   
  If the battery is not important for digital, what is Philip and every other manufacturer with a battery supply trying to do?
   
  If the job of the AP1/2 is to dry clean the signal, why does it actually distort the signal when directly compared to an Off Ramp 4/5?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> What battery was that?
> 
> As in battery type, was it LifePo4 based, something else?


 


  Yup.  LifePo4 batteries.  The Hub setup was the thing that got one user in this thread to beat a Xonar ST sound card.  Prior to the hub setup, with the AP2 by itself, it was inferior.  So grain of salt, but for whatever reason I have never bothered to look into since it's a bunch of messy extras (wires), it did do the job for this particular user.  If I remember correctly, another user stated that the Vaunix Brick did excellent with their AP2.  Others have used the Aqvox power supply instead of a hub setup with great success.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> What exactly is a quality cable, and what makes a cable bad?
> 
> What are the possible effects of either?


 


  I think he mentioned something about blind testing, and also matching every single component in his system so that they all see an identical impedance...you know, the perfect system that may exist in year 2500...


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> Once the USB converter turns the signal into something like S/PDIF, it needs to get that signal to the DAC. Here is another spot where things can get messed up (jitter can creep back in). At this point, it is up to both the output circuitry on the converter (the S/PDIF sender) and on the DAC (the S/PDIF Receiver) to avoid adding jitter again (or try to). The S/PDIF cable, while it won't technically add jitter, can make it more difficult for the sender and receiver to do a good job - and so CAUSE jitter to get added. The ideal cable would do as little as possible to cause jitter. The ideal sender and receiver will in turn do their best to NOT be sensitive to the cable. (Again, if there were ten perfect cables, then they would all sound identical, because none would add any jitter or encourage it to be added by the sender and receiver. If you compare ten cables, and they sound different, then you are comparing their FLAWS, and not some magical property or "personality" of each. It is THE FLAWS that have personality, not the desired function.)
> 
> kLevkoff


 


   
  ^ Okay I missed it, and maybe am still missing more.
   
  So what are we dealing with here, impedance issues involving the S/PDIF receiver, sender, as well as the cable with its connectors? How does the layman deal with such issues?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ^ Okay I missed it, and maybe am still missing more.
> 
> So what are we dealing with here, impedance issues involving the S/PDIF receiver, sender, as well as the cable with its connectors? How does the layman deal with such issues?


 

 I think he is referring to how the SPDIF sender and receiver chips work.  SPDIF sender should create as perfect square wave as possible so that the clock embedded in the signal as well as the data are read with as little margin of error as possible but the SPDIF receiver chip.  The SPDIF cable and internal hookup wiring should have as few changes in impedance as possible so that signal reflections are minimised and should ideally be as short as possible (in theory).  This is probably why AP uses an adapter rather than a cable.  Hiface on the other hand plugs straight into USB to make life easier for the USB receiver to do it's job.  As I mentioned earlier though I have a problem with how AP measures their jitter - they use a special test mode which only outputs the clock AFAIK while other converters are tested putting out a proper SPDIF signal AFAIK.  IMO it should be measured the same way as the other converters for parity.
   
  I think kLevkoff is arguing that because AP uses asynch USB where the clock is generated by the AP rather than by the computer, the USB cable is less important than the SPDIF cable (which recovers clock on the receiver side.)  This sounds about right in theory as even a good BNC cable is 75 ohms, but has higher inductance and capacitance as it is longer than a BNC adapter (this cannot be avoided).  So yes in abstract theory it is better to use a SPDIF adapter than USB adapter as the asynchronous USB receiver is meant to be immune to USB derived jitter (in practice though many digital receivers claim to be immune to jitter, but they never are completely so).  In practice, eg when using HiFace based transports, the results may differ as the hardware and drivers are not exactly the same.
   
  Unfortunately, in practice the computer side also still seems to matter, at least when using (on paper) lesser transports, and even a few AP owners have observed differences in computers used and software used.  I can't explain why this happens, and have not observed this to be the case personally with the AP [*EDIT] as i don*'*t own one* .  IMO though it is another case of claimed jitter immunity being a bit ambitious and proving to be short of the truth.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> So why the battery? Well, the output of the AP is digital, so it doesn't care (numbers ARE still just numbers), but the AP is still connected to the PC's noisy ground and power buses via the USB cable; its power regenerator is STILL connected to them and, being a high-frequency power supply itself, may well generate some noise of its own. Running the output circuitry from a battery removes that last bit of connection between them, which may well enable some DACs to do their job better, specifically because it allows the DAC to be isolated from the computer better.


 
   
  Wrong. The idea that "digital doesn't care about power" or that power only matters at the analog stage is simply incorrect. Digital components, and _especially _high precision clocks care very much about the quality of power they are receiving, and this goes beyond just garbage from the USB ground. Many converters use at least some level of bus power on the receiver, and thus can't be truly isolated from USB power, even if most of the circuitry runs on another form of DC. The OR5 doesn't use any bus power, everything comes from the AC adapter. The output has galvanic isolation, so the DAC shouldn't be affected by the USB ground in any way. Therefore, according to you there should be ZERO difference between the AC adapter and the Monolith supply or a linear 12V supply in place of the AC adapter, but that's just not the case.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> Unfortunately, in practice the computer side also still seems to matter, at least when using (on paper) lesser transports, and even a few AP owners have observed differences in computers used and software used.  I can't explain why this happens, and have not observed this to be the case personally with the AP.  IMO though it is another case of claimed jitter immunity being a bit ambitious and proving to be short of the truth.


 

 A Windows machine was not designed for purely perfect audio output. If it was, there would be no GUI or any high level functionality at all. Nearly everything that Windows does essentially gets in the way of the best possible audio streaming, and when it looks like its sitting there idling, it isn't. There's all kinds of low level services happening at random intervals which all take CPU cycles, and make I/O reads and writes. You don't want any of that, but it's normally unavoidable. Shutting off as many non essential services as possible helps, but there's a reason why JPlay in hibernation mode sounds better than Foobar.
   
  I'm not as familiar with OSX, so I'm not sure why the differences are so large between iTunes and Amarra, Pure Music, and all of the other audiophile players on that platform.
   
  Supposedly the ideal length for an S/Pdif cable is 1.5 meters.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


davebsc said:


> I'm not as familiar with OSX, so I'm not sure why the differences are so large between iTunes and Amarra, Pure Music, and all of the other audiophile players on that platform.


 

 They aren't.  Amarra has a built in built-in "A/B" switch where they very conveniently replay a 10 second sample of the playing track when you toggle Amarra off/on.  For the life of me, I couldn't hear a difference.
   
  And when my trial subscription ran out, I never realized.  Fidelia on the other hand, gives everything an aggressive edge, it may just be some sort of elaborate EQ for all I know.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think very soon we will see a lot more XMOS transports apart from just the Wavelink HS, Anedio U2 and Stello U3 and given the performance of the Wavelink I can't see why the others mentioned here would be far behind.  I also want to try the Tabla pico...  But I should probably stop tweaking USB input as IMO mk3 is probably close enough not to warrant the cost of changing transports...


 


   
  ...and the Eximus DP-1 DAC that eliminates S/PDIF issues with an integrated XMOS based U3.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> They aren't.  Amarra has a built in built-in "A/B" switch where they very conveniently replay a 10 second sample of the playing track when you toggle Amarra off/on.  For the life of me, I couldn't hear a difference.
> 
> And when my trial subscription ran out, I never realized.  Fidelia on the other hand, gives everything an aggressive edge, it may just be some sort of elaborate EQ for all I know.


 


  Where is the  built in A/B switch in Amarra?


----------



## sphinxvc

See where the "Amarra" is highlighted, that's a toggle Amarra on/off switch.  If you turn it off the last couple seconds will be replayed w/o Amarra.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> ...and the Eximus DP-1 DAC that eliminates S/PDIF issues with an integrated XMOS based U3.


 

 Yeah it does look pretty good from 6mons review but I do wish it was cheaper and had a better power supply.  I'm quite impressed that Srajan puts it ahead for the Metrum Octave, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was down to the lack of SPDIF.
   
  Hopefully one day I2S is standardised so the playing field will be leveled again.  As it is now I2S is really something better left to the DAC designers undortunately.
   
  Has anyone received an AP with the battery pack yet?  Hurry post some impressions before introductory pricing wears off


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Mine is supposed to ship Friday, so won't see it until Monday or Tues. next. Bwaah!
  
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Yeah it does look pretty good from 6mons review but I do wish it was cheaper and had a better power supply.  I'm quite impressed that Srajan puts it ahead for the Metrum Octave, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was down to the lack of SPDIF.
> 
> Hopefully one day I2S is standardised so the playing field will be leveled again.  As it is now I2S is really something better left to the DAC designers undortunately.
> 
> Has anyone received an AP with the battery pack yet?  Hurry post some impressions before introductory pricing wears off


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


rdr. seraphim said:


> Mine is supposed to ship Friday, so won't see it until Monday or Tues. next. Bwaah!


 

 When'd you send it in?  I'm trying to get an idea of the timeframe.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Mine is supposed to ship Friday, so won't see it until Monday or Tues. next. Bwaah!


 
   
  Lol the battery pack does look pretty comprehensive but it looks like USB receiver is still powered of USB power?  Not sure if I understand that correctly.  If that is the case though you would still need an AQVOX for the USB receiver while the Auidiophilleo batter pack powers the output stage?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Over two weeks ago... According to Phillip, they have been doing full functionality testing on the hardware and firmware. We'll see... fingers crossed!   
  
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Quote:
> 
> When'd you send it in?  I'm trying to get an idea of the timeframe.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

This makes me curious about what is really happening, and would like to see some actual metrics related to the distortion. It just doesn't make sense, at least on the face of it...  
  
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> If the job of the AP1/2 is to dry clean the signal, why does it actually distort the signal when directly compared to an Off Ramp 4/5?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> This makes me curious about what is really happening, and would like to see some actual metrics related to the distortion. It just doesn't make sense, at least on the face of it...


 


  Agree with you.  I don't want to call it distortion since it was clean if you take the mid-treble harshness particularly in this one region out of the equation.  It just "really" struggled vs. the Off Ramps.  

 This said, I have never heard the Diverter or many other higher end or even mid range priced offerings (not that price is important w/exception of how it affects my bank account).  So if I went to another listening session where the person offering it up had never heard the AP2 (I feel having the system owner not having heard a device to be the best unbiased way to do things), I'd offer up my opinion on what my ears heard regardless of knowing what I heard of the AP2 vs. the Off-Ramps.


----------



## leeperry

BTW, I was exchanging emails w/ Kingwa, and he can make his DI Class A linear regulated PSU output 5V instead of 8V on custom order. He claims that ripple is <0.3mV whatever the load and that it can ouput up to 600mA. Deal of the century for $75 if you ask me....now looking for a proper transport to use it ^^


----------



## sphinxvc

I just figured out the Wavelink is battery powered.  Seems like an odd thing to omit on their own website.  
   





   
  Quote:


audioexcels said:


> Agree with you.  I don't want to call it distortion since it was clean if you take the mid-treble harshness particularly in this one region out of the equation.  It just "really" struggled vs. the Off Ramps.
> 
> This said, I have never heard the Diverter or many other higher end or even mid range priced offerings (not that price is important w/exception of how it affects my bank account).  So if I went to another listening session where the person offering it up had never heard the AP2 (I feel having the system owner not having heard a device to be the best unbiased way to do things), I'd offer up my opinion on what my ears heard regardless of knowing what I heard of the AP2 vs. the Off-Ramps.


 

  Could you link me your post on AP2 vs. Offramp comparison?  Or tell me what page it's on?
   
   Quote:
   
   


leeperry said:


> BTW, I was exchanging emails w/ Kingwa, and he can make his DI Class A linear regulated PSU output 5V instead of 8V on custom order. He claims that ripple is <0.3mV whatever the load and that it can ouput up to 600mA. Deal of the century for $75 if you ask me....now looking for a proper transport to use it ^^


 
   
  Leeperry, I would have thought you'd go with the Tabla Pico.


----------



## leeperry

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sphinxvc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Leeperry, I would have thought you'd go with the Tabla Pico.


 

 Not too fund of the proprietary drivers thingie, and such a good PSU could skyrocket the SQ of any transport for a mere $75 premium. I've spent enough on my DAC already, I'm going bang-for-bucks for the transport now ^^


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Could you link me your post on AP2 vs. Offramp comparison?  Or tell me what page it's on?


 

 Never mind, found it.  (Bet. p15-19 for those interested)
   
  Edit: Also interesting -- http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Any-thoughts-Diverter-192-vs-ramp-4


----------



## sphinxvc

After much agonizing, I finally went for the MK3.  I didn't like the rumors of an upper midrange edge with the APs found here and elsewhere.  It seems the measurements behind the AP2 don't tell the whole story, and I just couldn't bring myself to buy a Wavelink or Offramp.  The Bridge was interesting, but a lack of impressions quickly eliminated it from my list.  I think the Offramp would have been overkill considering I wouldn't use i2s, and the Wavelink's cost was too high of a jump from the MK3 and too close to the Offramp 5 for me to choose it.  
   
  I wouldn't mind going for an outboard converter if it's definitive that one of them will always be better than an integrated converter/DAC choice (kind of like what Steve Nugent implies in the link I posted above).  But since it's still up in the air from what I gather, I'll wait on THE converter.  It's odd that Steve recommends separates in that thread, yet says his Overdrive DAC does not need the Offramp.  
   
  In the end it comes down to whether I would gain more by moving to a higher-end DAC like a Weiss DAC2, or buying an Offramp to pair with my Zodiac.  I'm not sure.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> BTW, I was exchanging emails w/ Kingwa, and he can make his DI Class A linear regulated PSU output 5V instead of 8V on custom order. He claims that ripple is <0.3mV whatever the load and that it can ouput up to 600mA. Deal of the century for $75 if you ask me....now looking for a proper transport to use it ^^


 

 Awesome, I wonder if he can make it output 3V so it can be used with the Edel XMOS board?
   
  Still though at 5V it should be an excellent alternative to the AQVOX for replacing USB power, but I think for ultimate performance one needs to bypass any onboard switching voltage regulators also.
   
  EDIT: I am wondering if a DIY modified AP may be possible which similar to the pure power batter supplies clean power directly to the clocks and SPDIF output.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> A Windows machine was not designed for purely perfect audio output. If it was, there would be no GUI or any high level functionality at all. Nearly everything that Windows does essentially gets in the way of the best possible audio streaming, and when it looks like its sitting there idling, it isn't. There's all kinds of low level services happening at random intervals which all take CPU cycles, and make I/O reads and writes. You don't want any of that, but it's normally unavoidable. Shutting off as many non essential services as possible helps, but there's a reason why JPlay in hibernation mode sounds better than Foobar.
> 
> I'm not as familiar with OSX, so I'm not sure why the differences are so large between iTunes and Amarra, Pure Music, and all of the other audiophile players on that platform.
> 
> Supposedly the ideal length for an S/Pdif cable is 1.5 meters.


 
   
  Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> They aren't.  Amarra has a built in built-in "A/B" switch where they very conveniently replay a 10 second sample of the playing track when you toggle Amarra off/on.  For the life of me, I couldn't hear a difference.
> 
> And when my trial subscription ran out, I never realized.  Fidelia on the other hand, gives everything an aggressive edge, it may just be some sort of elaborate EQ for all I know.


 

 Everyone has a different reality - it's good to hear other's experiences. Inside my own listening room, there are and continues to be differences between iTunes and the rest of the audiophile players on OS X... and I have most of 'em, Amarra included. Speaking of which, I have installed on a tweaked 2010 Mac mini and Amarra even sounds different from itself, as I have it installed on the internal SSD Snow Leopard & Lion (dual-boot) as well as my external HDD. But specifically between iTunes and Amarra, the former has me listening in, while the latter has me tapping my feet... involuntarily so. 
   
  Sometimes, testing overlooks what we feel, when we're wrapped up in what we hear or think we hear. Of course, this is in my view and experience and thought I'd share. What's more, I read Steve's article on Positive-feedback Online http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm, and thought the additional $50 would be worth it to exchange my newly acquired 1.0 Meter Coax cable in February.
   
  I thought the difference in sound was immediate; apparent, cleared things up a bit. I'm not really interested in A/B comparisons but I'm more of an extended play kind of cat - put something in for 21 days minimum and 30 if I can afford to. Then revisit the crime scene. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, after warming my ears for some 20 minutes, I "Hot swapped" the Coax from bridge to DAC and ain't never looked back! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Now looking forward to Mountain Lion and see what the new kitty holds as promise!


----------



## sphinxvc

I thought I heard a difference until I found that button, honestly they would have had my money if they didn't put that feature in.  =]  
   
  Still, I might give it another go.  As for "extended play", I had no idea when the demo version ran out and iTunes kicked back in.  I run my Mac Mini headless and sparingly use my iPhone as a monitor, so I almost never see what's going on in there.
   
  So what kind of tweaks are these that you've done to your Mac Mini?  I might be interested in replicating.
   
   
  Does anyone know if an Aqvox will benefit the JK MK3?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Does anyone know if an Aqvox will benefit the JK MK3?


 

 Interesting question, I guess it depends whether the USB receiver is USB powered.  I wish I still had my SoTM card so I could test this (actually I don't because I didn't like the sound of the card)
   
  EDIT: I'm pretty sure the USB receiver on the mk3 is powered from one of the batteries.  Will be interesting to see what the new hiface will bring to the table also, esp when JK gets his hands on it!


----------



## leeperry

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *drez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> at 5V it should be an excellent alternative to the AQVOX for replacing USB power


 

 DHC sell gold plated USB plugs meant to be soldered for $3 a pop, so you can easily route Kingwa's PSU to whatever transport. That opens a lot of new options, and w/o any kludge at that...and you can't really beat 0.3mV ripple whatever the load w/o going DIY


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I believe Phillip is doing this mod internally for use with the new VLN Battery PS, specifically due to the switching voltage regulators used within the TDK regenerative PS. So, while it is isolated, it introduces it's own HF noise during regeneration. Powering an un-modded AP even with external clean power (AC or DC) would probably help, but unless the regenerative PS is completely disables, there is still the possibility of adding noise. My guess is that it is measurable, but the real question is whether or not it is audible. 
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Still though at 5V it should be an excellent alternative to the AQVOX for replacing USB power, but I think for ultimate performance one needs to bypass any onboard switching voltage regulators also.
> 
> EDIT: I am wondering if a DIY modified AP may be possible which similar to the pure power batter supplies clean power directly to the clocks and SPDIF output.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I believe Phillip is doing this mod internally for use with the new VLN Battery PS, specifically due to the switching voltage regulators used within the TDK regenerative PS. So, while it is isolated, it introduces it's own HF noise during regeneration. Powering an un-modded AP even with external clean power (AC or DC) would probably help, but unless the regenerative PS is completely disables, there is still the possibility of adding noise. My guess is that it is measurable, but the real question is whether or not it is audible.


 

 What's wrong with being paranoid anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  The think I was unsure of is whether the purepower provides battery power to the USB receiver, for some reason I got the impression it did not.  I may be wrong of course.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Looking at the block diagrams on the AP site, I believe you are correct. It looks like he's only supplying battery power to the clocks. Fingers thrumming on table... still no shipping notification...  
  
  Quote: 





drez said:


> What's wrong with being paranoid anyway
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Looking at the block diagrams on the AP site, I believe you are correct. It looks like he's only supplying battery power to the clocks. Fingers thrumming on table... still no shipping notification...


 

 My offer still stands (I have a Theta TLC to get me through) so you can try all permutations.  I know you'll do justice to a writeup on this, contact me offline if you're interested.  I think a comparison like that will really benefit the community.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> After much agonizing, I finally went for the MK3.  I didn't like the rumors of an upper midrange edge with the APs found here and elsewhere.  It seems the measurements behind the AP2 don't tell the whole story, and I just couldn't bring myself to buy a Wavelink or Offramp.  The Bridge was interesting, but a lack of impressions quickly eliminated it from my list.  I think the Offramp would have been overkill considering I wouldn't use i2s, and the Wavelink's cost was too high of a jump from the MK3 and too close to the Offramp 5 for me to choose it.
> 
> I wouldn't mind going for an outboard converter if it's definitive that one of them will always be better than an integrated converter/DAC choice (kind of like what Steve Nugent implies in the link I posted above).  But since it's still up in the air from what I gather, I'll wait on THE converter.  It's odd that Steve recommends separates in that thread, yet says his Overdrive DAC does not need the Offramp.
> 
> In the end it comes down to whether I would gain more by moving to a higher-end DAC like a Weiss DAC2, or buying an Offramp to pair with my Zodiac.  I'm not sure.


 

 Wavelink is overpriced when we consider what a bit more can do vs. it (IMHO, OR5 will crush it and I personally do not trust that newer Diverter being able to compete with the OR5 either).  A used MK3 or an MK3 that is purchased with a good exchange rate is the very best value IMHO.  AP2 is a great value, too, because I have seen them on the used market and they fetch decent money.  But a used or even new MK3 doesn't lose as much as the AP2, and obviously nothing as much as these higher end products from Wavelink-Off Ramp-Sonicweld, etc.  I'm with the same feelings as you are with respect to pricing, what you can expect to get for the money invested, and then how much of a lost or not you are at if you feel it doesn't work for you.  Fortunately, with either AP2 or MK3, if you cannot find one used, can always send it back.  Can even ask Empirical and so long as everything is paid for, I'm sure Steve will let a person trial one of his devices.  I dunno if the guy from Sonicweld offers a free trial, however.  And at close to 3K, I don't care to ask for one)).  
   
  In the end, I think Wavelink may indeed be a little better than the AP2 or MK3, but I don't think it's cost wise better unless a person is buying the hub for the AP2 which seems to help deal with that upper mid-treble issue I have heard, but then we are at $800 or so which is a Wavelink essentially.
   
  In the end end, I don't think there's too much to it personally, but I have a very adverse concept of what too much/too little/whatever is.  I personally feel the dac when linked to a preamp sounds extraordinary.  It's to the extent that when I have used the USB converters, I can struggle to get a sound as good as even a basic cheap dvd player.  In other words, imaging having a very top flight preamp and wire in a dac board that is non-oversampling/totally minimalist with barely any parts at all...and you got a darn amazing dac in spite the dac itself is really just a very basic input board, along with a super nice driver stage (preamplifier in this case).  I have wanted to take one of these converters and somehow integrate it so I am feeding only one wire or even going in direct from my preamplifier-dac to the USB of my computer.  
   
  The above is what I believe Steve does, but differently is all.  What I think he is doing is making a "passive" based dac, where there is nothing in the signal being amplified...i.e. need to use your own preamplifier if you have one of preference like I do.  So what he does is make the dac=input+output and he wires in nowadays a top flight converter so it works in tandem with his dac.  It's no different than any other USB based dac on the market that uses the asynch type of layout, but it is different in the sense that the USB conversion uses super high end clocking like you see in a modded OR5.  
   
  I think in your case, you should see just how the MK3 does as a source because even if there ever is THE converter out there, which I'm sure there will be at some point or dac manufactures will finally get a clue and know how to properly do a asynch usb that is as good as the converters, all for a very competitive pricing point.  This is where you simply have to pay to play.  I feel the OR5 is at the level that any better is years away.  I feel Steve really has something special if you find USB converters to do the trick and it's the way you will go for future proof as your source.  In other words, I feel that he is at that final stage where things between a modded OR4 and modded OR5 are so close, that where can you go from here?  What can possibly be next to get anything better out of this path?  An OR5 w/Hynes upgrade at $1600 is mega money, but is what I'd consider to be a safe bet as a top shelf source for many many a years to come.  This said, I'm not convinced with USB in my personal system, and I also know that computer stuff continues to push along just as different computer technology (Intel Dual, then Quad, then I-this, then Sandy/Ivy) or hard drive to SSD, now SSD version 4's coming, and hybrids, etc. etc...same will be with computer audio.  Companies will figure out the USB side of things one day, but by then, maybe we have super cheap servers that produce as good or better sound and you can use anything USB/Coax/whatever and so on/so forth...can't guess the future so stay cheap, but good like MK3 (though others will go with AP2) or go broke and enjoy the best now, probably a couple of years from now, but after that (who knows if it is still competitive enough) OR5 w/Hynes.
   
  I don't want to ever sound like I am promoting for Empirical, but it's very clear in the listening session I did that it really is on a whole different plane, but in knowing Steve's directlon with computer audio and in knowing that the modded OR4 is not too far off from the modded OR5, it makes me know we are now in the subtle differences category rather than comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## sphinxvc

Having joined the discussion late, I must say that it did at one point start to sound like you were "promoting" for Empirical, but I did my due diligence before ordering anything and read back starting from the first page, and discovered you had the same questions as any of us, an initial curiosity that led to your trying the AP2, and you then made the effort to visit Empirical, so I do appreciate your angle on the matter and do find it sincere.  The OR5 must have been stellar to "turn" you that way.  
   
  When I ordered the MK3, I definitely had it in mind to "hold out" for more competitive converters (in terms of value) to come in to the market, or to go for an OR5 or Wavelink if nothing does in a while.  I've been advised by fellow friends NOT to get a transport, so the MK3 is my way of testing the waters out on a budget.  Fact is, I DO hear a difference between a good CD transport and my Mac Mini, so hopefully this bridges the gap.  
   
  It's also interesting that you mention simplistic DACs.  I've been reconsidering my Zodiac purchase since I decided to get a converter.  If I could do it over again, I might factor in an OR5 and a more barebones DAC without USB.  It's kind of off-topic, but also an ancillary discussion: what other DACs would fall into this category aside from the Overdrive? Neko? ...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I don't want to ever sound like I am promoting for Empirical, but it's very clear in the listening session I did that it really is on a whole different plane, but in knowing Steve's directlon with computer audio and in knowing that the modded OR4 is not too far off from the modded OR5, it makes me know we are now in the subtle differences category rather than comparing apples and oranges.


 

 Speaking of Empirical, Steve just released info on the Overdrive SE. It has most of the upgrades available for the OD as standard, plus a new substation that replaces the three wall-warts with internal switch-mode supplies followed by individual Hynes regulators. Steve says the new substation beats the Monolith. This thing could be a KILLER USB DAC, with a USB input that's every bit as good as the OR5. The price is $6K, which considering you don't need the Monolith, or the dual TC upgrade or the other hynes upgrade, is substantially less than the normal Overdrive.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> It's also interesting that you mention simplistic DACs.  I've been reconsidering my Zodiac purchase since I decided to get a converter.  If I could do it over again, I might factor in an OR5 and a more barebones DAC without USB.  It's kind of off-topic, but also an ancillary discussion: what other DACs would fall into this category aside from the Overdrive? Neko? ...


 

 I do wish I could better know more about how the USB dacs are, but Dave showed you what is likely about the best you can find, but at 6K, that's a mega price considering my entire system doesn't even cost that much...well, retail it is quite a lot more than that, but I know people so I have been fortunate.
   
  With a bare bones type of dac w/a USB implementation, I'd have to have the designer of my pre-dac somehow work something into the device to see if it is possible OR if (though people will disagree about use of Coax), using something similar to the Hiface Two w/power supply may be the way to go using what I feel is an exceptional digital coax cable.  I mention the Hiface Two because a person has said it is at least as good as a Young DAC w/Palmer PS so that by itself says Hiface has gone somewhere in the last 3 years and there's only room to go from here with modders that can take the device, add a nice beefy PS or batteries like Jkeny, and so on.  I just wish I could have a friend that did my pre/dac look at this device and see what can be done.
   
  Anyhow...believe it or not, my dac board is kinda ancient, about 3 years old, comes from the Zhoalu dac, just the input board itself, and it is driven directly by a discreet line stage.  I am not sure what it is, but I believe the ability for the input board to be directly driven by an active preamp is key with how my dac "sounds".  If I had a Sabre, I bet the sound would be absolutely top rate, but the fact of the matter is, just about any cheapo dac input board that was done well enough works great for this sort of thing.  
   
  My dac is the Oritek OMZ pre-dac. I would definitely recommend it over anything else for the money, though it won't get you USB.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I do wish I could better know more about how the USB dacs are, but Dave showed you what is likely about the best you can find, but at 6K, that's a mega price considering my entire system doesn't even cost that much...well, retail it is quite a lot more than that, but I know people so I have been fortunate.


 

 Both the Calyx and the Anedio D2 I think are likely to be very good choices for more affordable USB DACs. Both have reputations for punching far above their $1500 price tags in terms of performance, and I would expect both to beat the W4S DAC-2 using its built in USB input. Going up from there, the April Music Eximus has earned a pretty good reputation. There's also the very interesting NAD M51 and a few others in the ~$3K range. Other than the hyper expensive MSB stuff though, I suspect that the Overdrive SE is likely king of the hill, at least for now. The Calyx "Femto DAC" is supposed to cost about the same as the OD and could give it some competition.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Both the Calyx and the Anedio D2 I think are likely to be very good choices for more affordable USB DACs. Both have reputations for punching far above their $1500 price tags in terms of performance, and I would expect both to beat the W4S DAC-2 using its built in USB input. Going up from there, the April Music Eximus has earned a pretty good reputation. There's also the very interesting NAD M51 and a few others in the ~$3K range. Other than the hyper expensive MSB stuff though, I suspect that the Overdrive SE is likely king of the hill, at least for now. The Calyx "Femto DAC" is supposed to cost about the same as the OD and could give it some competition.


 


  Well if you think about it, these better USB devices are an all in one solution, so you only need amps, possibly a preamp, and speakers...whereas dacs of past were up into the mega buck range and only did d/a...had to have that top flight transport along with it, etc.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Well if you think about it, these better USB devices are an all in one solution, so you only need amps, possibly a preamp, and speakers...whereas dacs of past were up into the mega buck range and only did d/a...had to have that top flight transport along with it, etc.


 
   
  You still need some sort of source with these, they aren't like a Linn or Naim server. The difference is that you don't necessarily need to throw thousands of dollars at the disc drive (though many of the top flight players like the Meridians don't do that anyway).


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Does something like the Wyred 4 Sound Mint meet your requirements? 
   
  Some folks are using the W4S DAC2 as a preamp, its output is very robust.
  
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I do wish I could better know more about how the USB dacs are, but Dave showed you what is likely about the best you can find, but at 6K, that's a mega price considering my entire system doesn't even cost that much...well, retail it is quite a lot more than that, but I know people so I have been fortunate.
> 
> With a bare bones type of dac w/a USB implementation, I'd have to have the designer of my pre-dac somehow work something into the device to see if it is possible OR if (though people will disagree about use of Coax), using something similar to the Hiface Two w/power supply may be the way to go using what I feel is an exceptional digital coax cable.  I mention the Hiface Two because a person has said it is at least as good as a Young DAC w/Palmer PS so that by itself says Hiface has gone somewhere in the last 3 years and there's only room to go from here with modders that can take the device, add a nice beefy PS or batteries like Jkeny, and so on.  I just wish I could have a friend that did my pre/dac look at this device and see what can be done.
> 
> ...


----------



## sphinxvc

I've suspended my order for the MK3, as I didn't last long knowing I wouldn't have a Wavelink or Offramp.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  (Hoping to abide by the one shot, one kill strategy here) - so I started taking a look at some better DACs too, 'cause I'd be getting "up there" in price with an Offramp or Wavelink in my system.  ("Up there" is $3K.)  A fellow head-fier is trying out the Resonessance Labs Invicta DAC. . .and it looks _good.  _It has built in SD card playback, which would eliminate the Mac Mini from my chain.  But I'm wondering again about jiitter, and what clock the SD card would slave to, and how good that clock is.  Can't seem to figure out whether it's best to add the OR5 or Wavelink, or upgrade.   Do any of have opinions on the Invicta?  I would consider the Overdrive too, since it's the same price, but the optional additions to it's base price would push it into unreachable range.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Do any of have opinions on the Invicta?  I would consider the Overdrive too, since it's the same price, but the optional additions to it's base price would push it into unreachable range.


 

 What I've seen about it hasn't been that compelling, not for that level of money, anyway. It does a lot of _stuff, _but the hardware doesn't seem impressive, and sonically it seems to be well below the best. I would expect the Overdrive to walk all over it.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


davebsc said:


> What I've seen about it hasn't been that compelling, not for that level of money, anyway. It does a lot of _stuff, _but the hardware doesn't seem impressive, and sonically it seems to be well below the best. I would expect the Overdrive to walk all over it.


 

 What _exactly _hasn't been compelling?  What leads you to believe the OD would walk all over it?  I'm genuinely curious.  There aren't a lot of impressions/comparisons or reviews out on the Invicta, but from what little there are: most have been positive.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> What _exactly _hasn't been compelling?  What leads you to believe the OD would walk all over it?  I'm genuinely curious.  There aren't a lot of impressions/comparisons or reviews out on the Invicta, but from what little there are: most have been positive.


 

 I've seen it described as less sonically capable than the Alpha DAC, Weiss 202, and Eximus. I've also seen the Overdrive described as more capable than all of the above DACs. Therefore, OD > Invicta. The SD playback is neat, but the OD has a much better volume control (if you need that) and more importantly a better power supply and output stage.


----------



## Lil' Knight

sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> davebsc said:
> ...




It surely doesn't have enough V-caps....


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


davebsc said:


> I've seen it described as less sonically capable than the Alpha DAC, Weiss 202, and Eximus. I've also seen the Overdrive described as more capable than all of the above DACs. Therefore, OD > Invicta. The SD playback is neat, but the OD has a much better volume control (if you need that) and more importantly a better power supply and output stage.


 

 The only comparison I managed to dig up compared a Meitner, Weiss 202 and Invicta.  The guy liked the Meitner and Invicta best, but chose Invicta on "a budget."  The Overdrive SE is definitely appealing, but at $6K, I don't know.  At $4K I can only think of a stock OD, the Invicta, or adding an Offramp 5 or Wavelink to the Antelope.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> The only comparison I managed to dig up compared a Meitner, Weiss 202 and Invicta.  The guy liked the Meitner and Invicta best, but chose Invicta on "a budget."  The Overdrive SE is definitely appealing, but at $6K, I don't know.  At $4K I can only think of a stock OD, the Invicta, or adding an Offramp 5 or Wavelink to the Antelope.


 

 The other question is what input will you be using. The Invicta's USB input is asynchronous, but this being the Audiophilleo thread we all know that there's more to it than just asynchronous mode or not. I don't know what implementation the Invicta is using, but I've seen it described as no better than optical from a Mac. That's not a promising result. The W4S for example has a similarly weak asynchronous implementation from multiple accounts. I wouldn't want to buy a USB DAC that I then have to buy a USB converter for, that's kind of the point of the thing in the first place.
   
  The Meitner's USB input is bus powered and lacks isolation (really dumb move on their part IMO) and so it's very problematic with results depending on how well you can isolate noise from the PC end.
   
  The Overdrive's input on the other hand is largely the same as the OR5, one of the very best in the business. If it were my money, it would be on the Overdrive. As new funds allow, it can always go back to Steve for upgrades. The others are all dead ends.


----------



## sphinxvc

Probably SD on the Invicta (which I hope negates the need for a usb transport), USB on the OD.  Both are under consideration...along with the OR5, Wavelink or ahem, Audiophilleo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, luckily the guy trying the Invicta this week is coming from the same silver Zodiac as me.  His opinion will have a heavy influence on whether I go up a level or get an OR5/Wavelink.  We'll see.


----------



## pigmode

In regards to their SD reader, its curious how Ressonessence asks the question below in the Invicta FAQ, and doesn't really come up with a clear answer. With that and an accompanying lackluster description of their SD implementation, it hardly looks like more than a box filling convenience feature. It hasn't exactly set the audio review world on fire in terms of it being a new superior path compared to USB. 
   
  Like most Sabre equipped DACs, the Invicta relies on the ES9018 to adequately reduce jitter. IMO how the Invicta compares to the Overdrive can only be determined in house within the specific component set, although on paper and in reviews the OD does look fairly strong in comparison.
   
  Of course not having heard either DAC in my own system, I'm speaking from a theoretical window shopping perspective so I'm basically in the same boat as yourself, however I believe both offer 30 day trials. 
   
   
   


> Is the SD Card reader simply a feature or does it have some technical advantages over USB for example ?  We all like digital music because information stored in digital form is, in principle, incorruptible and preserved. The first forays into digital music were compromised by the need to compress the data: the lowest sample rate was used and even then the data files were too large to store conveniently. Compression was invented (MP3) to make long play-lists viable on early hardware. Thankfully, as technology has moved on, lossy compression is no longer needed and emerging standards are all loss-less. All manner of digital sources can now deliver digital music to a player: USB is popular, WiFi is often mentioned, and of course SD cards can be used as well.
> 
> To the casual listener the digital data is just another source of music: bit-perfect digital data from any source is identical, whether it be delivered by USB or on an SD card. What matters is the quality and care with which that digital data was captured at the studio, because, we generally assume, once captured into the digital domain it is now inviolate and available for reproduction anywhere, hence the digital revolution that surrounds us.
> 
> ...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Does something like the Wyred 4 Sound Mint meet your requirements?
> 
> Some folks are using the W4S DAC2 as a preamp, its output is very robust.


 


  This is very interesting for me, but I'd need it modded (preamp stage) which likely would not work since the designer I go to just is not doing anything nowadays with audio.  I've just never heard a line stage as good as the one in my pre-dac.  I wish I could have him mod a unit like this or even work with something like the Mini Max and dump that analog stage for his active line stage.
   
  At this point, I'm going to try a few more converters and digital sources, and see if I can figure out a little more about what exactly I have learned with respect to my own system/how it reacts to difference sources on a whole, and also know how these same devices or many of them have sounded in other's systems.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> In regards to their SD reader, its curious how Ressonessence asks the question below in the Invicta FAQ, and doesn't really come up with a clear answer. With that and an accompanying lackluster description of their SD implementation, it hardly looks like more than a box filling convenience feature. It hasn't exactly set the audio review world on fire in terms of it being a new superior path compared to USB.
> 
> Like most Sabre equipped DACs, the Invicta relies on the ES9018 to adequately reduce jitter. IMO how the Invicta compares to the Overdrive can only be determined in house within the specific component set, although on paper and in reviews the OD does look fairly strong in comparison.
> 
> Of course not having heard either DAC in my own system, I'm speaking from a theoretical window shopping perspective so I'm basically in the same boat as yourself, however* I believe both offer 30 day trials. *


 


  Only thing important to me is making sure shipping both ways isn't too costly and I get as close to free out of pocket shipping charges ways of hearing these devices))
   
  It's the one and only proper point IMHO...a person has to just go for it in your case with the Wavelink, or set something up for a free trial.  I elect free trial because I don't trust anything on the market cost no option)

 Hope you've been well and the Wavelink is doing nicely still!!!


----------



## Currawong

Guys, something to be careful of if you own an AP1: Make sure you don't accidentally knock it into reversed polarity mode. I was wondering why the music was sounding harsh and odd yesterday and found I had done just this.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

You might consider discussing your mod request with Ej or Clint at W4S. That's what I did; the W4S DAC I have was significantly modified by Ej. That's another part of their business, Cullen Circuits. However, the overall cost depends on the price point you're targeting... 
  
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> This is very interesting for me, but I'd need it modded (preamp stage) which likely would not work since the designer I go to just is not doing anything nowadays with audio.  I've just never heard a line stage as good as the one in my pre-dac.  I wish I could have him mod a unit like this or even work with something like the Mini Max and dump that analog stage for his active line stage.
> 
> At this point, I'm going to try a few more converters and digital sources, and see if I can figure out a little more about what exactly I have learned with respect to my own system/how it reacts to difference sources on a whole, and also know how these same devices or many of them have sounded in other's systems.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Hmm... I wonder, wonder, wonder, if some AP2's have firmware that were sent out with reversed polarity.... It sounds similar to some folk's experiences..
  
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Guys, something to be careful of if you own an AP1: Make sure you don't accidentally knock it into reversed polarity mode. I was wondering why the music was sounding harsh and odd yesterday and found I had done just this.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Hmm... I wonder, wonder, wonder, if some AP2's have firmware that were sent out with reversed polarity.... It sounds similar to some folk's experiences..


 


  Thanks for the pointers on the modding, but now this is interesting me!  Would reversed polarity kill my soundstage depth and place the vocals/instruments/etc. into improper places?  If so, uhhhh...and it sounds harsh as Currawong stated, I think I may want to try it out again!!???


----------



## Gwarmi

If anyone else is using J Play with their Audiophilleo - you can flip the polarity - hardly a fix I know


----------



## Currawong

Reversed digital polarity is different from reversed analogue polarity. If you don't get a centre image with music, then you have reversed polarity on your headphones, speakers or interconnects (which can sometimes happen with XLR ICs as there are different options for the "hot" pin). I think the effect of reversed digital polarity depends on the DAC, but it was causing weird distortion with mine - basically the music sounding harsh, similar to how the AP1 is using USB power from my MacBook Pro.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Correct, analogue and digital polarity are very different things, with very different results. See: http://www.ultrabitplatinum.com/?page_id=1893
   
  EDIT: BTW, I am only alluding to the references in the article about the harsh sounding listening experience. Please take most everything on this site with a large grain of salt.  
  
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Reversed digital polarity is different from reversed analogue polarity. If you don't get a centre image with music, then you have reversed polarity on your headphones, speakers or interconnects (which can sometimes happen with XLR ICs as there are different options for the "hot" pin). I think the effect of reversed digital polarity depends on the DAC, but it was causing weird distortion with mine - basically the music sounding harsh, similar to how the AP1 is using USB power from my MacBook Pro.


----------



## sphinxvc

Ok, I just picked up the AP2 that was sitting on FS subforum to try out.  And I have a Wavelink on it's way to me to try out.  Just in case anyone's interested, the other user reported success with his Invicta and it seems he likes it quite a bit, which is encouraging since he too came from the Zodiac Silver+PS.


----------



## lostinla

Anyone heard the pure power battery from Audiophilleo yet? I'm undecided and looking for a review on it.....


----------



## sridhar3

I think Rdr. Seraphim is still waiting to get his back from the modding process.  Seems to be taking an exceptionally long time.


----------



## Audioexcels

sridhar3 said:


> I think Rdr. Seraphim is still waiting to get his back from the modding process.  Seems to be taking an exceptionally long time.




I'm almost positive RDr. (I enjoy this user of this forum) said his was sent in about a month ago??? I need to go back to the page where he said it was sent or has been received by Philip. Problem I have with this scenario is that Philip has a business and isn't just some diyer that says it should take about X amount of time, but we all know it may well take a lot longer. Other businesses/companies do the same process and it's seriously annoying and also a bit sketchy in the sense of just what the heck will you get in return??? If you are a company, you have tried/true products, and not something that is taking this long for ???? I have all the patience in the world when it comes to audio since I had all my fighting days back in the years)) But I have learned that designers, at least good ones, will not even produce a product unless they absolutely know it is one that is to their liking. For example, the designer of my pre-dac has tried some battery packs and the sound of some of these has been astounding, just flat out incredible. Yet, he is not releasing anything until he can properly implement the one of choice for the very few people that own and would definitely pay for this upgrade. So for now, and maybe indefinitely, he'll be the only one to have such a battery pack unless one is so inclined to diy themselves. Another example is Modwright that has been working with a Sony 5400 and then will work on the Oppo 95 to get the digital only side of the modification he does right. He keeps giving people this date, that date, and time just continues to go by and by...but he answer is simple....he will not release something that he has not figured out in a way that he needs to figure things out. These designs he says are more difficult than past products which is his excuse, but he is not just trying to make an excellent improvement, but one that is a "final" improvement, as in, he doesn't think the unit can even be modded how he would want it to be OR he finally figures something out and it then clicks/works just how he wanted it to.

Anyhoo...pardon my ramble but hopefully Philip is a designer that will hold off on the battery pack until he is absolutely certain about it like he was about the AP1/2 when he released them. And if he is having problems along the way in its development, he should just come out and state so. A simple, things are not working as they should be so I cannot provide a product that may be superior, but not to may standards until I am ready to do so statement. When this will be, if ever, I do not know. I apologize, blah blah blah...that would be a heck of a lot more credible than a who knows What is going on at Audiophilleo???


----------



## frizzup

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I'm almost positive RDr. (I enjoy this user of this forum) said his was sent in about a month ago??? I need to go back to the page where he said it was sent or has been received by Philip. Problem I have with this scenario is that Philip has a business and isn't just some diyer that says it should take about X amount of time, but we all know it may well take a lot longer. Other businesses/companies do the same process and it's seriously annoying and also a bit sketchy in the sense of just what the heck will you get in return??? If you are a company, you have tried/true products, and not something that is taking this long for ???? I have all the patience in the world when it comes to audio since I had all my fighting days back in the years)) But I have learned that designers, at least good ones, will not even produce a product unless they absolutely know it is one that is to their liking. For example, the designer of my pre-dac has tried some battery packs and the sound of some of these has been astounding, just flat out incredible. Yet, he is not releasing anything until he can properly implement the one of choice for the very few people that own and would definitely pay for this upgrade. So for now, and maybe indefinitely, he'll be the only one to have such a battery pack unless one is so inclined to diy themselves. Another example is Modwright that has been working with a Sony 5400 and then will work on the Oppo 95 to get the digital only side of the modification he does right. He keeps giving people this date, that date, and time just continues to go by and by...but he answer is simple....he will not release something that he has not figured out in a way that he needs to figure things out. These designs he says are more difficult than past products which is his excuse, but he is not just trying to make an excellent improvement, but one that is a "final" improvement, as in, he doesn't think the unit can even be modded how he would want it to be OR he finally figures something out and it then clicks/works just how he wanted it to.
> Anyhoo...pardon my ramble but hopefully Philip is a designer that will hold off on the battery pack until he is absolutely certain about it like he was about the AP1/2 when he released them. And if he is having problems along the way in its development, he should just come out and state so. A simple, things are not working as they should be so I cannot provide a product that may be superior, but not to may standards until I am ready to do so statement. When this will be, if ever, I do not know. I apologize, blah blah blah...that would be a heck of a lot more credible than a who knows What is going on at Audiophilleo???


 

 I hope that Philip is not having problems with the Purepower modifications to the original Audiphilleo's as I sent mine to him 7 days ago. His website warned us of a 10 day turnaround due to backlog in March then when you add 7 day to courier your original device back to him + mod + 7 days to return back to you you are looking at 3-4 weeks. 
   
  Frizzup


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

My AP2 has been with Phillip for about three weeks; he called me last evening (returning my call) to tell me that he is still tweaking the firmware.


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





lil' knight said:


> It surely doesn't have enough V-caps....


 


  What the heck are V-caps doing in a digital-to-digital converter anyway? It boggles the mind.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


k3ct said:


> What the heck are V-caps doing in a digital-to-digital converter anyway? It boggles the mind.


 

 It's a D/A converter (the Overdrive).


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Good commentary about these small, mostly singular efforts. Some of the products that I have in my lil' headphone rig are from one-man shops, including the modified DNA Sonett headphone amplifier that I use, and its modified W4S DAC companion (Ok, not a one man shop, but certainly a small shop). Some of these things are audio jewels, not from an aesthetic perspective, as e.g. some folk would hotly debate that a Saab Blue color for an amplifier chassis could be aesthetically pleasing to the eye, but what comes out of the headphone jack is what makes it a clear winner. Similarly, the W4S DAC--it may be as close as to a reference DAC many of us will ever be willing/able to purchase. I still contend that most reviewers have not heard what is possible with it when connected to an outboard S/PDIF transport from the likes of Empirical Audio or Audiophilleo, which I believe moves it several rungs up the DAC ladder. (I know, it's not a ladder design, but I think you get the pun . It's in use in my friend's six-figure system, and it seems more than up to the task surrounded by the other patently reference level components.  
   
  The shop of one man, wearing lots of hats. As you suggest, he seems to be a bit of a perfectionist. I'm not sure how many circuit board revs he has gone through, but I know that he has had at least two or more from our e-mail exchanges. 
   
  Usually, the hardware is simpler, more easily realized. Typical of the SW development cycle, estimate a target release and then double it for the actual release date.  
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I'm almost positive RDr. (I enjoy this user of this forum) said his was sent in about a month ago??? I need to go back to the page where he said it was sent or has been received by Philip. Problem I have with this scenario is that Philip has a business and isn't just some diyer that says it should take about X amount of time, but we all know it may well take a lot longer. Other businesses/companies do the same process and it's seriously annoying and also a bit sketchy in the sense of just what the heck will you get in return??? If you are a company, you have tried/true products, and not something that is taking this long for ???? I have all the patience in the world when it comes to audio since I had all my fighting days back in the years)) But I have learned that designers, at least good ones, will not even produce a product unless they absolutely know it is one that is to their liking. For example, the designer of my pre-dac has tried some battery packs and the sound of some of these has been astounding, just flat out incredible. Yet, he is not releasing anything until he can properly implement the one of choice for the very few people that own and would definitely pay for this upgrade. So for now, and maybe indefinitely, he'll be the only one to have such a battery pack unless one is so inclined to diy themselves. Another example is Modwright that has been working with a Sony 5400 and then will work on the Oppo 95 to get the digital only side of the modification he does right. He keeps giving people this date, that date, and time just continues to go by and by...but he answer is simple....he will not release something that he has not figured out in a way that he needs to figure things out. These designs he says are more difficult than past products which is his excuse, but he is not just trying to make an excellent improvement, but one that is a "final" improvement, as in, he doesn't think the unit can even be modded how he would want it to be OR he finally figures something out and it then clicks/works just how he wanted it to.
> Anyhoo...pardon my ramble but hopefully Philip is a designer that will hold off on the battery pack until he is absolutely certain about it like he was about the AP1/2 when he released them. And if he is having problems along the way in its development, he should just come out and state so. A simple, things are not working as they should be so I cannot provide a product that may be superior, but not to may standards until I am ready to do so statement. When this will be, if ever, I do not know. I apologize, blah blah blah...that would be a heck of a lot more credible than a who knows What is going on at Audiophilleo???


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The mod to the AP device is simple, but getting the new power supply up to spec has been a bit of a challenge. 
  
  Quote: 





frizzup said:


> I hope that Philip is not having problems with the Purepower modifications to the original Audiphilleo's as I sent mine to him 7 days ago. His website warned us of a 10 day turnaround due to backlog in March then when you add 7 day to courier your original device back to him + mod + 7 days to return back to you you are looking at 3-4 weeks.
> 
> Frizzup


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The analogue outputs?  
  
  Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Quote:
> 
> It's a D/A converter (the Overdrive).


----------



## DaveBSC




----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The analogue outputs?


 


  Caps are in there for fancy garbage, though people do believe in such things making "dramatic differences...LOL!  I won't ever bother arguing about it since I've been guilty of hearing cables and different line conditioners have drastic sound differences.  It's obvious that when you have a 6K item, and you don't want to look like the big boys, you put the nicer caps in there to give some eye candy that isn't usually found until the unit is more like 16K.
   
  I was just reading a review on the OR5, though the person didn't really say much, he did I am just about certain bring up the same Wyred you have mentioned and said how amazing it sounds with it, that it's truly a top tier level sound.  It's obvious these companies are just not up to date with getting the USB right, though really, what all can one expect for such a given price point?  It's not like the Wyred is a 6K dac.
   
  Well lets hope Philip sorts everything out even if it takes however much time...within reason obviously)


----------



## sridhar3

Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned about the turnaround time also.  I'd rather not send mine back to him until he's got the process all figured out.


----------



## sphinxvc

Alright guys, I've got an interesting comparison going here:
   

   
  All three hooked up to the Mac Mini via USB (Zodiac direct)
   

   
  The Wavelink
   

   
  The Audiophilleo2
   
  I'm able to A/B them on the fly by switching the output on my Mac via SoundSource & touching the source button on the Zodiac.


----------



## gavtorn

just a heads up to anyone waiting to hear back from Audiophilleo - I just received an email response about a battery upgrade after a 4 day wait, so they are around, just busy.


----------



## gavtorn

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Alright guys, I've got an interesting comparison going here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  sphinxvc - you will not get the best out of the AP2 until you run it from batteries - if you have the time please have a look here for instructions for a quick and easy method.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Alright guys, I've got an interesting comparison going here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 So what sounds the best and what precisely do you hear?  Is there a "clear" difference for the good/bad/etc. or just subtle and "house" flavor differences?


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


audioexcels said:


> So what sounds the best and what precisely do you hear?  Is there a "clear" difference for the good/bad/etc. or just subtle and "house" flavor differences?


 

 Give the guy a few days, eh?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Alright guys, I've got an interesting comparison going here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Look forward to your impressions, I am currently undecided how to upgrade my system between spending $1k on AP2 with purepower or half that on a DIY XMOS, or even less on the new AudioGD DI, or to just leave the JK mk3 in place and upgrade cabling (or save for STAX gear).


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


drez said:


> (or save for STAX gear).


 

 I approve of this.


----------



## Currawong

It'd be interesting to compare the battery power with the Vaunix hub as a power source.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





currawong said:


> It'd be interesting to compare the battery power with the Vaunix hub as a power source.


 

 You could actually use both as AFAIK the battery pack does not power the USB receiver chip.  Personally I just wish they would sell the AP2 modded as it is for the battery upgrade scheme, but I don't think that will happen all too soon.


----------



## Misterrogers

My PurePower and modded AP2 landed yesterday. I've only had a couple of listening hours with it, but I'm already planning to order one for my second/work AP2. I've ran it a couple hours at work (AP2, UV USB cable, no hub) and the difference was dramatic. blacker background, better micro detail and dynamics. With my main system at home (AP2, Carbon USB's, Vaunix) the improvement (same areas) was noticeable, though not as dramatic. Later, I'll source the USB receiver through Vaunix to see if any improvement is noticeable. For completeness, both my AP2's are feeding Bifrosts (wrapping up a BII build - excited to plug that in the chain). Work system is Bifrost -> Lyr, home is Bifrost -> Minute EL34 SE (review to follow - 10w per, makes my HE-6's sing!).
   
  Anyway, very early - but I'm happy with the results so far.


----------



## sphinxvc

Initial impressions -- I've listened to tracks I know pretty well with all three inputs.  I've listened to whole tracks, and listened to some on a 10-15 second segment by segment basis.  At times focusing on size of stage, or timbre, or imaging, or presence/weight.  I started off the testing with long sessions from device to device.  I heard clear differences there.  The AP2 had the largest, most defined stage (often a byproduct of more treble presence) and indeed I found the treble a little overbearing.  For the most part though the difference was positive and I was happy to have bought it (used), it was more effortless than the Zodiac direct.  The Wavelength sounded very similar, but without the fatigue.  Maybe a little less stage but a more convincing and natural presentation.
   
_Then _I started A/Bing.  I'm able to switch from input to input within 1 second.  The song continues regardless of input.  It's sighted, and it requires two hands, but it's serviceable A/Bing nonetheless.  For the life of me, I can't hear a difference between all three.  (Oh, in case some of you missed it, the third input is the Zodiac's on board USB.)  I'm not sure why this is.  As I mentioned, I tried whole songs I know well as well as short segments focusing on different elements of the music.  
   
  There are a couple of things that might be at play here.  One, I haven't spent enough time with the two units.  Two, the Zodiac's jitter management is very good--(maybe?)--on one hand, Antelope's known for their clocks and from their marketing it seems the Zodiac line carries the same clock as their $1K+ Trinity level dedicated clocks.  On the other hand, they don't even specifcy whether the USB is asynchronous or not.  They do have some proprietary code behind it though.  Continuing on, three, after the Zodiac's clock, there is a processor inside the unit charged with _randomizing _jitter in the stream.  You can read more about their reasons for that online.  I'm still unclear on whether the unit _generates _randomized jitter and adds it to the stream, or whether it takes any jitter _left _in the stream post-clocking and randomizes that.  Probably the latter, as the first possibility seems rather idiotic, but who knows.  Fourth possibility, the LCD-2 is glossing over differences between these transports and imparting it's own signature.  I should be able to eliminate that variable later this week though, as I'll be trying the AP2 and Wavelink on a friend's KGSSHV/SR-009 system.  We have blind tests planned.  I can't even pass sighted tests at this point.
   
  Will report back.


----------



## sphinxvc

I forgot to add this to the third possibility, the processor inside the Zodiac might be nulling any differences in jitter/timing errors between all three inputs.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> I forgot to add this to the third possibility, the processor inside the Zodiac might be nulling any differences in jitter/timing errors between all three inputs.


 

 I was going to keep my mouth shut... but I swore I read this about the Zodiac before, although it might have been the gold - ie. usb input not really showing much difference with interfaces.  There seems to be some pretty advanced engineering in those things for the purpose of studio work.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> I forgot to add this to the third possibility, the processor inside the Zodiac might be nulling any differences in jitter/timing errors between all three inputs.


 


  I listened to some more including the 2nd Hiface iteration, and I can hear the differences much like you can with the devices you tested, but the difference is so insignificant, I highly doubt I would hear it in an a/b.  If something is so subtle it is difficult or not possible to know in an a/b OR even if one is a little better in some way, is it really $$$$ different?  I always use a very cheap dvd player that I have no idea about regarding its capabilities as a transport (I just go with it's your typical dvd player and nothing known for it's good sound via digital or analog...as it really is aweful analog-ewww!), and this thing will be arguably superior to the others.
   
  One thing you should consider trying is attenuation to see if this helps some.  You can also try some kind of hub or dedicated power supply as others have tried.  I don't buy these types of things because I don't see why, even if I did have them, the device would suddenly take on some kind of sound quality gains that means the stock unit was so inferior-designed as to not include them in the first place, or address them in the first place.  It's one thing to take a device that is very good and have some fun getting potentially better and better out of it, but it's another when it's not a very good design to begin with and suddenly it becomes a good sound because of a power supply or hub?  I don't buy it...but it's always something you could try if you can find the hub or supply with a 30 day trial.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> I was going to keep my mouth shut... but I swore I read this about the Zodiac before, although it might have been the gold - ie. usb input not really showing much difference with interfaces.  There seems to be some pretty advanced engineering in those things for the purpose of studio work.


 

 And the beat goes on about the USB converter designers that believe the transport is everything while the dac is not...where these same designers felt the dac (master clock) was the main issue in the past.  Good to know that the Zodiac has an excellent design behind it.  I want to have a look into it.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> My PurePower and modded AP2 landed yesterday. I've only had a couple of listening hours with it, but I'm already planning to order one for my second/work AP2. I've ran it a couple hours at work (AP2, UV USB cable, no hub) and the difference was dramatic. blacker background, better micro detail and dynamics. With my main system at home (AP2, Carbon USB's, Vaunix) the improvement (same areas) was noticeable, though not as dramatic. Later, I'll source the USB receiver through Vaunix to see if any improvement is noticeable. For completeness, both my AP2's are feeding Bifrosts (wrapping up a BII build - excited to plug that in the chain). Work system is Bifrost -> Lyr, home is Bifrost -> Minute EL34 SE (review to follow - 10w per, makes my HE-6's sing!).
> 
> Anyway, very early - but I'm happy with the results so far.


 

 Good stuff  Did you ever try a diy based battery supply and discover similar results?  I'm curious if the same thing can be achieved with a diy power supply or even how the Aqvox does by comparison.  Will be interesting to hear your thoughts regarding the hub setup.  I know the one person in this forum that said it took the hub concept to beat his last transport so maybe it's one of the more beneficial things even over the battery supply.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


misterrogers said:


> My PurePower and modded AP2 landed yesterday.


 

 We need some pictures!


----------



## Misterrogers

Here's a few...


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> Here's a few...


 


   Thanks a lot for these - The unit is fairly sizable I see. In related news, finally got to use the AP2 the other day
   using the recommended BNC connector on the back of a Audio-gd Reference 7.1 PCM1704UK - very nice, that
   would have to be the most transparent DAC I've heard so far - will be good to finally match it with the Pure Power
   in the coming months.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> Here's a few...


 
   
  Okay so I have to ask... have you tried the usb board w/ the bifrost?


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


misterrogers said:


> Here's a few...


 

 Thank you sir!  It's a bit bigger than I thought it'd be.


----------



## pompon

what is a Bifrosts ?


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Initial impressions -- I've listened to tracks I know pretty well with all three inputs.  I've listened to whole tracks, and listened to some on a 10-15 second segment by segment basis.  At times focusing on size of stage, or timbre, or imaging, or presence/weight.  I started off the testing with long sessions from device to device.  I heard clear differences there.  The AP2 had the largest, most defined stage (often a byproduct of more treble presence) and indeed I found the treble a little overbearing.  For the most part though the difference was positive and I was happy to have bought it (used), it was more effortless than the Zodiac direct.  The Wavelength sounded very similar, but without the fatigue.  Maybe a little less stage but a more convincing and natural presentation.
> 
> _Then _I started A/Bing.  I'm able to switch from input to input within 1 second.  The song continues regardless of input.  It's sighted, and it requires two hands, but it's serviceable A/Bing nonetheless.  For the life of me, I can't hear a difference between all three.  (Oh, in case some of you missed it, the third input is the Zodiac's on board USB.)  I'm not sure why this is.  As I mentioned, I tried whole songs I know well as well as short segments focusing on different elements of the music.
> 
> ...


 

  
  Does the Zodiac employ some sort of ASRC conversion to eliminate jitter? All CEntrance DACs use this method for example. I tried finding some information regarding that in their home site but it's not very helpful to say the least. I find that the impact of USB-to-S/PDIF converters to be minimal on such units.


----------



## Misterrogers

This Bifrost doesn't have a usb card. My work unit does, and it's decent. I originally went looking for a converter when I found out that the Bifrost USB card didn't handle 176 sample rates. I have a growing hires library with quite a few 176 files. That limitation led to AP2, which proved to be a significant sonic improvement.
  
  Quote: 





bobeau said:


> Okay so I have to ask... have you tried the usb board w/ the bifrost?


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


k3ct said:


> Does the Zodiac employ some sort of ASRC conversion to eliminate jitter? All CEntrance DACs use this method for example. I tried finding some information regarding that in their home site but it's not very helpful to say the least. I find that the impact of USB-to-S/PDIF converters to be minimal on such units.


 

 It's anyone's guess--like you said, their information isn't very helpful.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Finally took a couple of pictures of my current setup with the AP2 and Aqvox power supply. Just added a Woo Audio WA22 balanced tube amp to the mix and have been really pleased with it. The unit below is an Audio-gd NFB10-WM balanced DAC/amp combo unit working only as a DAC now. The headphone cable and interconnects are Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 DIY cables, and the power cables are Pangea AC14-SE.
   
  Looking forward to more impressions of the PurePower. Thanks for the initial impressions Misterrogers.


----------



## gavtorn

Sid-Fi,
   
  As soon as a friend heard his ap2 running from batteries he sold his aqvox adapter, I suggest you try it out


----------



## Misterrogers

Yea, it's definitely a step up. Better blackness in the silences, greater detail. This is what I notice the most. On a good source recording (say 176 sample rate James Taylor 'October Road', or Jack Johnson 'On and On'), in songs with a driving kick drum, I can hear the slackness in the kick drum head. Jack Johnson 'On and On' - 'Tomorrow Morning', I can not only hear the pigeons (yes, I can tell they're pigeons) fly away, but I can now hear where they are on the porch, and which direction they fly. Don't want to carry on too much, but I'm pleased with with the improvements.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


misterrogers said:


> Yea, it's definitely a step up. Better blackness in the silences, greater detail. This is what I notice the most. On a good source recording (say 176 sample rate James Taylor 'October Road', or Jack Johnson 'On and On'), in songs with a driving kick drum, I can hear the slackness in the kick drum head. Jack Johnson 'On and On' - 'Tomorrow Morning', I can not only hear the pigeons (yes, I can tell they're pigeons) fly away, but I can now hear where they are on the porch, and which direction they fly. Don't want to carry on too much, but I'm pleased with with the improvements.


 

 I don't mean to be a bother, but how long did it take between sending it in and getting it back?  I definitely want mine battery modded, but I'd like it back in some decent span of time.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Man, it sounds awesome. I have had a few power related upgrades in the past that provided better blackness of background and micro detail and loved it. Too bad I'm ordering some new nice tubes for my WA22. I'll have to hold off a tad, but will definitely be adding it.
  
  Quote: 





gavtorn said:


> Sid-Fi,
> 
> As soon as a friend heard his ap2 running from batteries he sold his aqvox adapter, I suggest you try it out


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> Man, it sounds awesome. I have had a few power related upgrades in the past that provided better blackness of background and micro detail and loved it. Too bad I'm ordering some new nice tubes for my WA22. I'll have to hold off a tad, but will definitely be adding it.


 

 I'm a big fan of batteries - it means you don't have to worry about power cords, wall/street power issues etc.  I just wish they would release an AP2 modded as per purepower to accept 3.3V input to the clocks so I could DIY a battery supply (personally I find my JK mk3 HiFace never runs out of batteries, so all the excellent power supply design that AP put into the purepower is a bit of a waste to me)


----------



## frizzup

Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Quote:
> 
> I don't mean to be a bother, but how long did it take between sending it in and getting it back?  I definitely want mine battery modded, but I'd like it back in some decent span of time.


 

 Spoke with Philip at Audiophilleo today. My AP2 had just arrived at Audiophilleo via international courier from NZ for its "Pure Power" upgrade this morning. Posted from NZ on Tuesday 10th April He hopes to have it on its way back to me by Wed/Thurs EST. It will then take appox 5/7 days to get back to me in NZ.
   
  Frizzup


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


frizzup said:


> Spoke with Philip at Audiophilleo today. My AP2 had just arrived at Audiophilleo via international courier from NZ for its "Pure Power" upgrade this morning. Posted from NZ on Tuesday 10th April He hopes to have it on its way back to me by Wed/Thurs EST. It will then take appox 5/7 days to get back to me in NZ.
> 
> Frizzup


 

 Thank you.


----------



## pigmode

Hmm, there's some problem going on with my Audiophilleo 2 refund. If it delays much longer perhaps it might be better to upgrade to PurePower.


----------



## lostinla

Price showing as $449 for the upgrade now.....


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





lostinla said:


> Price showing as $449 for the upgrade now.....


 


   
  What was it before?


----------



## bozebuttons

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> What was it before?


 


  $399 &  price was  supposed to be good till June.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





bozebuttons said:


> $399


 


  Soon to be $499...LOL!


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Hmm, there's some problem going on with my Audiophilleo 2 refund. If it delays much longer perhaps it might be better to upgrade to PurePower.


 


  Contact him directly or open a Paypal dispute.  I was delayed getting a refund and just emailed and asked what was taking so long, next day refund was provided.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





bozebuttons said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   
  Made me go hmmm. Too bad if the price was increased, but I might understand (to a certain extent) if there were problems finalizing the design, which we know now was not finished at the time it was unveiled. Still not happy about the new price.
   
   
   
   
   
   



audioexcels said:


> pigmode said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, there's some problem going on with my Audiophilleo 2 refund. If it delays much longer perhaps it might be better to upgrade to PurePower.
> ...


 


   
  Delivery Confirmation showed the A2 was delivered on 3/29 and after inquiry on its status (4/10) by me, received request on 4/13 for tracking number because they couldn't find the box. 
   
  I'd like to think they're busy and will take care of it, and if I went with the upgrade, I'd prefer to have it with my burn-in original unit.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:


bozebuttons said:


> $399 &  price was  supposed to be good till June.


 
   
  Well, that's not reassuring.


----------



## lostinla

Sent mine in yesterday for the PurePower upgrade.....


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





lostinla said:


> Sent mine in yesterday for the PurePower upgrade.....


 
   
  Did it cost you $399 or $449?


----------



## sphinxvc

So I apologize in advance for those who consider this post too off-topic.  It's just I don't know any other place on head-fi that's so interested in USB/Spdif transports.  My Audiophilleo sold earlier this week, and I'm glad to be past that chapter.  Needless to say, I was disappointed when it didn't make any difference in my system.  Though perhaps I should be happy about that.  Anyhow, today's the day I tried the Zodiac + Wavelink with SR-009s and KGSSHV.  I wanted to rule out the possibility that the LCD-2 was glossing over the differences in transports, and that was decided with today's tests.  T-Money thought he could hear a slight difference at first listen too, but with his back turned it was clear nothing could be differentiated accurately.  I failed those blind tests easily.
   
  Before you call us tin-eared objectivists, we had another interesting blind test with hi-res files vs. the same hi-res files but downconverted to 16/44.  Now any dogmatic head-fi objectivist will tell you it's an exercise in futility, but we did it all the same, and both of us curiously did very well.  We both agreed the hi-res files had an extremely small bit more ambiance & naturalness, and we were both able to guess hi-res vs low-res, on average, 70-80% accurately over 3-4 tests (5-7 random sample rates each).  I think those are pretty good numbers.
   
  Some other interesting things -- with the RWA Isabellina DAC connected to the KGSSHV/SR-009 system (volume maxed on amp _and _DAC) the noise floor that could be heard was _significantly higher _than the Zodiac in the same configuration.  So it seems batteries don't solve everything._  /  _The Wavelink didn't play nice with the Isabellina (sample rate mismatch or something), so I didn't get to test the Wavelink's effects on a different converter.


----------



## lostinla

sridhar3 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




$399 - got in just before the rise.


----------



## frizzup

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> So I apologize in advance for those who consider this post too off-topic.  It's just I don't know any other place on head-fi that's so interested in USB/Spdif transports.  My Audiophilleo sold earlier this week, and I'm glad to be past that chapter.  Needless to say, I was disappointed when it didn't make any difference in my system.  Though perhaps I should be happy about that.  Anyhow, today's the day I tried the Zodiac + Wavelink with SR-009s and KGSSHV.  I wanted to rule out the possibility that the LCD-2 was glossing over the differences in transports, and that was decided with today's tests.  T-Money thought he could hear a slight difference at first listen too, but with his back turned it was clear nothing could be differentiated accurately.  I failed those blind tests easily.
> 
> Before you call us tin-eared objectivists, we had another interesting blind test with hi-res files vs. the same hi-res files but downconverted to 16/44.  Now any dogmatic head-fi objectivist will tell you it's an exercise in futility, but we did it all the same, and both of us curiously did very well.  We both agreed the hi-res files had an extremely small bit more ambiance & naturalness, and we were both able to guess hi-res vs low-res, on average, 70-80% accurately over 3-4 tests (5-7 random sample rates each).  I think those are pretty good numbers.
> 
> Some other interesting things -- with the RWA Isabellina DAC connected to the KGSSHV/SR-009 system (volume maxed on amp _and _DAC) the noise floor that could be heard was _significantly higher _than the Zodiac in the same configuration.  So it seems batteries don't solve everything._  /  _The Wavelink didn't play nice with the Isabellina (sample rate mismatch or something), so I didn't get to test the Wavelink's effects on a different converter.


 
   
_"So I apologize in advance for those who consider this post too off-topic.  It's just I don't know any other place on head-fi that's so interested in USB/Spdif transports.  My Audiophilleo sold earlier this week, and I'm glad to be past that chapter._
   
Correct...totally off topic. Your post here has nothing to do with the title of the thread other than you seemingly celebrating the sale of your Audiophilleo. 
   
The other place you could post on Head-fi is called "*New Topic*"...suggest you try it someday.  





   
Frizzup


----------



## sphinxvc

Well thanks for the snide comment.  When I was considering the AP2, I wanted more impressions of the Wavelink and OR5, and the question of how resolving does a system have to be for you to hear a difference was definitely important, so while you may find what I posted useless, others might not.  If you didn't figure it out, the comment on sample rates indicates that we had better luck guessing sample rates than we did transports.  Again, that may help a potential buyer put things in perspective.  At least where the Zodiac is concerned.  The noise floor is totally off-topic, yes.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> So I apologize in advance for those who consider this post too off-topic.  It's just I don't know any other place on head-fi that's so interested in USB/Spdif transports.  My Audiophilleo sold earlier this week, and I'm glad to be past that chapter.  Needless to say, I was disappointed when it didn't make any difference in my system.  Though perhaps I should be happy about that.  Anyhow, today's the day I tried the Zodiac + Wavelink with SR-009s and KGSSHV.  I wanted to rule out the possibility that the LCD-2 was glossing over the differences in transports, and that was decided with today's tests.  T-Money thought he could hear a slight difference at first listen too, but with his back turned it was clear nothing could be differentiated accurately.  I failed those blind tests easily.
> 
> Before you call us tin-eared objectivists, we had another interesting blind test with hi-res files vs. the same hi-res files but downconverted to 16/44.  Now any dogmatic head-fi objectivist will tell you it's an exercise in futility, but we did it all the same, and both of us curiously did very well.  We both agreed the hi-res files had an extremely small bit more ambiance & naturalness, and we were both able to guess hi-res vs low-res, on average, 70-80% accurately over 3-4 tests (5-7 random sample rates each).  I think those are pretty good numbers.
> 
> Some other interesting things -- with the RWA Isabellina DAC connected to the KGSSHV/SR-009 system (volume maxed on amp _and _DAC) the noise floor that could be heard was _significantly higher _than the Zodiac in the same configuration.  So it seems batteries don't solve everything._  /  _The Wavelink didn't play nice with the Isabellina (sample rate mismatch or something), so I didn't get to test the Wavelink's effects on a different converter.


 
   
  This is Wavelink vs AP2 right?  Guess they are both pretty high end converters - good to know there isn't much difference in it.  I think once you get a decent converter with decent power supply and decent drivers, anything more than that is splitting hairs, and more likely than not, esp if your DAC has a well designed digital input.
   
  A while ago I did a test with different SPDIF cables from my AudioGD DI to a NFB-10 ES where both cables were connected, and I could switch between them seemlessly.  For the life of me I couldn't tell the difference (I was using LCD-2 back then.)  I think there is a bit of a problem psychology where we blame irritating characteristics in our system on a certain component, and declare that alleviation of this characteristic is a sign that the new component works when numerous other factors could be contributing.
   
  I think I might pass on the AP2 plus purepower battery seeing as it is so expensive and probably wont produce significantly better results than a decent XMOS based transport which is cheaper...


----------



## Audioexcels

Read the thread.  We've talked about all sorts of stuff, ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT, to the subject of the discussion.  However, this irrelevancy has led to a far broader range of commentary that makes the thread far more open for discussion and leads to a helping hand or two here and there.  It's far more dynamic than just sitting around and having a thread die off quickly because it would have done so had no one posted information off-topic, though still on topic.
   
  Noise floor actually interested me because the idea, especially with the Off-Ramp or well, any of these converters, is to do just that=lower the noise floor.  If the Wavelink was not helping to do this, it's not that the Wavelink is a poor converter, but that other converters likely help with that noise floor OR, that Red Wine needs to go back and have a nice clock put into it, along with a nice USB conversion.
   
  Having such a broad discussion on USB converters shows that while some do not care for or do not hear anything with the AP1/2, most or many do.  SO it's nice to discuss what can be done to make the AP1/2 sound its best, different experiences people have had with it, other converters, other sources in general, and not to form some unity based universal answer, but to shed some light on a pretty well matured subject, that obviously is not a final solution for everyone, regardless of the converter or source.  Way I see these sources is just find something that works because noise floor is VERY IMPORTANT and maybe that's exactly what I have heard with my pre-dac that it makes ALL sources I have heard sound literally about the same...I just tested a few and my choice would be what's most convenient because they all sound so similar, I'd never know in a simple switch test where volume levels were the same...I'd prolly hear tidbits of this/that, but nothing that was like oh wow, etc.
   
  I follow this thread because it brings in more information, not subjectivist bs that make claims about one device being the holy grail of all others.  I surely made a bold statement about the Off-Ramp and Overdrive dac, but I've never heard them in my own system, so how do I know what they sound like, if not identical to these subtle differences I have already been hearing.
   
  Keep up the thread with whatever one wants to post, stick primarily to the "hope" factor involved with price+battery supply making nice differences, and what further stuff can be done or can be brought into the discussion regarding the AP1/AP2.  I think some of those sata filters would actually be a wise investment because though this is on USB, it's still on the computer where as noise free a computer possible "should" give that AP1/AP2 even further resolution/dark background/etc.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## pigmode

If anything I think the results speak to the excellence of the Zodiac's USB implementation along with its jitter management and clocking technology. For myself a significant finding, as I am becoming less and less interested in DACs that do not have on board similar functionalities to these USB/SPDIF transports.


----------



## bobeau

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Audioexcels* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> We've talked about all sorts of stuff, ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT, to the subject of the discussion.  However, this irrelevancy has led to a far broader range of commentary that makes the thread far more open for discussion and leads to a helping hand or two here and there.


 
   
  This thread is probably the best I've seen on the web on the merits of various convertors (although I believe there is a pretty good one on the big Aussie audio site).  Overall it does seem anchored well enough to the AP that I wouldn't consider the title to be irrelevant.
   
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> If anything I think the results speak to the excellence of the Zodiac's USB implementation along with its jitter management and clocking technology.


 
   
  Agreed.  And for the most part, these convertors are probably a transitional technology.  I would be surprised if in a 2-3 years they don't die out as excellent USB implementations become common-place at lower price points.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Noise floor (SNR) is an interesting topic. In the 70's when I was running some 16ips/32ips tape systems, 70db SNR was considered state of the art. Other than the swoosh of the reels, it was darn quiet! The dbx fiasco with all it's pumping was an interim step to even supposedly lower noise; then enter the CD with a so-called noise SNR of nearly 100db. So, how does a battery solution offer benefits beyond these ridiculously low figures? 
   
  I'm not sure how all this figures in, because the new PP and modified AP2 by any objective context does sound _different_ in _my_ system. It sounds _different_ in my buddies six figure system. I'm only guessing, but it might have to do with EMI, RFI, noise rejection _and_ interaction in the power supply of digital components. I really don't know. 
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Noise floor actually interested me because the idea, especially with the Off-Ramp or well, any of these converters, is to do just that=lower the noise floor.  If the Wavelink was not helping to do this, it's not that the Wavelink is a poor converter, but that other converters likely help with that noise floor OR, that Red Wine needs to go back and have a nice clock put into it, along with a nice USB conversion.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





bobeau said:


> This thread is probably the best I've seen on the web on the merits of various convertors (although I believe there is a pretty good one on the big Aussie audio site).  Overall it does seem anchored well enough to the AP that I wouldn't consider the title to be irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And for the most part, these convertors are probably a transitional technology.  I would be surprised if in a 2-3 years they don't die out as excellent USB implementations become common-place at lower price points.


 
   
  Exactly right.  Very well said on all accounts


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Noise floor (SNR) is an interesting topic. In the 70's when I was running some 16ips/32ips tape systems, 70db SNR was considered state of the art. Other than the swoosh of the reels, it was darn quiet! The dbx fiasco with all it's pumping was an interim step to even supposedly lower noise; then enter the CD with a so-called noise SNR of nearly 100db. So, how does a battery solution offer benefits beyond these ridiculously low figures?
> 
> I'm not sure how all this figures in, because the new PP and modified AP2 by any objective context does sound _different_ in _my_ system. It sounds _different_ in my buddies six figure system. I'm only guessing, but it might have to do with EMI, RFI, noise rejection _and_ interaction in the power supply of digital components. I really don't know.


 
   
  I've heard a battery supply version of my pre-dac, and it is indeed a "substantial" difference.  This said, most will argue that regardless of how it's done, a properly made PS will lower that noise and help reject the issues you mentioned.  Batteries just seems like an easier/cheaper way, though as was mentioned with the RWA, you still gotta get it right.  Sounds like Philip got it right enough to make a marked enough difference in any Audiophilleo that has been received back from him to this date so that's a great sign!  I'm guessing the sound is more on the natural side while still obviously maintaining the dynamics/details/etc.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I was actually a bit surprised as the differences were immediate and apparent. Yes, I'd say you have summed it up nicely, natural (or neutral), which was the surprising part. Not only natural, but even more musical details. More to come! 
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I've heard a battery supply version of my pre-dac, and it is indeed a "substantial" difference.  This said, most will argue that regardless of how it's done, a properly made PS will lower that noise and help reject the issues you mentioned.  Batteries just seems like an easier/cheaper way, though as was mentioned with the RWA, you still gotta get it right.  Sounds like Philip got it right enough to make a marked enough difference in any Audiophilleo that has been received back from him to this date so that's a great sign!  I'm guessing the sound is more on the natural side while still obviously maintaining the dynamics/details/etc.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I was actually a bit surprised as the differences were immediate and apparent. Yes, I'd say you have summed it up nicely, natural (or neutral), which was the surprising part. Not only natural, but even more musical details. More to come!


 
   
  Yup..that's what I heard personally with my pre-dac on batteries vs. electricity.  It's like the sound goes so relaxed/transparent/lush, but it has superior detail/resolution/information...far more live/real sounding.  This was just on that pre-dac I own, but it's definitely there, and it sounds like you are hearing that same sound.  I think if you had say, a very nice Hynes PS, it would be very competitive, much the same as I'm guessing a super nice AC PS would be excellent with my pre-dac.  But at what cost vs. batteries?...that's where we're talking big money spent for an ultra clean AC supply vs. even a good enough battery supply, though I do feel best battery supply for that given device/circuit/etc. is superior to best AC power for the given device.

 Will look forward to hearing your thoughts on the new sound you are hearing.


----------



## Sid-Fi

I'm getting really sick of seeing rude posts like this on head-fi. You would think with 8 posts since 2009 this post could have been used on something a little more productive.
   
  I think its important that members of the forum share their honest impressions when they don't experience any improvement after an expensive purchase. I love my AP2 and certainly think it brings me value, but I'm not going to be rude when someone honestly and considerately disagrees.
   
  Quote: 





frizzup said:


> _"So I apologize in advance for those who consider this post too off-topic.  It's just I don't know any other place on head-fi that's so interested in USB/Spdif transports.  My Audiophilleo sold earlier this week, and I'm glad to be past that chapter._
> 
> Correct...totally off topic. Your post here has nothing to do with the title of the thread other than you seemingly celebrating the sale of your Audiophilleo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> I'm getting really sick of seeing rude posts like this on head-fi. You would think with 8 posts since 2009 this post could have been used on something a little more productive.
> 
> I think its important that members of the forum share their honest impressions when they don't experience any improvement after an expensive purchase. I love my AP2 and certainly think it brings me value, but I'm not going to be rude when someone honestly and considerately disagrees.


 
   
  Very well said.  In the end, it's not about best or political based ramble, but the fact that we are even able to have such a hobby, have somehow been exposed to the hobby, because I'd guess less than 1% on the planet are actively or have even had the pleasure to enjoy this hobby like us very few have.  I call it a hobby, but it's having that opportunity to hear music in ways only us few will ever be able to hear it.  Sure, many may have horrible sounding systems to my or you or other's in this hobby's ears, but they still have something, and I'm sure in that something they have, we can find a level of appreciation about it.  Anyhoo, best to keep things as they are, know that no, we don't have the best anything because the best just does not exist even if we say words like the best...and simply appreciate being one of few to have had the invalueable opportunity to hear music in the way that we are able to do!
   
  By the way, AP2 is aweful in my system so you better go jump off a cliff if you own one...LOLOLOL)  Wait, what you should actually do is argue with me so we can go nowhere with our argument)))))
   
  Thanks again for this lovely post.  No need to really bother with the person posting what they did, but very much appreciate precisely what you said about, "I love my AP2 and certainly think it brings me value, but I'm not going to be rude when someone honestly and considerately disagrees."  Oh now...this reminds me of when I told Linkwitz how a few aspects of his Orion speakers were poor and he got extremely defensive...poor ole guy!  Shouldn't have been so tough on him, but now, he does see that his treble has the response it does and admits to what I already had some 6? years ago...LOL.  

 Cheers!


----------



## frizzup

OP:  _So we don't pollute other thread, I'm starting up a thread to discuss the Audiophilleo products here_
   
Jesus guys recognise tongue in cheek 



_ so sensitive _but after all "_he's only been a member since 2009 and only posted 9 times..so...." _nice one 15 all 




   
Meanwhile I await the return of my AP2 and its Purepower upgrade.
   
Frizzup


----------



## Currawong

The internet is such serious business. 
   
  Anyhow, I was unhappy with the sound of my system and couldn't put my finger on it. I'd switched back to using my MacBook Pro as the transport from my iPad. That turned out to be the problem. For some reason the music sounds more harsh, even using Amarra or another program, compared to using my iPad. I have no idea what the heck is going on. It could just be me, but the MBP is running too many programs and it hooked into too much other gear to be an ideal transport anyway.


----------



## Gwarmi

I was going to say that if you look at something like the J Play forum for those who use it (I do for the time being on a Windows platform)
   
   This thread could do with a fresh injection of advice for building that perfect Linux / Windows rig for use with the AP1/AP2 + Pure Power.
   
   There is no doubt that the multitude of variables at play will make 'some' difference at the end of the day - it is a bit alienating though for those
   on Mac-Power as their box is essentially locked, so apologies in advance.
   
   Some of the hardware that would be considered essential - motherboard #model selection, especially CPU fan, RAM type,
   the most quiet and efficient power supply for the whole dedicated box, hard disk (preferably solid state or so it seems),
   operating system - bare bones being better.
   
   PS:- Played around with Amarra last week on a Macbook - and personally found it a little bright and harsh -
   I still prefer my J Play even though fundamentally speaking - Windows stinks.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





gwarmi said:


> This thread could do with a fresh injection of advice for building that perfect Linux / Windows rig for use with the AP1/AP2 + Pure Power.


 
   
  I'm actually fairly interested in the new SOtM sMS-1000 Linux-based media server/transport that Computer Audiophile just recently reviewed (Link: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/SOtM-sMS-1000-Audiophile-Music-Server-Review).  From reading the article, it seems that the transport is based on a lot of the same concepts as the SOtM USB card used in the CAPS and CAPS v2.0.  The Mac Mini w/ Lion Server and Auraliti also seem like pretty decent options.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I was actually a bit surprised as the differences were immediate and apparent. Yes, I'd say you have summed it up nicely, natural (or neutral), which was the surprising part. Not only natural, but even more musical details. More to come!


 
   
   
  Cool!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> I'm actually fairly interested in the new SOtM sMS-1000 Linux-based media server/transport that Computer Audiophile just recently reviewed (Link: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/SOtM-sMS-1000-Audiophile-Music-Server-Review).  From reading the article, it seems that the transport is based on a lot of the same concepts as the SOtM USB card used in the CAPS and CAPS v2.0.  The Mac Mini w/ Lion Server and Auraliti also seem like pretty decent options.


 
   
  I started a thread while back discussing music servers - been dead for a while - it could use some activity lol: http://www.head-fi.org/t/572693/music-sever-computer-as-transport-cat-discussion-thread
   
  I will try not to go too far OT, so suffice to say the computer side does matter quite a bit on both the hardware and software sides, which kind of leaves you at a dead end when it comes to MAC hardware (or the Auraliti), and Linux software although excellent takes a fair bit of IT knowledge to use properly.  You can probably guess where I am going.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I use a MBP too, and have experienced something like what you're describing. In order to get the most optimal hardware, I upgraded the HD to SSD (OWC 6G Extreme PRO) and maxed the memory (16G). I posted in another thread--I think it was in either Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes or in Better Sound for Mac Users- Pure Music Player about how to set up your system by creating a user user account dedicated to only playing music.  
   
  BTW, since maxing out the hardware, I rarely experience problems with these type of issues anymore.   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> The internet is such serious business.
> 
> Anyhow, I was unhappy with the sound of my system and couldn't put my finger on it. I'd switched back to using my MacBook Pro as the transport from my iPad. That turned out to be the problem. For some reason the music sounds more harsh, even using Amarra or another program, compared to using my iPad. I have no idea what the heck is going on. It could just be me, but the MBP is running too many programs and it hooked into too much other gear to be an ideal transport anyway.


----------



## leeperry

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The internet is such serious business.


 
   
  Yes, it very much is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Keeping it OT, we can all forget about the A-GD D-I PSU because its voltage drops by as much as 10% when it's warm from what Kingwa told me, so that's very much out of ATX specs. OTOH, it could nicely feed this kind of linear regulated isolator(that's supposedly compatible with both the Audiophileo's and XMOS): http://www.ebay.com/itm/251039917892
   
  I'm currently having a ball w/ this isolator that has an unregulated PSU input, so no need to go all kludgy in order to provide your transport with a clean PSU: http://www.poscope.com/pousbiso
   
  Of course the USB isolation + clean PSU combo provides a stunning SQ improvement IME 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I might also fancy providing a clean PSU to the computer side of ADuM4160, so how would you do that exactly? I read that you should keep the USB ground connection to the computer and simply inject a clean third-party +5V signal...but would that really work? I thought a PSU required 2 wires and I really don't plan on blowing anything up ^^


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Yes, it very much is
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  How much of an improvement do you hear using this and what can you say about it?  I'm guessing it's USB-USB, so a direct connect w/adapter piece on PC side, USB cable to a converter or even direct connect to converter, then Coax from there, etc.?


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I use a MBP too, and have experienced something like what you're describing. In order to get the most optimal hardware, I upgraded the HD to SSD (OWC 6G Extreme PRO) and maxed the memory (16G). I posted in another thread--I think it was in either Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes or in Better Sound for Mac Users- Pure Music Player about how to set up your system by creating a user user account dedicated to only playing music.
> 
> BTW, since maxing out the hardware, I rarely experience problems with these type of issues anymore.


 
   
  Have you ever tried using a flash drives w/some files to play it like this?  I have heard a lot about people using these to obtain better sq than from the HD though I have also heard using those SOTM filters on the HD help a lot too (though I think this would apply with desktops).  People have also said ripping to a flash stick is better than ripping to the HD, but all these things are just ???'s for me since I've never tried any of them.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I wonder how a much slower device like a flash drive differs from a high performance solid state HD, like the OWC's; or the fact that I play all my music from memory via Pure Music. My music is streamed into memory from an external drive, gapless (via iTunes), so the entire album is loaded into memory at once. 
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Have you ever tried using a flash drives w/some files to play it like this?  I have heard a lot about people using these to obtain better sq than from the HD though I have also heard using those SOTM filters on the HD help a lot too (though I think this would apply with desktops).  People have also said ripping to a flash stick is better than ripping to the HD, but all these things are just ???'s for me since I've never tried any of them.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I wonder how a much slower device like a flash drive differs from a high performance solid state HD, like the OWC's; or the fact that I play all my music from memory via Pure Music. My music is streamed into memory from an external drive, gapless (via iTunes), so the entire album is loaded into memory at once.


 
   
  Personally, I don't think it would matter, but some feel the flash drive is superior for some reason and I'd have to dig up the theory about it.  I say it wouldn't matter because if you have a solid well set setup, why bother using something like a flash drive other than to trial/error and see how it works by comparison.  Flash drives are super cheap, even the very good ones.


----------



## Adriel

Quote: 





> The Audiophilleo (I have an AP1), assuming it meets its claims, which it seems to, has a ridiculously good clock. According to reviews, for example, it's about 100 TIMES cleaner than the clock in the V-Link. So, presumably, using any PC that doesn't drop data, and an AP, you now have perfect numbers with damn-near perfect timing. So why the battery? Well, the output of the AP is digital, so it doesn't care (numbers ARE still just numbers), but the AP is still connected to the PC's noisy ground and power buses via the USB cable; its power regenerator is STILL connected to them and, being a high-frequency power supply itself, may well generate some noise of its own. Running the output circuitry from a battery removes that last bit of connection between them, which may well enable some DACs to do their job better, specifically because it allows the DAC to be isolated from the computer better. HOWEVER, the output of the AP is still just numbers. It isn't analog, so there's really no reason to even imagine that the particulars of the battery would make any difference whatsoever to the sound - because the battery doesn't "touch" the analog portion of things at all.


 
   
   
  The s/pdif output of an AP is not "numbers". It IS an analog waveform. Subject to attenuation over distance, reflection and return loss, etc.
   
  I am looking at an AP2 myself, but even with the low jitter performance I'd prefer a standard power socket to use with power cables and power conditioners that I already have.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





adriel said:


> The s/pdif output of an AP is not "numbers". It IS an analog waveform. Subject to attenuation over distance, reflection and return loss, etc.
> 
> I am looking at an AP2 myself, but even with the low jitter performance I'd prefer a standard power socket to use with power cables and power conditioners that I already have.


 
   
  I think you are probably disagreeing to agree
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  You are right though that thinking of digital signals as numbers doesn't really help as it tends to lead to gross oversimplification.  I guess though if there is a difference in the output it should be measurable as jitter, or even the level of ripple noise on the SPDIF signal is measurable.  GIven AP's reliance on jitter figures to sell the AP I can't see why they haven't released any measurements of the AP with the battery pack yet.  Providing a clean power supply to the clocks and SPDIF output could potentially improve the jitter performance but to what degree is another matter (of course I can't talk as I payed extra for a battery modified HiFace) es given the already apparently good performance of the AP.  Again though I think I should bring up that AP measure their products with a different methodology to other products, and personally I would not be surprised if this method they are using is contributing to the apparent order of magnitude performance gap to other products.  For the numbers to be meaningful the same testing methodology should be used - this is pretty self-evident thinking.
   
  I doubt that you would run into problems running on batteries, esp with the fancy charging system the AP battery pack uses.  Battery power has advantage that you don't need a high quality power cord or power conditioner etc to get good performance, I gues though the problem with batteries is voltage drop, but I have not idea how this would affect (or not affect) a D/D converter.


----------



## gavtorn

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Personally, I don't think it would matter, but some feel the flash drive is superior for some reason and I'd have to dig up the theory about it.  I say it wouldn't matter because if you have a solid well set setup, why bother using something like a flash drive other than to trial/error and see how it works by comparison.  Flash drives are super cheap, even the very good ones.


 
   
  I prefer the sound of tracks loaded from my ssd rather than usb thumb drive.  The difference is subtle and I thought I was going crazy until I read about other people reporting similar experiences.  There is a lot of info on the jplay forums about effect of pc hardware in sq levels.


----------



## gavtorn

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The internet is such serious business.
> 
> Anyhow, I was unhappy with the sound of my system and couldn't put my finger on it. I'd switched back to using my MacBook Pro as the transport from my iPad. That turned out to be the problem. For some reason the music sounds more harsh, even using Amarra or another program, compared to using my iPad. I have no idea what the heck is going on. It could just be me, but the MBP is running too many programs and it hooked into too much other gear to be an ideal transport anyway.


 
   
  It may be something to do with the lack of fan in the ipad, or the lack of a mechanical drive.  These are known to introduce electrical noise into the system.  Also their may be less multitasking / more priority on the music playback.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Per Phillip, the jitter specification of the AP 1/2 with the battery is not appreciably different. The SQ mechanism using batteries is most likely related to RFI and EMI noise rejection due to battery isolation. I don't believe we'll see any updates re the jitter specs of the AP 1/2 with the addition of the battery power supply. 
   
  I believe the methodology used to measure the jitter for the AP transports is one of the most comprehensive of any manufacturer. It is perhaps Phillip's one area that he is the most clear, including phase and bandwidth, RMS and PP throughout. I wish other's would go to the same lengths and standards. However, access to the appropriate tools to measure jitter at this level is very expensive. Basically, other than the likes of MSB, it looks like he sets the jitter standard for S/PDIF in a low cost transport package.  
   
  However, jitter is a distinction that for many folks, especially as it relates to SQ, is very controversial. If there are doubts about how jitter correlates with SQ, the AP1 provides a jitter test function allowing the insertion of varying levels of jitter, that you can test and hear if it makes a difference to you. (I have the AP2.)  
   
  Re voltage drop, the AP PurePower display can graphically (or otherwise) let you know when you should recharge. I've already listened for well over eight hours in one session with the PP supply indicating 6+ hours remaining. Output current was constant throughout at .22A, or about 220ma. Remember, only the critical clocks are being powered by the PP battery supply. 
   
  Quote:


drez said:


> I think you are probably disagreeing to agree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pompon

I guess cplay, jplay modify the bits in the music it's why you hear a difference. I do ! cplay is wider but I can click on a cursor and each step is even wider. It's just numeric filter on the music. It's not bit perfect. I can put a eq on my music to give more highs or bass ... it's not better ... it's just equalisation.
   
  You should do the bitperfect test using jplay in hibernate to see if the AP1 see the good samples.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I guess cplay, jplay modify the bits in the music it's why you hear a difference. I do ! cplay is wider but I can click on a cursor and each step is even wider. It's just numeric filter on the music. It's not bit perfect. I can put a eq on my music to give more highs or bass ... it's not better ... it's just equalisation.
> 
> You should do the bitperfect test using jplay in hibernate to see if the AP1 see the good samples.


 
   
  While I think this would be a good test to do (test JPlay with an AP1 for bit perfect playback), I don't think you have to modify bits in order to make playback software sound different.  On my system I can hear the difference in buffer setting with JRiver, and the differences between DS, kernel streaming and WASAPI.  This is to do with audio latency, and software/hardware buffering rather than digital filtering.  Digital filtering and equalization are quite different, I have tried various plugins for Foobar and none of them sounded natural.  There are plenty of room equalization filers available, and I am yet to try these either. In general my experience with the poorer room-EQ is that the efffects are very obious, it takes a very high quality room-EQ sofware to obtain good results, and many of these better room-EQ software are in not free either.
   
  On another note I would not be surprised if there was some kind of digital filtering going on, as JPlay does seem to use a lot of resources for a straightforward playback software, but you would have to test the software before you can say either way.  One could also apply this test to other playback software such as XXHighEnd etc.  Softwares such as c-play are very open about the way they work (minimising latency and using a good oversampling filter) but JPlay on the other hand refers to minimising latency, improving timing and "hibernation mode".  Which reminds me, from memory the developer of XX did some testing in terms of jitter, it would be on their forum if you wish to dig it up.  Both of these developers claim the software they use is bit perfect, and that improvements come from jitter and latency etc.
   
  People with an AP1 are in a unique position to be able to offer some real insight here rather than just speculation.
   
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all


----------



## BrainFood

Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> How much of an improvement do you hear using this and what can you say about it?


 
   
  Yup- interested in the Polabs too.


----------



## leeperry

Well, the cleaner the PSU the clearer the deep bass and the more 3D sounding the SS. ADuM4160 sounds good, just like this guy said: http://diyparadise.com/forum/index.php?topic=1063.msg11167#msg11167
  Quote: 





> it is funny, all the sounds are there, some details too, it just doesn't sound so realistic without the USB-isolator. Music Dies away. Some of the magic dies out, the room perspective, depth is not so clear.. It's not coming out of the speakers properly without the isolator.


 
   
  That's exactly how I'm hearing it(besides I've got a custom title to honor ^^), but most 4160 dongles use nasty 75mV -or even worse 150mV- DC to DC power isolators, there are also PCB's of isolators using linear regulators but they're mostly experimental at this point.
   
  The Polabs uses a dead simple PCB with ADuM4160 and an unregulated vanilla input for an external PSU that will feed both the USB device and the device side of 4160.
   
  A friend of mine has found a cheap source for 5V/1A linear regulated PSU's, so I will soon try to use two PSU's to power both the host and device sides of 4160....but I've got no idea how to hijack the USB power w/o killing anything =/
   
  Apparently, you'd only need to replace the +5V wire and keep both data lines and ground to the computer....I shall run tests on an old PC first 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  This site seems rather clear, though:http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews/item/339-kingrex-upower-5v-li-ion-battery-usb-psu
  Quote: 





> A USB cable with the 5V feed severed was required. I co-opted an extender cable that shipped with a wifi dongle and had a DIY-handy buddy take care of opening her up, cutting/cauterising the V+ mainline (usually - but not always - red) and then sewing her back up.


 
   
  Ideally, I wanna use the USB plugs from DHC, build a triple conduit cable much like this one and inject a clean 5V to the host side of 4160.....merely just another day at the DRBAL(Diminishing Returns Bored Audiophool Laboratories) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  And I know you like reggae as much as I do, you should really check out this tune: http://songslisting.com/song/Bus-featuring-Earl-16-Simple-Ways/2584814
   
  When an old timer with a golden voice does minimalist electronica mixed with conscious lyrics, hell breaks loose! love this tune <3


----------



## drez

Pretty off topic but I read somewhere that silver plated copper helps to improve the digital signal waveform integrity due to the more even resistance/frequency properties.  I guess though this depends on wire gauge, silver plating thickness, or for that matter the comparative frequency response of a stranded copper cable, I'm guessing there's only one optimum for the USB transmission frequency.  There certainly are a lot of silver plated copper cables on the market, but not many in dual conduit at this price point, I guess DIY is another option.


----------



## leeperry

Well, my friend just tried to hack the +5V USB wire into a linear regulated PSU, and that did not work. Last time he tried to hack both the +5V and GND, he killed his computer USB controller...maybe all grounds need to be shared. More tests to be run I guess ^^


----------



## pompon

Quote: 





drez said:


> While I think this would be a good test to do (test JPlay with an AP1 for bit perfect playback), I don't think you have to modify bits in order to make playback software sound different.  On my system I can hear the difference in buffer setting with JRiver, and the differences between DS, kernel streaming and WASAPI.  This is to do with audio latency, and software/hardware buffering rather than digital filtering.  Digital filtering and equalization are quite different, I have tried


 
   
  You have a HiFace ... it's the problem. That device don't have a buffer.
   
  Audiophilleo play the music through it's buffer in delayed time. The computer latency / usb latency are not (should not) be an issue with audiophilleo.
   
  I made listening session between softwares and output mode (asio, wasapi, ks) ... Again ... with Audiophilleo same result for all software and output mode for me.
  On my Xonar Essence ST ... I have to admit I don't hear the difference either ... * On soundcard, latency matter in theory. A good friend reported to me with Xonar Essence with ramdisk, he prefer the sound over no ram-disk. I have to listen that on his setup a day because on mine, I never really tested the ramdisk.
   
  Can you telling me what you hear between KS, ASIO, WASAPI ? When it's very very close, keep it mind placebo can exist. While it's cost nothing, and j-river is a superb software ... go ahead ! 
  I am using j-river with wasapi event ... is-it ok for you ?


----------



## Gwarmi

Quote: 





drez said:


> Pretty off topic but I read somewhere that silver plated copper helps to improve the digital signal waveform integrity due to the more even resistance/frequency properties.  I guess though this depends on wire gauge, silver plating thickness, or for that matter the comparative frequency response of a stranded copper cable, I'm guessing there's only one optimum for the USB transmission frequency.  There certainly are a lot of silver plated copper cables on the market, but not many in dual conduit at this price point, I guess DIY is another option.


 
   
   Yet to hear a better USB cable with my config that the Nordost Silver/Copper Blue Heaven USB cable - it's not all that
   expensive either - I prefer it to the Chord Co Silverlight, Wireworld UltraViolet, Nuforce USB and even the Furutech 
   Formula 2 and GT2.
   
   
   
   

 Insulation: Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene (FEP) Construction: Micro Mono-Filament shielded pair Conductors: 2x Silver-plated 99.9999 OFC solid-core, 2x 20AWG 19 strand (power) Shielding: Dual layer foil and braid


----------



## drez

Quote: 





pompon said:


> You have a HiFace ... it's the problem. That device don't have a buffer.
> 
> Audiophilleo play the music through it's buffer in delayed time. The computer latency / usb latency are not (should not) be an issue with audiophilleo.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Well of course I can't say that AP isn't immune to computer side variables as I haven't got one to test, but I am pretty sure the HiFace uses a hardware buffer for some sort (there is a synchronisation issue with video playback) - I will send M2Tech an email anyway.  IMO hardware buffers do not 100% solve computer side performance variables anyway - contrary to popular belief a buffer does not make a component immune to incoming timing problems, but a well designed buffer does help.
   
  To be honest I think the reason I notice all of this is because my system is rather bright - if I used less bright components I would not notice as much.  If I didn't find any difference between software I would probably just use Foobar or MediaMonkey or something free rather than updating JRiver, even though it seems to work pretty well.  The SOX upsampler component for Foobar is also better IMO, just overall I prefer not to do realtime software upsampling with my current setup.
   
  On my system differences between KS and WASAPI are not small.  Of course I cannot role out placebo, but the same characteristics I notice (without reading other peoples impressions first) between WASAPI and KS, and small and big software buffer are the same characteristics other people have noticed independently.  In my current situation I don't really have anyone around who would be willing to spend time as a DBT assistant, so unfortunately placebo will have to remain a possibility.
   
  Byt yeah if you don't hear a difference with a certain component or variable then obviously not worth worrying over using it.  Personally i would use event style WASAPI as you do if it is compatible (doesnt work with hiface) and if KS doesn't sound better as WASAPI has less stability problems (I cant pause KS or JRiver freezes).  SImilarly if there was a in-windows music player that gave as good results as JPlay in hibernate mode I would of course prefer to use it as, well you cant use your computer while playing music in hibernate mode on JPlay.  If they are using digital filtering they are doing a good job - it is very subtle and i notice no image or soundstage distortion as with other plugins.  Same way I'm sure other people wouldn't bother with batter power for AP etc. if the sound was the same as it would just be a unnecessary hassle.


----------



## lostinla

PurePower arrived today. Listening session tonight....


----------



## Sid-Fi

Any initial impressions yet?
   
   
  Quote: 





lostinla said:


> PurePower arrived today. Listening session tonight....


----------



## lostinla

I've not had a lot of time for much listening. Vocals seem more full /deeper which is nice.


----------



## Misterrogers

I received my second PurePower modified AP2 back end of last week. I plan to write a detailed review sometime within the next couple of weeks (time permitting). Bottom line - PurePower has really upped the game for this device. Blacker backgrounds, better dynamics, better instrument separation, more detail. I'm hearing subtle fret/finger work that I haven't noticed before. More of the ambiance (live or studio) is coming through. Both of mine are feeding Bifrosts, and I'm pleased that they've stepped up their game to pass through the gains. I'm wrapping up a BII dac build - very excited to hear the results of AP/PP feeding a 'better' (on paper) dac.


----------



## pigmode

^ I hope you can post info on your BII configuration as well.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Your impressions sound fantastic. I'm definitely looking to add a PurePower over the next few months - as soon as the sting from my WA22 and tube purchases wear off heh.
  Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> I received my second PurePower modified AP2 back end of last week. I plan to write a detailed review sometime within the next couple of weeks (time permitting). Bottom line - PurePower has really upped the game for this device. Blacker backgrounds, better dynamics, better instrument separation, more detail. I'm hearing subtle fret/finger work that I haven't noticed before. More of the ambiance (live or studio) is coming through. Both of mine are feeding Bifrosts, and I'm pleased that they've stepped up their game to pass through the gains. I'm wrapping up a BII dac build - very excited to hear the results of AP/PP feeding a 'better' (on paper) dac.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Nice. Power improvements from my experience are typically more on the subtle side such as darker background, better low level detail, all of the things that are in the background. However, I found these type of subtle improvements to have very significant impacts on my overall immersion level. Look forward to more impressions. Enjoy!
  Quote: 





lostinla said:


> I've not had a lot of time for much listening. Vocals seem more full /deeper which is nice.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Looking forward to reading more details about your impressions. Based on my own observations with my AP2 and PurePower PS, your descriptions are very similar to mine. I've already started an "impressions" review, so it'll be good to compare and contrast.  
  Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> I received my second PurePower modified AP2 back end of last week. I plan to write a detailed review sometime within the next couple of weeks (time permitting). Bottom line - PurePower has really upped the game for this device. Blacker backgrounds, better dynamics, better instrument separation, more detail. I'm hearing subtle fret/finger work that I haven't noticed before. More of the ambiance (live or studio) is coming through. Both of mine are feeding Bifrosts, and I'm pleased that they've stepped up their game to pass through the gains. I'm wrapping up a BII dac build - very excited to hear the results of AP/PP feeding a 'better' (on paper) dac.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Good points... in fact so many of these types of upgrades tend to aggregate to an overall much larger audible perception as to make the value equation much stronger. 
  Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> Nice. Power improvements from my experience are typically more on the subtle side such as darker background, better low level detail, all of the things that are in the background. However, I found these type of subtle improvements to have very significant impacts on my overall immersion level. Look forward to more impressions. Enjoy!


----------



## lostinla

The pure power is letting a little more detail through. I find it noticeable in bass being slightly better defined, sound stage improved; placing instruments,singers or people coughing in the audience on live recordings (Diana Krall live in Paris). In particular, the voices of singers seem more full. I was noticing a bit of hardness on the likes of Adele previously and that has gone with a bit more detail in their voice (struggling to decribe). 
At first it seemed slight, but the more I listen the more I realize it's a more of a step foward.


----------



## drez

Impessions sound pretty promising so far.  Still waiting/hoping for someone (although they would probably need to be unafraid of losing warranty) to crack one of these open to see the wiring for the battery supply modificatoin
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  $600 + DIY parts is much more tempting than $1100 plus waiting/shipping etc. as I have other potential gear also tugging at my wallet


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

But what about those pretty graphs? and current draw? and time remaining? and, and... Oh well, I guess some folks just need a schematic and battery. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote: 





drez said:


> Impessions sound pretty promising so far.  Still waiting/hoping for someone (although they would probably need to be unafraid of losing warranty) to crack one of these open to see the wiring for the battery supply modificatoin
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lostinla

Yeah, I have to admit, I've not looked at the display since plugging it in and checking it worked..... I'm treating it as a set it and forget it.


----------



## preproman

+1


----------



## Szadzik

I bought an AP2 a few days ago. Decided not to get PP as it would make the price too high - on the same level as my WA2 and Metrum DAC and I believe that is too much. If I do not like the results from USB power,  I will think about an alternate power source.


----------



## pompon

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I bought an AP2 a few days ago. Decided not to get PP as it would make the price too high - on the same level as my WA2 and Metrum DAC and I believe that is too much. If I do not like the results from USB power,  I will think about an alternate power source.


 
  You can try this trick if you have someone to build you that and if you don't listening music too often.
   
  x USB Hub with battery pack
   


   
  * I have 2 connector just because I tried another kind of battery. Need heatsink for 10-12 volts+ otherwise it's just hot but not burning.
   
  It's a simple regulator like (5 volts 1 amp) LM7805ACT 2% precision or LM7805CT 4% precision.
  Input voltage must be between 6.2 and 18 volts.
   
  I don't know how long I can power exactly ... depending with battery (2100 to 2900 maH) it's probably around 5-8 hrs ... for D size battery ... it's 4-5x times better (but MUCH more expansive)

   
  The PP give a "plug and forget" solution and it's probably better because no regulator in the path, galvanic isolation ... and no need to think to recharge the battery.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





pompon said:


> You can try this trick if you have someone to build you that and if you don't listening music too often.
> 
> x USB Hub with battery pack
> 
> ...


 
  I will probably be thinking about getting it powered from somewhere else than my PC, but have to see how it works first, thanks for the suggestion. It is another option to consider. 
   
  Have you tried using a mobile battery pack like the ones with 6-7Ah with USB output? Just a cable would be needed similar to the one used with AQVox.


----------



## pompon

No, was just a test.
  All tricks are just compromise between the stock and Purepower.
   
  To be efficient price/quality if it's compromise ... need to be cheap. I have near 100$ invested for that (8 AA battery, a hub, + pizza for my friend for the circuit! ... it's enough!)
   
  I will send my AP2 for the PurePower upgrade ... it's time to have the real thing!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Let us know what you think. I'm in the process of writing down some of my own observations, but I'm very pleased with the difference the PP battery power supply provide. It will be interesting to hear what differences you notice between the un-modded AP2 and the modded version. Having played with an external battery, you might be able to give some observation points re:
   
  1. Standard AP2 powered via the internal regenerative power supply via USB,
  2. Standard AP2 powered via the internal regenerative power supply via external battery, and
  3. Modified (disabled internal regenerative power supply) AP2 powered via the new PP battery supply 
   
  Quote: 





pompon said:


> No, was just a test.
> All tricks are just compromise between the stock and Purepower.
> 
> To be efficient price/quality if it's compromise ... need to be cheap. I have near 100$ invested for that (8 AA battery, a hub, + pizza for my friend for the circuit! ... it's enough!)
> ...


----------



## pompon

The problem is ... once device is modded we can't use without the PurePower.
   
  I will need to meet someone with stock AP ...


----------



## kLevkoff

Actually, I must disagree with one thing you said. Popular belief aside, having a properly implemented buffer does indeed render a device immune to incoming timing issues - with a few qualifications. Assuming that you are able to read the incoming data correctly, loading the data into a buffer and re-transmitting it using a separate clock absolutely WILL eliminate any influence the incoming data timing might have on the output. 
   
  With a data stream, and some sort of interface, you have basically three things to be concerned with.
   
  1. The data itself (which is just numbers - and is either right or wrong)
  2. The timing
  3. Extraneous things like noise on the ground lines
   
  As for the first, numbers really are just numbers. if the input timing is so badly compromised that it makes it impossible to correctly read the incoming numbers, then you are pretty much screwed. Otherwise, the only other thing that matters is the timing of the output.
   
  A properly implemented buffer (with its own independent clock) will totally, completely, absolutely discard the original clock, so the original timing will no longer apply.
  The output timing will depend entirely on your new clock.
  (If you use something like a PLL to "make" the new clock from the old one, then the quality of the new clock may depend to some degree on the quality of the original timing....
  which is one reason NOT to do it that way. If you use an independent clock, however, this won't happen.)
  The buffer MUST be big enough that it never overflows, or numbers will be lost, and it must be allowed to fill up enough that you don't run out of numbers if your send clock is faster than the data input. You've got to get both of those right or your buffer just plain ISN'T "properly implemented".
   
  Now that we've got the right numbers at the right times, the only remaining thing to be careful of is noise on the grounds or power lines....this is where we talk about things like "galvanic isolation" and such.


----------



## pompon

I agree with you kLevkoff.
   
  I have pop, click because I use laptop / wifi ... Even J-river with large buffer, playing trhough ram don't help at all.
  I accept thoses glitch and they not happend too often. Even with better gear, it's computer ... will have glitch time to time ...
   
  COmpared to vinyl with many glitch per second ...  lol ...


----------



## Currawong

klevkoff: I've long suspected that many people confuse the issues with #3 as having to do with jitter, so thanks for that post. We do need a clearer understanding of these things I reckon, so we can make better choices when we wish to make improvements to our system.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> A properly implemented buffer (with its own independent clock) will totally, completely, absolutely discard the original clock, so the original timing will no longer apply.
> The output timing will depend entirely on your new clock.
> (If you use something like a PLL to "make" the new clock from the old one, then the quality of the new clock may depend to some degree on the quality of the original timing....
> which is one reason NOT to do it that way. If you use an independent clock, however, this won't happen.)
> ...


 
   
  Interesting point concerning buffering the incoming data.  I also think this is important and that buffer management may be one of the deciding differences in performance between transports.  I also think that this is one of the main reasons USB interfaces should come with custom drivers like Thescyon for the XMOS based transports, which allows user to modify the buffer size.  BUT I think this is only part of the solution - if your computer has trouble serving the data to the USB receiver with reliable timing, in my understanding you might still have buffer overrun and underrun occurring.  If the USB cable is producing a significantly distorted digital waveform then this will also make it harder for the USB transport to keep the buffer managed properly.  Computer hardware and software also play a role in ensuring that the USB transport can manage the buffer properly.
   
  In the ideal world the USB transport will be robust enough in its hardware and drivers that all one needs to do is turn their wifi off and limit background processes running on their computer, and not use a 15 meter USB cable with massive capacitance and inductance to unnecessarily hamper the signal propagation and waveform integrity.  In the real world though anything is possible though.
   
  Couple of questions though - does the software playback buffer add to the latency of the playback stream as far as concerns the USB transport - my guess is that as this is a steady latency that it should not affect the management of the USB transport buffer as opposed to DPC latency fluctuations, if it was added to the USB transport packet transfer latency then playback would probably not be possible at all?  Still the problem with software playback buffers is that they increase the load on the CPU and thereby possibly indirectly affect the [latency of] audio stream.  Also what was not made clear in the USB cable thread - can the USB transport request resend of lost packets (I would assume it can but this would take a large chunk out of the buffer I'm guessing?)  Conventional wisdom is to use as small a buffer as possible without playback glitches, and to chose streaming services that guarantee high thread priority and minimal latency - and in my experience following this wisdom yields good results, and deliberately going against them sounds audibly inferior - but that is just my subjective opinion with my equipment


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





pompon said:


> I agree with you kLevkoff.
> 
> I have pop, click because I use laptop / wifi ... Even J-river with large buffer, playing trhough ram don't help at all.
> I accept thoses glitch and they not happend too often. Even with better gear, it's computer ... will have glitch time to time ...
> ...


 
   
  Pops and clicks with computers generally should not happen. It may take some experimentation with buffer size, but I suspect either the Wifi or a computer that has a lot of background processes are a big part of the problem. The best computer for USB streaming purposes is one that runs just enough OS to play the files and that's it. This can be done either with a custom Linux build, or more easily with something like JPlay's hibernate/zero latency mode.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

In OS X or Windows, just create a separate user account dedicated to music playback. The new user account will be sans all the "stuff" (e.g. background processes like weather, growl, etc.) you typically load in your daily user account. Be sure to disable Wake on LAN, screen saver/sleeping, or other energy saving modes.  
   
  If you can, swap out your boot drive for a  high performance SSD; it will help with starting and stopping, HD sleep mode (I use OWC 6G PRO), etc. 
   
  In OS X there a little app called, Caffein that can be used to turn off all screen savers, auto sleep, etc. 
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Pops and clicks with computers generally should not happen. It may take some experimentation with buffer size, but I suspect either the Wifi or a computer that has a lot of background processes are a big part of the problem. The best computer for USB streaming purposes is one that runs just enough OS to play the files and that's it. This can be done either with a custom Linux build, or more easily with something like JPlay's hibernate/zero latency mode.


----------



## DaveBSC

Another thing that computers do is change the CPU clock speed every time a process decides it wants to do something. This is really bad for USB streaming.. unfortunately with a laptop turning that off so that the CPU is always at full speed probably means the cooling fan will stay on as well.


----------



## che15

Hello guys , I have an audiophilio 1 and I was wondering if anyone has heard the audiophilio1 with both the pure power and the aqvox?
I am trying to decide which one to buy and I would apreciate some insight .

Thanks


----------



## Misterrogers

I haven't used the Aqvox, but I did use a Lab Brick with mine prior to getting PurePower. Lab Brick seemed to really help the dynamics and tone of Audiophilleo. Notes - attack/decay was more accurate and substantial. PurePower did all that plus, while giving a very black background and virtually eliminating any sense of digititis. 
  Quote: 





che15 said:


> Hello guys , I have an audiophilio 1 and I was wondering if anyone has heard the audiophilio1 with both the pure power and the aqvox?
> I am trying to decide which one to buy and I would apreciate some insight .
> Thanks


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2. Ok, I'll raise that to X3, or more. It's a different animal with the Pure Power battery supply. 
  Quote: 





misterrogers said:


> I haven't used the Aqvox, but I did use a Lab Brick with mine prior to getting PurePower. Lab Brick seemed to really help the dynamics and tone of Audiophilleo. Notes - attack/decay was more accurate and substantial. PurePower did all that plus, while giving a very black background and virtually eliminating any sense of digititis.


----------



## nkbg

I've had the PurePower upgrade for a few weeks now. With my Neko D100 MK2 the improvement over a Vaunix Brick was considerable especially with respect to realism, timbre, soundstage depth and layering. The improvement is very apparent when listening to headphones (Violectric V200 + Hifiman HE500) but even more so on the speaker setup.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Man, you all are really pumping me up to get the PurePower upgrade. I have dropped no small hints for it as a father's day gift hehe. I might have to list my Aqvox on the for sale forums.

I can't even my picture my rig sounding much better. I got a Woo Audio WA22 awhile back and finally having it really singing with the right tube combos for my preferences. Imagining PurePower picking it up yet another level over my Aqvox just sounds awesome.


----------



## drez

^ Aqvox might still be useful - it provides an alternate ground to that of the computer, and if I understand the PurePower upgrade correctly it does not power the USB receiver, just the clock and SPDIF output.


----------



## che15

Thank u guys for all of your input!
Can the aqvox and pure power be used together?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Take a look at the AP Website block diagram for where the Aqvox provides power, the ARM CPU, and battery charging. Not sure that would be worth the Aqvox (unless you already have one). The benefit of the PP battery power supply is to isolate and power the critical clocks: http://audiophilleo.com/ppspecifications.aspx
  Quote: 





che15 said:


> Thank u guys for all of your input!
> Can the aqvox and pure power be used together?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Take a look at the AP Website block diagram for where the Aqvox provides power, the ARM CPU, and battery charging. Not sure that would be worth the Aqvox (unless you already have one). The benefit of the PP battery power supply is to isolate and power the critical clocks: http://audiophilleo.com/ppspecifications.aspx


 
   
  Very interesting - I never looked inside an AP2 before - would be interesting to see which ARM CPU they use - I wonder if the increased processing power compared to HiFace etc. is what allows the AP to perform so well.  I am very tempted to try one.


----------



## kLevkoff

I'll give you the answers I know....
   
  First, any buffer adds to the overall latency since it takes time to fill the buffer. In something like a CD player, the data buffer CAN be filled very quickly, which minimizes latency (most drives can read at 10x or 20x until the buffer is filled if their software wants them to). I would suspect that most USB interface devices prefer to run their read clock at a more or less normal rate, in which case they would just delay playback a few seconds to load those few seconds of samples into the buffer. As you say, as long as the delay is fixed, it doesn't cause any problems with audio quality. Implementing a buffer in a USB interface device is slightly complicated; the Audiophilleo can do it because it's got a processor and system memory; simple devices with a USB receiver chip alone in them cannot; they're pretty much limited to requesting the data, one or two samples at a time, reclocking them, and sending them along. (I've heard rumors that the HiFace has a buffer of some sort, but that could be in the driver and not hardware... but I'm pretty sure most of the other little cheap ones do not. Remember, we're talking about a "hardware buffer" in the device itself here, and not a software one in the driver.)
   
  I don't know specifically which USB modes can request a resend of missing data (I know the bulk mode used by USB data drives obviously can).  I suspect, whether the USB standard supports it or not, it's going to depend on the individual driver as to whether the feature is implemented. If the interface device doesn't have a buffer, then it isn't going to matter since they can't "wait" for the replacement data to arrive. The interface device basically has to have a big enough buffer that, if data is lost of delayed, it hasn't needed the missing data before it has arrived or been resent. Another thing to remember is that "buffers" in the computer aren't the same as buffers in the interface device itself. The buffer in the PC helps the player program by giving it a place to "queue up" samples as it plays them, therefore "having them waiting on the loading bay" waiting to be sent out. This will help eliminate problems where the player program is resource intensive and things are choking up because it gets bogged down (or the CPU gets busy, or the network is slow, or the HD is slow - this is "at the thread level"). That buffer, however, is still inside the O/S. It's not going to help if the USB port or driver itself gets bogged down; or if something in the O/S that's "downstream" of the buffer chokes up. (To fix that you would need some sort of super-fancy USB card with a built-in hardware buffer right at the output. There used to be serial cards like that, but I've never seen a USB one - although they MIGHT exist somewhere.)
   
  In general, USB is pretty reliable in terms of data - but not so good in terms of timing. This also brings up another entirely different idea....
   
  Asynch USB is better than the other modes because the timing is much better (since the interface requests data based on its clock). Now, assuming that your interface device had its own buffer and clock, that really wouldn't matter anymore at all! Since the interface device would be sending the data out of ITS buffer using ITS clock, it doesn't matter at all how the data got there, now does it? You could use bulk mode (which has crappy timing, but absolutely allows resend requests - it's the mode that USB hard drives usually use). You could even copy the entire file into the buffer, then play it from there (its been done). You don't need the benefits of asynch USB anymore because the source timing is now irrelevent. A USB DAC or interface that has a significant buffer doesn't have to be asynch, and it shouldn't matter at all if it is or not. Unfortunately, most DACs don't have buffers (usually because they prefer NOT to deal with delaying the audio, which might, for example, throw it out of synch with the video on your movie).
   
  An audiophile DAC with a buffer could use ANY USB mode, and still be bit perfect ... as long as it's an audio-only DAC and not intended to be part of a home theater system... and a few seconds of latency don't matter; it would be an easy design (DIYers should take note of this !!!)
   
  Jitter would be ONLY dependent on the quality of the clock used to clock data from the buffer (it doesn't matter what you use to fill the buffer at all, as long as the right data ends up there); put the buffer and a high-quality clock inside the DAC itself and the quality should be quite impressive.
   
  Keith


----------



## drez

^ Very interesting, I think I have seen a couple of DAC's that use internal hardware buffer, but this seems to be more common in the very expensive models.  Audiophilleo certainly seems to be ahead in terms of hardware and measured performance - I would certainly like to compare one to my modified Hiface with ultra short USB cable.  Only problem is I feel compelled to save for the full-blown purepower package rather than buying the standard AP2 and upgrading later.  Still would be interesting to compare a stock AP2 purely for a perspective of price/performance between the units.
   
  You may be right in that the HiFace uses software buffer rather than hardware.  If one has a look at the PCB one may be able to notice the presence or absence of memory - or I could email HiFace to ask - but either way I'm sure the hardware is not nearly as powerful as the Audiophilleo and is several years old.


----------



## Anda

Quote: 





drez said:


> You may be right in that the HiFace uses software buffer rather than hardware.  If one has a look at the PCB one may be able to notice the presence or absence of memory - or I could email HiFace to ask - but either way I'm sure the hardware is not nearly as powerful as the Audiophilleo and is several years old.


 
   
  Which Hiface are you referring to? This site has some internal pics of the Hiface Two:
http://musiq-audiophile.blogspot.com/2012/04/m2tech-hiface-two-english-version.html


----------



## drez

My transport is based on the original Hiface 1, but still would be interesting to see if the new hiface uses a hardware buffer.


----------



## che15

I sent my audiophilio 1 for the pure power mod, I will let u know what I hear.


----------



## Sid-Fi

I also just ordered the PurePower upgrade package. I'll send my AP2 back in the mail tomorrow, which will probably take two or three weeks to get back most likely. It will be interesting trying to get by without in the meantime.

I have been using the Aqvox for six months or so. I'll leave impressions of the PurePower when I get it.


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





drez said:


> ^ Very interesting, I think I have seen a couple of DAC's that use internal hardware buffer, but this seems to be more common in the very expensive models.  Audiophilleo certainly seems to be ahead in terms of hardware and measured performance - I would certainly like to compare one to my modified Hiface with ultra short USB cable.  Only problem is I feel compelled to save for the full-blown purepower package rather than buying the standard AP2 and upgrading later.  Still would be interesting to compare a stock AP2 purely for a perspective of price/performance between the units.
> 
> You may be right in that the HiFace uses software buffer rather than hardware.  If one has a look at the PCB one may be able to notice the presence or absence of memory - or I could email HiFace to ask - but either way I'm sure the hardware is not nearly as powerful as the Audiophilleo and is several years old.


 
   
  I have never quite understood why more DACs don't use an internal buffer.
   
  There are only two drawbacks to having a buffer in the DAC:
   
  1) The buffer will necessarily introduce delay. Since the data is arriving at the DAC at a fixed rate controlled by something else (with all except asynch USB), the buffer has to be big enough that it can store enough data that it won't run out if the source clock is running a tiny bit slower than the DAC's clock. (With asynch USB, or the buffer inside a CD player, the buffer can "call for" more data is it runs low...) Since you have to fill the buffer before you start playing, there will have to be a delay before you start playing equal to the size of the buffer - but we're only talking about a few seconds delay on each track.
  2) Obviously, if you have a buffer in the DAC, then the DAC has to have its own clock; and, if the DAC supports multiple sample rates, it will have to be able to recognize which clock to use, and then have a clock available at each sample rate it needs.
   
  The benefits, however, are huge. Quite simply, if you have a buffer, and your own clock, then you are TOTALLY immune to jitter. Since you're entirely discarding the original clock, the only jitter you're going to have is the jitter that your own clock has - which is under your control and will be source-independent.
   
  The first issue (delay) would be a big deal for a recording studio, where you need to time-match things, but shouldn't matter at all to an audiophile.


----------



## Sid-Fi

My AP2 should have arrived at Audiophilleo today. Lucky for me, the turnaround is now much quicker than it has been in the past. Philip quoted me a turnaround time of only three business days.

I tried listening to my setup for the first time without my AP2 ( still used Aqvox alone) in a very long time. Holy cow, what a difference. The music was still very clear, but totally lacking in musicality and engagement. It felt dull and lifeless compared to what I am used to with my AP2. The difference is easily more noticeable than I remember observing when the AP2 was new. The fact that my musical experience is so much worse despite still using my excellent $2,000 Woo Audio WA22 amp with premium tubes is surprising.


----------



## tme110

ok, I'm an idiot.  I've long been ignoring these products but I just decided to try them out.  I almost ordered the ap2 with pure power until I realized I was looking for a COAX reclocker but the AP doesn't take a COAX input.
   
  I use my OPPO as my media controller so I guess this is out.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





tme110 said:


> ok, I'm an idiot.  I've long been ignoring these products but I just decided to try them out.  I almost ordered the ap2 with pure power until I realized I was looking for a COAX reclocker but the AP doesn't take a COAX input.
> 
> I use my OPPO as my media controller so I guess this is out.


 
  Empirical's Synchro Mesh will do that for $599. No need for a battery supply either.
   
  http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/empirical4/1.html


----------



## anonymoustao

Any updates from AP owners who have gotten the Pure Power modification?


----------



## che15

Mine is on the mail , I will have Saturday when I get home .
I will let u guys know what differences I hear.


----------



## tme110

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Empirical's Synchro Mesh will do that for $599. No need for a battery supply either.
> 
> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/empirical4/1.html


 

 yea, there's a couple 'converters' that will do it but that's a new one so I'll check it out.


----------



## Sid-Fi

My PurePower just came in today. It might take me a day or two to be able to get a good listening session in, but here is a picture of it installed. It's the blue box next to my DAC. You can see it connecting to the AP2 directly.


----------



## Sid-Fi

The PurePower is an awesome little unit. It feels really substantial and durable with a great chassis and nice fit and finish. As others have reported here, it's a notable step up from the AQVOX (which was in itself a nice improvement over AP2 stock). Coming straight from the AP1/2 to the PurePower would seem like an awesome improvement without having had the Aqvox in between.

The additional improvements are similar to those the AQVOX brought, only better. I am getting a very black background, effortless low level detail, and an organic/musical touch that adds much more of an immersive experience to my ears. Compared to my setup sounding awful while the AP2 was away getting modded, it sounds glorious right now. 

I'll have to post my AQVOX in the for sale forums tomorrow and save some lucky chap an arm and a leg in shipping from Germany. It cost me $75 to ship the dumb thing from Germany this last Christmas :0.


----------



## Currawong

My wallet didn't want to hear this. Just purchased a long Firewire cable so I can use my ULN-2 as a transport in the mean time while I wait for the upgrade.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> The PurePower is an awesome little unit. It feels really substantial and durable with a great chassis and nice fit and finish. As others have reported here, it's a notable step up from the AQVOX (which was in itself a nice improvement over AP2 stock). Coming straight from the AP1/2 to the PurePower would seem like an awesome improvement without having had the Aqvox in between.
> The additional improvements are similar to those the AQVOX brought, only better. I am getting a very black background, effortless low level detail, and an organic/musical touch that adds much more of an immersive experience to my ears. Compared to my setup sounding awful while the AP2 was away getting modded, it sounds glorious right now.
> I'll have to post my AQVOX in the for sale forums tomorrow and save some lucky chap an arm and a leg in shipping from Germany. It cost me $75 to ship the dumb thing from Germany this last Christmas :0.


 
   
  Have you tried the purepower with and without the aqvox?  I am interested if there is a difference as from my understanding purepower powers the clocks and SPDIF output but not the USB receiver, probably for a good reason but still would be interesting to see if there is a difference.
   
  I think I will buy Purepower and AP2 once I sell my NFB-10 SE - transients in my system are still not quite clean enough as it is.  Empirical Audio will soon have an interesting device that sorts out computer ground related issues, might be a good alternative to galvanic isolation.


----------



## HumanMedia

drez said:


> Have you tried the purepower with and without the aqvox?  I am interested if there is a difference as from my understanding purepower powers the clocks and SPDIF output but not the USB receiver, probably for a good reason but still would be interesting to see if there is a difference.




Aqvox will do nothing as PurePower powers the lot. And if not charging the battery in idle time the USB power line is electrically disconnected by relays. It's all on the PurePower web page.


----------



## drez

"Every Audiophilleo USB-S/PDIF transport contains two independent modules:

 Module1: ARM RISC processor and USB interface, powered by the computer
 Module2: Ultra-low jitter clocks and S/PDIF output stage, powered by the PurePower
  Module2 is galvanically isolated from Module1. Ground and power are completely separate so that no noise creeps from the PC to your DAC. The PurePower physically disconnects itself from the USB bus so that it makes zero contribution to the power noise in Module2 and your DAC."
  
 Taken from: http://www.audiophilleo.com/purepower.aspx


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think I will buy Purepower and AP2 once I sell my NFB-10 SE - transients in my system are still not quite clean enough as it is.  Empirical Audio will soon have an interesting device that sorts out computer ground related issues, might be a good alternative to galvanic isolation.


 
   
  It sounds like even with the PurePower attached, the AP is still drawing bus power for the USB receiver. The Empirical Short-Block won't work with that, as it cuts the Vbus leg entirely. Only devices that use _no _bus power at all will work.


----------



## HumanMedia

@drez

Thanks for that, you are right.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Can you provide some additional information on the Short Block? Per Steve, it's supposed to work with all USB devices. 
   
  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=99993.20 - "It can be used with any USB cable with any device.  Improves Off-Ramp and Overdrive."
   
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It sounds like even with the PurePower attached, the AP is still drawing bus power for the USB receiver. The Empirical Short-Block won't work with that, as it cuts the Vbus leg entirely. Only devices that use _no _bus power at all will work.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Can you provide some additional information on the Short Block? Per Steve, it's supposed to work with all USB devices.
> 
> http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=99993.20 - "It can be used with any USB cable with any device.  Improves Off-Ramp and Overdrive."


 
   
  You can read about it in the Newport Beach show thread. I'm going by what Steve said about it there - it cuts the power leg of the USB signal provided by the computer entirely, so anything dependent on that 5V power to function isn't going to work.
   
  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=106774.0


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Thanks DaveBSC. Yep, it looks like it cuts the 5v line. So, it won't power anything on the receiving end; only data streams between source and destination. 
   
  I'm tempted to try the Vaunix to power the AP2 processor. Can't help wonder if the Vaunix would result in any additional benefits to the AP2 and Pure Power Battery power supply. Of course, by the time we AP users have tweaked Phillip's S/PDIF interface, the cost is so close to the Empirical stuff. Well, I believe you can see where that argument is going. Seems like the only thing left at that point is the jitter differences, and it looks like Phillip has that game down.  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> You can read about it in the Newport Beach show thread. I'm going by what Steve said about it there - it cuts the power leg of the USB signal provided by the computer entirely, so anything dependent on that 5V power to function isn't going to work.
> 
> http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=106774.0


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Thanks DaveBSC. Yep, it looks like it cuts the 5v line. So, it won't power anything on the receiving end; only data streams between source and destination.
> 
> I'm tempted to try the Vaunix to power the AP2 processor. Can't help wonder if the Vaunix would result in any additional benefits to the AP2 and Pure Power Battery power supply. Of course, by the time we AP users have tweaked Phillip's S/PDIF interface, the cost is so close to the Empirical stuff. Well, I believe you can see where that argument is going. Seems like the only thing left at that point is the jitter differences, and it looks like Phillip has that game down.


 
  Somehow I think there's more to it than just jitter, even on a digital-to-digital device. The S/Pdif output jitter on the OR4 for example was low, but it wasn't *that *low. Without some of the available upgrades I think it was over 300ps P-P, which isn't that different from something like a Halide Bridge. I don't know exactly what it is, but _something _seems to make the Off-Ramp devices the best of the best.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm tempted to try the Vaunix to power the AP2 processor. Can't help wonder if the Vaunix would result in any additional benefits to the AP2 and Pure Power Battery power supply. Of course, by the time we AP users have tweaked Phillip's S/PDIF interface, the cost is so close to the Empirical stuff. Well, I believe you can see where that argument is going. Seems like the only thing left at that point is the jitter differences, and it looks like Phillip has that game down.


 
   
  Since I already have the Vaunix, when I eventually get around to upgrading, I'll compare and see if it still makes a difference. Might be able to get a few measurements in as well, if I can get everything working correctly on the ULN-2.


----------



## drez

Just wondering why chassis mount male BNC are so hard to come by.  This would mean no need for an adapter for the AP2.


----------



## tme110

I've often wondered the same thing.  If nothing else, have both connections available for the same input..


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tme110 said:


> I've often wondered the same thing.  If nothing else, have both connections available for the same input..


 
   
  It would be pretty useful for a number of applications IMO - pretty much wherever a cable is not necessary.  I wonder if you could adapt a cable mounted BNC eg replace the strain releif with a washer set from a panel mount connector or something.
   
  Anyway I ordered a purepower AP2 - couldn't resist.  Just need to figure out how best to wire this thing up.  So it goes computer - USB - purepower - USB - AP2 or something?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The USB connection can be serial or parallel with the Pure Power (PP) battery supply. Because I have a fancy USB cable, and wanted to give deference to the possibility that a USB cable _*might*_ make a difference, mine is plugged directly into the AP2. The alternate connection scenario is to route it in serial through the Pure Power battery supply.
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> It would be pretty useful for a number of applications IMO - pretty much wherever a cable is not necessary.  I wonder if you could adapt a cable mounted BNC eg replace the strain releif with a washer set from a panel mount connector or something.
> 
> Anyway I ordered a purepower AP2 - couldn't resist.  Just need to figure out how best to wire this thing up.  So it goes computer - USB - purepower - USB - AP2 or something?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I couldn't wait and ordered the Vaunix; it arrives this Thursday. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 "_*Technically*_," it should make no, nada, zero, difference, at least based on Phillip's explanation. I plan to power the Vaunix via the BPT 3.5 Signature balanced isolation transformer. I believe the primary benefit will be different ground potentials and hence improved isolation? We'll see...  
   
  Would also be interested in what measurements you might make?
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Since I already have the Vaunix, when I eventually get around to upgrading, I'll compare and see if it still makes a difference. Might be able to get a few measurements in as well, if I can get everything working correctly on the ULN-2.


----------



## che15

I just can't believe the difference that the pure power has made, it has actually given tridimentionality to my system.
It is even making my LCD 2 soundstage , which I never heard before.
Compared to the bridge , hiface and my Cary audio cdp1 it beats them all in soundstage , imaging and musicality .
It is making my whole music collection sound the best it ever has.
This Phillip guy is a ginious !


----------



## Trogdor

che15 said:


> I just can't believe the difference that the pure power has made, it has actually given tridimentionality to my system.
> It is even making my LCD 2 soundstage , which I never heard before.
> Compared to the bridge , hiface and my Cary audio cdp1 it beats them all in soundstage , imaging and musicality .
> It is making my whole music collection sound the best it ever has.
> This Phillip guy is a ginious !




I just bought one (w/PP) from a fellow Head-Fier (upgrading my hiface). 

Plan to use it through my JH3A system. This is suppose to be my reference end-game like system.

I am hoping I have a similar wow effect. We shall see.


----------



## bozebuttons

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> I just bought one (w/PP) from a fellow Head-Fier (upgrading my hiface).
> Plan to use it through my JH3A system. This is suppose to be my reference end-game like system.
> I am hoping I have a similar wow effect. We shall see.


 
  I use the ap2 without the pp upgrade with my JH3a,with good results,I just pickjed up a Aqvox but have not tried it yet.
  I look forward to your impressions with the PP. I am on the fence about sending in my AP2 for the pp ugrade.


----------



## Trogdor

bozebuttons said:


> I use the ap2 without the pp upgrade with my JH3a,with good results,I just pickjed up a Aqvox but have not tried it yet.
> I look forward to your impressions with the PP. I am on the fence about sending in my AP2 for the pp ugrade.




I was wondering bozebuttons what you were feeding your JH3A, now I know!

Have you compared the AP2 with other USB DACs? 

Cheers!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I couldn't wait and ordered the Vaunix; it arrives this Thursday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  With a linear supply I hope? With the wall-wart the Vaunix is likely to get no benefit from the BPT. The only positive would be removing the harmful effects of said wall-wart from the rest of the circuit.


----------



## leeperry

BTW, 6moons posted all the schematics required in order to hook up a clean PSU to a USB cable: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/kingrex12/1.html
   
  It very much works, and it's done wonders on my rig


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Truthfully, I don't know what type of a PS the Vaunix uses, but I'm hoping--for the price--that it is a linear.  
    
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> With a linear supply I hope? With the wall-wart the Vaunix is likely to get no benefit from the BPT. The only positive would be removing the harmful effects of said wall-wart from the rest of the circuit.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Peripherally related, but DaveBSC piqued my interest in the Vaunix power supply. Here's some additional information from the Vaunix designers via http://jplay.eu/forum/computer-audio/clean-usb-out-of-pc/
   
  "This hub is designed to provide the lowest DC noise performance with the best data transfer possible. A few things we did with design that are somewhat unique:
1.  Most hubs use a 5V switching power supply to drive the ports which can be very noisy. The Lab Brick powered  hub ships with a 12V wall-wart. The 12 volt input to the hub allows us to use internal voltage regulation resulting in much cleaner power supplies for the internal circuitry and for the down stream ports. ​
2.  We use separate power supply and digital grounds. The grounds are both physically and electrically separated which prevents ground loops and prevents noise coupling. The housing is all metal which eliminates any noise due to EMI.​
3.  The data lines on the PC board are matched to a balanced 90 ohms impedance. The best cables in the world won't help you if the data lines are not properly matched on the PCB. The use of balanced, properly matched lines provides common-mode rejection of noise resulting in a cleaner output.​
4.  All of the ports provide short circuit protection to any device plugged into the hub.   ​
There has been a question if isolated hubs are beneficial. We think it may restrict the sound fidelity due to bandwidth constraints.  Isolating the data lines precludes the hub from running in high speed mode (480MB/s). The opto-isolators used in isolated hubs limit the data transfer rate to full speed mode (12MB/s). It's our suspicion this causes the reduction in dynamic range for the audio world.  I haven't done the math to prove it – just a suspicion."​
---------------------------------------​
and in response to another forum post:​
---------------------------------------​
 ​
 "One more post from me on the Vaunix hub and then I'll leave it to you experts!

   
Your analysis of my post is very good and generally correct. The power supply technology that we are using was developed to be used with our signal generator products. Signal generators are extremely sensitive to power supply noise. Any noise on the power lines (or grounds) results in degradation of phase noise, jitter and spurious performance. The simple explanation that we minimize the pulsing ground currents associated with typical power supplies and follow that with some serious filtering is kind of an understatement.​
I would still argue that isolating the data lines is unnecessary in this hub design. I can understand the use of opto-isolators on other devices with less sophisticated ground/power design, but you still lose the High Speed data capability. Now if you plan on seeing 1kV spikes on the lines I might change my mind… ​
I can't claim to have any specific knowledge of the EMI performance inside the enclosure. I have to believe there will be far less EMI generated in the hub then would be inside an amp. If anyone happens to try this experiment with a Vaunix hub please let me know.  I can even mail you a new label to make it look new again after the test.​
In my opinion, and as you suggest, minimizing reflections is a big part of the success of using a Vaunix hub in the audio world. It's easy to match a device to 90 ohms at 500 kHz, but it's another thing all together to do it correctly so it is matched at 2 GHz. I realize we are not passing data at 2 GHz, but you may be surprised at the importance of matching well above the intended operation frequency can be in relation to rolling off edges at lower frequencies. This is another area where it pays to have good RF design engineers contributing to this product."​


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Truthfully, I don't know what type of a PS the Vaunix uses, but I'm hoping--for the price--that it is a linear.


 

 It's a 12V, 24W wall-wart. They use internal DC-DC regulation to try and clean it up, but a 2 amp linear supply from Hynes or Bolder cables would likely still sound better.. though it would of course add considerable cost. Unfortunately the AP and PP still use a small amount of Vbus power, so the power line can't be cut entirely with something like the Empirical Short Block.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It's a 12V, 24W wall-wart. They use internal DC-DC regulation to try and clean it up, but a 2 amp linear supply from Hynes or Bolder cables would likely still sound better.. though it would of course add considerable cost. Unfortunately the AP and PP still use a small amount of Vbus power, so the power line can't be cut entirely with something like the Empirical Short Block.


 
   
  Here?: http://www.paulhynesdesign.com/page7.html
   
  I'm not seeing any 2 amp supplies.  The Bolder ones are $600-900, which is frankly insane.


----------



## drez

Got my purepower thanks to A2A for shipping so fast.  Man the AP2 is tiny, I was expecting something twice as big.  Build quality of the purepower is a little disappointing though - the battery is not fixed properly and rattles around.
   
  As for sound its a moderate upgrade from the JKSPDIF mk3, more refined but with better timing and detail, more cohesive but also a little more forward because of this which is possibly why people could call the soundstage smaller.  It is slightly more musical the the JKSPDIF in my system too, I no longer have to cringe on some cymbal hits or trumpet parts.
   
  It is not however immune to computer performance and timing - KS in JRiver sounds much better than Event Wasapi, and you need to manage buffer size otherwise you will get glitches and dropouts.  The JKSPDIF is easier to set up in this regard - probably because it just accepts whatever timing variances the computer throws at it rather than having to manage a proper buffer.  I would not be surprised if USB cabling had an influence up to a certain point as well, given my experiences with streaming methods.


----------



## che15

drez said:


> Got my purepower thanks to A2A for shipping so fast.  Man the AP2 is tiny, I was expecting something twice as big.  Build quality of the purepower is a little disappointing though - the battery is not fixed properly and rattles around.
> 
> As for sound its a moderate upgrade from the JKSPDIF mk3, more refined but with better timing and detail, more cohesive but also a little more forward because of this which is possibly why people could call the soundstage smaller.  It is slightly more musical the the JKSPDIF in my system too, I no longer have to cringe on some cymbal hits or trumpet parts.
> 
> It is not however immune to computer performance and timing - KS in JRiver sounds much better than Event Wasapi, and you need to manage buffer size otherwise you will get glitches and dropouts.  The JKSPDIF is easier to set up in this regard - probably because it just accepts whatever timing variances the computer throws at it rather than having to manage a proper buffer.  I would not be surprised if USB cabling had an influence up to a certain point as well, given my experiences with streaming methods.




Maybe there is something wrong with yours, mine does not rattle at all.
Maybe got loose during shipping?
In my system and I say mine because all systems are different , the soundstage got
A whole lot better with the pure power. Who knows why but it did without a doubt .
Hope u enjoy your as much as I am mine.


----------



## drez

Yeah could have come loose - haven't opened it up to see how it is fixed inside.  I think the soundstage can seem smaller because the room is given more definite edges whereas with other converters like the JKSPDIF the room acoustics and images are not as vivid.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I have mine plugged into a noise filter, incidentally. I'm thinking of buying or building some Sigma 22 PSUs or similar for powering things such as the Vaunix Hub, my ULN-2 and other equipment though to see if it makes any difference.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Here?: http://www.paulhynesdesign.com/page7.html
> 
> I'm not seeing any 2 amp supplies.  The Bolder ones are $600-900, which is frankly insane.


 

 Paul makes a ton of different models that aren't pictured or listed on his site, you just have to ask him what a 12V, 2A supply would cost. The Kingrex PSU MK2 has a 48VA transformer which is plenty for the Vaunix, Moon Audio carries it for $420.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

We'll see how far the Vaunix takes the PP/AP combination. Frankly, I'm thinking we are very close to the limits of the AP1/2 and PP design. Phillip would need to head back to drawing board, especially on the power supply side, to do appreciably better. Still, at this price point, it makes music much more enjoyable! 
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It's a 12V, 24W wall-wart. They use internal DC-DC regulation to try and clean it up, but a 2 amp linear supply from Hynes or Bolder cables would likely still sound better.. though it would of course add considerable cost. Unfortunately the AP and PP still use a small amount of Vbus power, so the power line can't be cut entirely with something like the Empirical Short Block.


----------



## bozebuttons

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> I was wondering bozebuttons what you were feeding your JH3A, now I know!
> Have you compared the AP2 with other USB DACs?
> Cheers!


 
  No I have not tried any other usb dacs,but I do use my Jh3a with my Ibasso Dx100 with a moon audio black dragon coax cable for portable use.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> BTW, 6moons posted all the schematics required in order to hook up a clean PSU to a USB cable: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/kingrex12/1.html
> 
> It very much works, and it's done wonders on my rig


 
   
  I'm considering doing a similar setup in my system, only I need a spare power outlet, and I'm not certain the improvement will be worth it if purepower is already in use, but still it's on the drawing board.
   
  One thing I tend to notice with the AP2 is that it is more prone to dropouts when the CPU is under load for example when gaming than other adapters, I'm guessing its the buffer underrunning or something.  Similarly large changes in CPU load can throw the buffer out in Windows as well.  I might need to keep the JKSPDIF mk3 for gaming, but it seems a bit of a waste and a hassle, as well as an extravagance.  Anyhow what can you do...


----------



## leeperry

Quote: 





drez said:


> Anyhow what can you do...


 
   
  Use a media player that allows you to set its audio thread to realtime priority(Reclock for instance)? That's what I do...the XMOS doesn't drop, even if I play music via ASIO+VST plugin while playing very demanding video simultaneously.
   
  You can also increase the priority of the audio rendering threads in W7/W8 and lower all the rest to "idle"(using a process.exe batch when Windows starts, that's what I do). You may also wanna give a shot to Fidelizer if you're not using it yet.
   
  Don't blame your transport if your OS is slugglishly set up as it's rather notorious that the OS from m$ are not audiophile friendly if you don't modify them.
   
  To get back OT, my 5V/1A linear regulated PSU has literally skyrocketed the SQ of the XMOS, everything has gotten so much clearer: SS 3D'ness, deep bass, everything


----------



## drez

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Use a media player that allows you to set its audio thread to realtime priority(Reclock for instance)? That's what I do...the XMOS doesn't drop, even if I play music via ASIO+VST plugin while playing very demanding video simultaneously.
> 
> You can also increase the priority of the audio rendering threads in W7/W8 and lower all the rest to "idle"(using a process.exe batch when Windows starts, that's what I do). You may also wanna give a shot to Fidelizer if you're not using it yet.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Interesting tips - I haven't used reclock for some time but no doubt it's worth it for video.  I think I found some bogs running ASIO4ALL with the AP2 (the ASIO session would not shut down like it normally would) so hopefully glitches were related to this.  Do you have a link (or example) of how to set up the batch file for thread priority?  I might just try lowering browser priority as that seems to be the biggest resource hog when I am typically running music in the background.  I'm not blaming AP for the dropouts - just noting that I have encountered differences between it and the JKSPDIF (most notably in terms of setting up buffer length in playback settings) which I did not encounter previously for whatever reason (maybe HiFace locks the buffer in the driver or something?)  With gaming hopefully I find that the dropouts are to do with the ASIO4ALL bugging up so I can sell my JKSPDIF (although I keep it in case AP insist that I ship my purepower back to fix the loose battery.)
   
  I might bring up some of those tweaks with the JPlay ppls in case they have any thoughts on whether their own tweaks overlap, but I think they still will probably be useful as the JPlay doesn't seem very invasive in terms of changing other programs (apart from when it hibernates windows)


----------



## leeperry

You want to read "The art of building Computer Transports v0.3.pdf", most of it is magical thinking but there are also some great advices in there.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> You want to read "The art of building Computer Transports v0.3.pdf", most of it is magical thinking but there are also some great advices in there.


 
   
  Cheers mate!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Back to the AP/PP discussion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...and now adding the VAUNIX Lab Brick USB Hub.
   
  I received the VAUNIX this a.m., after watching it via the Internet trek cross country. It was like a watched pot that never boils... 
   
  My opinion? If you have an Audiophilleo 1 or 2, and the VLN Pure Power battery power supply, get the Vaunix too! What a surprise! In my system, the Vaunix definitely takes SQ up several notches. After a few hours of operation I'm surprised how warm it is to the touch. 
   
  More later...


----------



## Trogdor

rdr. seraphim said:


> Back to the AP/PP discussion :wink_face:  ...and now adding the VAUNIX Lab Brick USB Hub.
> 
> I received the VAUNIX this a.m., after watching it via the Internet trek cross country. It was like a watched pot that never boils...
> 
> ...




I am bit skeptical. What is the Vaunix giving you again?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm sure it's all placebo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Not sure it's giving me "anything," but it robbed my wallet of a couple hundred dollars. YMMV of course, and it's just my opinion, but adding in the Vaunix provided a level of transparency that was not obtainable with the AP/PP alone. I was skeptical too. After all, the USB and processor are supposed to be isolated from the PP battery powered clocks. Apparently, that's not all there is to it. It made a difference in my system, a substantial difference. 
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> I am bit skeptical. What is the Vaunix giving you again?


----------



## Currawong

The Vaunix is a hub for their signal generators which require a clean power supply, better than what a computer gives out.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm sure it's all placebo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The AP2+PP is still using SOME Vbus power for the USB input circuitry. The Vaunix is helping to clean that up. Clean power is always better than dirty power. Another option would be to try one of those pricey Y-type USB cables, with the power leg connected to something like the Kingrex uPower.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

If cleaning up the Vbus power provides this much change, I'm all in for more! Not sure I'll go the Kingrex uPower and the "pricey" Y-type USB cable though... if I do anything more it would be an altogether different direction, e.g. Empirical Audio, if I can get an audition. For now, what a difference the Vaunix hub provides. 
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The AP2+PP is still using SOME Vbus power for the USB input circuitry. The Vaunix is helping to clean that up. Clean power is always better than dirty power. Another option would be to try one of those pricey Y-type USB cables, with the power leg connected to something like the Kingrex uPower.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> If cleaning up the Vbus power provides this much change, I'm all in for more! Not sure I'll go the Kingrex uPower and the "pricey" Y-type USB cable though... if I do anything more it would be an altogether different direction, e.g. Empirical Audio, if I can get an audition. For now, what a difference the Vaunix hub provides.


 

 The Off-Ramp is completely self powered, so there'd be no need for battery power of the 5V line - it isn't used. Cutting it off though can help, Steve mentioned that his products sound better through his Short Block device which is an inline USB filter that also cuts the Vbus line. The Lab Brick might also be beneficial, as it benefits the data stream as well. Perhaps that's also providing a boost to the AP+PP.


----------



## drez

I though Vaunix doesn't change D+ and D-?  Either way I think I might go with batteries for the AP2 USB input, probably with a Y-cable.  I'm not sure though if the AP still needs to be connected to computer/wall outlet ground as a safety ground?
   
  Vaunix seems a bit expensive for me at this point when any low ripple PSU will probably be an improvement (and I don't want to run extra USB cables), just I'm not sure if my spare wall outlet works properly so I might need to get that sorted out first or use batteries.  A few folks over on SNA have been working out battery power for the AP2 so I might keep tabs with that project.  To be honest though this is getting pretty close to the cost of an Off-Ramp once I order parts etc (even with paying import duties on the OR5) and from a few impressions that is meant to be well ahead of the stock AP2...  Ahh well it's something to keep me busy just wish it didn't cost so much...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> I though Vaunix doesn't change V+ and V-?  Either way I think I might go with batteries for the AP2 USB input, probably with a Y-cable.  I'm not sure though if the AP still needs to be connected to computer/wall outlet ground as a safety ground?
> 
> Vaunix seems a bit expensive for me at this point when any low ripple PSU will probably be an improvement (and I don't want to run extra USB cables), just I'm not sure if my spare wall outlet works properly so I might need to get that sorted out first or use batteries.  A few folks over on SNA have been working out battery power for the AP2 so I might keep tabs with that project.  To be honest though this is getting pretty close to the cost of an Off-Ramp once I order parts etc (even with paying import duties on the OR5) and from a few impressions that is meant to be well ahead of the stock AP2...  Ahh well it's something to keep me busy just wish it didn't cost so much...


 

 From Vaunix:
   
  We use separate power supply and digital grounds.  The grounds are both physically and electrically separated which prevents ground loops and prevents noise coupling.  The housing is all metal which eliminates any noise due to EMI. The data lines on the PC board are matched to a balanced 90 ohms impedance.  The best cables in the world won't help you if the data lines are not properly matched on the PCB. The use of balanced, properly matched lines provides common-mode rejection of noise resulting in a cleaner output.
   
  The Lab Brick uses internal DC-DC regulation to get from 12V supplied by the wall-wart to 5V. Theoretically using a linear PS would further improve its performance, but that means spending at least another $400 or so on a power supply with at least 2A output. I don't know if anyone has actually tried it.


----------



## drez

I don't think a linear supply needs to be $400, as far as I know all one really needs is a transformer and a linear voltage regulator such as from AudioGD, Paul Hynes or Burson.
   
  I'm still not sure I understand 100% what Vaunix does with the grounds still I guess its better than introducing a ground loop through the AP2 - is this even possible though if the AP2 has internal galvanic isolation?
   
  I'm not entirely sure the AP2 needs a safety ground at all if it's only D+ and D- connecting to the computer?
   
  I'm not sure linear supply will be necessarily better than switching with the Vaunix anyway especially if they have done a good job on the internal DC-DC regulator.  Still seems kind of expensive and bulky, especially when I am not a fan of putting anything extra between the computer and the D/D converter.  I would probably end up doing Y-cable with V+ and Ground going to the vaunix and D-, D+ to the computer which well is kind of like using any other power supply as far as I am aware?


----------



## Szadzik

I am personally very tempted by the KingRex's Unanimous Y cables. It might be an easy way to hook that up to a PC and a battery to provide clean power to my AP2.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I am personally very tempted by the KingRex's Unanimous Y cables. It might be an easy way to hook that up to a PC and a battery to provide clean power to my AP2.


 

 Keep in mind that when 6moons tested them, sometimes the DAC or converter wouldn't recognize that a cable was connected. Kingrex said that the cables would have to be changed slightly to fix that issue, not sure if that's happened yet.
   
  http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/kingrex12/1.html


----------



## drez

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I am personally very tempted by the KingRex's Unanimous Y cables. It might be an easy way to hook that up to a PC and a battery to provide clean power to my AP2.


 
   
  Those cable look pretty sweet.  i guess nobody will know if they work with the AP2 until someone tests one out...  I will probably build one over the next week or two (whenever I get the parts I need)
   
  If the AP2 works through Vaunix, doesn't that  isolate the +5V and Ground anyway?  Not sure if I fully understand that anyway.  I guess I can send them an email.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Keep in mind that when 6moons tested them, sometimes the DAC or converter wouldn't recognize that a cable was connected. Kingrex said that the cables would have to be changed slightly to fix that issue, not sure if that's happened yet.
> 
> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/kingrex12/1.html


 
   
  Did not notice that, somehow. I will have to wait with the purchase anyway, as I am currently away from home and will not be back until November . If not one of these Y cables, I will have to buy a good USB cable anyway, I only have the one provided by AP.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Did not notice that, somehow. I will have to wait with the purchase anyway, as I am currently away from home and will not be back until November . If not one of these Y cables, I will have to buy a good USB cable anyway, I only have the one provided by AP.


 
   
  Acoustic Revive and Ridge Street also make Y-type cables. The AR cables are pretty expensive, but they can be imported from Japan for a pretty big discount over US retail.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Acoustic Revive and Ridge Street also make Y-type cables. The AR cables are pretty expensive, but they can be imported from Japan for a pretty big discount over US retail.


 
  Wow, had no idea there were others making those. Will check them out.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The effect of the Vaunix USB LAB BRICK hub on music was startling to the point that I had another one of those rediscovery sessions, song after song, "I wonder what this one will sound like!" That's the fun part of our hobby, when something makes you sit up and take notice. 
   
  The Vaunix runs tepid to the touch, so there's some active components in the device which I suspect are power related. Based on my cursory experience with a hub that cleans up the power, it's clear that there's more to be gained on the power supply side of digital audio, at least (especially?) via USB. Steve at Empirical Audio evidences a good grasp of dirty power on digital audio. All of his devices support the Hynes regulators--sometimes multiples in a give product--in addition to his battery power supply. Now he has introduced Short Block, another power related product that provides additional isolation from dirty power, not to mention all the attention being paid by KingRex, Acoustic Revive, Ridge Audio, et al. (Thanks for mentioning these DaveBSC.)
   
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I don't think a linear supply needs to be $400, as far as I know all one really needs is a transformer and a linear voltage regulator such as from AudioGD, Paul Hynes or Burson.
> 
> I'm still not sure I understand 100% what Vaunix does with the grounds still I guess its better than introducing a ground loop through the AP2 - is this even possible though if the AP2 has internal galvanic isolation?
> 
> ...


----------



## Benjamin6264

I would be very curious to compare the Audiophilleo with the V-Link 192. Has anyone auditioned both?


----------



## dailydoseofdaly

I was looking online and revelation audio also makes a usb y cable http://www.revelationaudiolabs.com/cables-digital/index.htm


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





dailydoseofdaly said:


> I was looking online and revelation audio also makes a usb y cable http://www.revelationaudiolabs.com/cables-digital/index.htm


 
   
  Used to own it.  Doesn't work with the AP1.  Got rid of it promptly thereafter.


----------



## dailydoseofdaly

sridhar3 said:


> Used to own it.  Doesn't work with the AP1.  Got rid of it promptly thereafter.




Good to know, thanks. I wonder if the other y usb's would have the same issue?


----------



## Trogdor

rdr. seraphim said:


> The effect of the Vaunix USB LAB BRICK hub on music was startling to the point that I had another one of those rediscovery sessions, song after song, "I wonder what this one will sound like!" That's the fun part of our hobby, when something makes you sit up and take notice.
> 
> The Vaunix runs tepid to the touch, so there's some active components in the device which I suspect are power related. Based on my cursory experience with a hub that cleans up the power, it's clear that there's more to be gained on the power supply side of digital audio, at least (especially?) via USB. Steve at Empirical Audio evidences a good grasp of dirty power on digital audio. All of his devices support the Hynes regulators--sometimes multiples in a give product--in addition to his battery power supply. Now he has introduced Short Block, another power related product that provides additional isolation from dirty power, not to mention all the attention being paid by KingRex, Acoustic Revive, Ridge Audio, et al. (Thanks for mentioning these DaveBSC.)




This makes no sense. 

The connection between the PP device and the computer as I understand it is just the data path. That will be bit perfect with or without the Vaunix. In other words, you typically use the the Brick to provide clean power in scenarios where the DAC circuitry is relying on inherit noisy power supplied by the host's USB ports. 

That is not the case with the PP unit attached to the AP2. 

From the site:

"Every Audiophilleo USB-S/PDIF transport contains two independent modules:

 Module1: ARM RISC processor and USB interface, powered by the computer
 Module2: Ultra-low jitter clocks and S/PDIF output stage, powered by the PurePower

Module2 is galvanically isolated from Module1. Ground and power are completely separate so that no noise creeps from the PC to your DAC. The PurePower physically disconnects itself from the USB bus so that it makes zero contribution to the power noise in Module2 and your DAC. "

I just don't believe the Vaunix or KingRex cables will have any audible effect on the final output stage based on the above. Granted, my understanding of this device maybe off, but I need to understand why something like the Vaunix would a) make a difference and b) make a night and day difference.

I truly am confuzzled...I just asked Phillip to verify my understanding of the unit...anyone got a Lab Brick I could borrow?


----------



## drez

Who knows with these things - personally I don't have a detailed understanding of the AP1/2 I would guess that module 2 only cares if it is being fed bitperfect data from module 1 as it has its own FIFO filter and clocking.  
   
  The audiophool in me on the other hand knows that in reality these processes are probably not perfect and providing an even voltage and ground would probably be a good idea.
   
  That is a shame about the Y-cable as it would be much cheaper than using the Vaunix.  But is seems that the Vaunix is working some witchcraft to provide it's own power and ground and still let the AP2/1 work.  I think I will need one now dammit


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> That is a shame about the Y-cable as it would be much cheaper than using the Vaunix.  But is seems that the Vaunix is working some witchcraft to provide it's own power and ground and still let the AP2/1 work.  I think I will need one now dammit


 
   
  Would it? Most of the Y-type cables I've seen are $500+, and you still need to roll your own power so you can add even more to that. The Vaunix is $200 out the door, and you can use any cable you wish.


----------



## drez

I don't that Y-cable needs to be that expensive - I was going to DIY one (just need to calculate the impedance to be close to 90 Ohms).  One could also just butcher a wirewold etc by running a stanley knife down the middle and reterminating the ends - it wouldn't be pretty but it would be a cheap[er] Y-cable with sure 90 Ohm impedance.  Perhaps like the starlight that came with the AP2/purepower
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  personally though I plan to start from scratch and just aim for within USB spec tolerance of 90 Ohms - I just need to figure out how the shielding affects the impedance - or I could just copy the gauges used in any cheap to-spec USB cable.


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> The audiophool in me on the other hand knows that in reality these processes are probably not perfect and providing an even voltage and ground would probably be a good idea.




If they are not bit perfect you have a MUCH BIGGER problem (just imagine you were transferring files).

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but so far it doesn't make sense. I will await Audiophilleo's comments on this issue.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> If they are not bit perfect you have a MUCH BIGGER problem (just imagine you were transferring files).
> I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but so far it doesn't make sense. I will await Audiophilleo's comments on this issue.


 

 Why doesn't it? The data stream depends on a precise impedance to combat reflections, and both data and power legs will benefit from reduced interference by differential and common mode noise. The AP+PP is not _totally _isolated from the power provided by the computer, but take a converter that is, like the Off-Ramp. It sounds better through the Short-Block than straight from the computer. Why would that be? There is no effect on the signal being bit-perfect. The input is isolated, and is not powered by the computer at all - everything comes from the wall-wart.
   
  The Vaunix could have a similar effect with the OR, even if the power provided is completely ignored.


----------



## Trogdor

davebsc said:


> Why doesn't it? The data stream depends on a precise impedance to combat reflections, and both data and power legs will benefit from reduced interference by differential and common mode noise. The AP+PP is not _totally_ isolated from the power provided by the computer, but take a converter that is,




I don't think you have differential mode noise since the pair of D wires are grounded as per USB spec (yes, I looked that up).

Now let's talk common mode...

Reflection occurs due to impedance mismatch between sender and receiver. Reflections are typically very small and the USB spec accounts for it. The level of reflection you are going to see should not create common mode where you incur an unrecoverable BER.

Moreover, the AP2 is _totally isolated_ from any noise generated on the USB bus. The stage that is responsible for generating the signal is external and fed by the PurePower. The data I believe is buffered in the PurePower unit and then fed into the AP2 unit. So even if you incurred an uncorrectable BER, the PP unit could re-fetch provided the buffer was large enough. This is speculation on my part but I believe the PP unit houses the data and then using async USB the AP2 module fetches the data (its now master, powered by an external supply). Think of the PP unit as a data and power source through two discrete channels, i.e. the PP _is already_ acting like a Vaunix with respect to power. That's why I have two cables from the PP to the AP2 unit, one for power and one for data.

Wait, are you sticking the Vaunix between the PP and AP2 data path or between the Vaunix and PP unit? I have been speaking about the later. The former should not be necessary, see async USB.

Unless you are claiming the USB bus noise is some how seaping into the data path provided by the PP -> AP2, why would the Vaunix help again? 

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand whether $200 will really help here (I'm all for it, if it will) and better understand this new toy in front of me.

Now on topic, so far the AP2 has performed magic on my JH3A system compared to the HiFace.

Deeper bass (I literally had to turn down the JH3A bass adjust), wider sound stage, and just overall better dynamics/impact. The attack/decay is utterly fantastic and at the same time, not bright feeling or SS cold ("too digitals"). Its definitely on par from when I owned the Qualia's. It has that kind of speed.


----------



## drez

The purepower is pretty much just a battery pack - the two modules Audiophilleo refer to are within the AP2 itself.
   
  I don't know how AP2 clocks are set up eg I think the dual clocks for the asynch decoding are needed at the USB receiver or at the ARM CPU, and the SPDIF output stage just has an adaptive pll data filter and maybe a separate single frequency clock.  This is just my guess of whats happening inside that wondrous little grey box.
   
  Obviously Audiophilleo don't think the quality of power and ground being fed to the USB input and ARM CPU are critical to the performance - then again they also say USB cable doesn't matter much at all with the AP2 and probably would have a hard time believing that music player and settings would affect audio quality.  In fact the hardware buffered asynch USB setup is meant to be a silver bullet that makes everything upstream completely irrelevant, but this is definitely not my experience.  AP2 is good at making these things less important, but its not able to make them completely irrelevant.
   
  Regarding the Vaunix I can't say for sure how it might be affecting the performance of the USB input and ARM CPU, or how in turn this would affect the quality of SPDIF signal being produced.  Even if I did understand it, chances are I would not predict any change from using the Vaunix, or different cable, computer setup etc.  In fact I'm not even sure why Audiophilleo thought the purepower would have an influence in the first place if it doesn't affect the jitter performance (maybe noise getting to the DAC chip?) but again this is not something that is necessarily predictable.
   
  To add another layer of complexity not all changes vaunted as "improvements" by computer audiophools are actually improvments per se - I tend to disagree with at least a couple of people about specific hardware components and the effect they have on  USB audio performance.  Vaunix could be the same - a change that is perceived by some as in improvement and by others as detrimental to performance.  Because of this I am always looking for specific and articulate impressions to deliver a more informative impression of what the performance differences might be.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That's what I thought too... until I tried it. There's something else going on here, and it's not clear to me what it is. It's another one of those, "Huh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





" moments. If I had stuck with the diagrams on the Audiophilleo site, and just used logic, I'd not be enjoying all this music so much!  
   
  My buddy with the same DAC, AP1+PP just ordered his. It arrives next week, and we'll see what his results are. 
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I understand that there are some inexpensive USB cables with a  similar configuration as the Wire World stuff. Belkin? I don't recall. 
   
  Re impedance, per one of the designers from Vaunix, they designed hub for balanced impedance:
   
  "3.  The data lines on the PC board are matched to a balanced 90 ohms impedance. The best cables in the world won't help you if the data lines are not properly matched on the PCB. The use of balanced, properly matched lines provides common-mode rejection of noise resulting in a cleaner output."
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I don't that Y-cable needs to be that expensive - I was going to DIY one (just need to calculate the impedance to be close to 90 Ohms).  One could also just butcher a wirewold etc by running a stanley knife down the middle and reterminating the ends - it wouldn't be pretty but it would be a cheap[er] Y-cable with sure 90 Ohm impedance.  Perhaps like the starlight that came with the AP2/purepower
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> The purepower is pretty much just a battery pack - the two modules Audiophilleo refer to are within the AP2 itself.




Right, I misread that section in my haste.



> I don't know how AP2 clocks are set up eg I think the dual clocks for the asynch decoding are needed at the USB receiver or at the ARM CPU, and the SPDIF output stage just has an adaptive pll data filter and maybe a separate single frequency clock.  This is just my guess of whats happening inside that wondrous little grey box.
> 
> Obviously Audiophilleo don't think the quality of power and ground being fed to the USB input and ARM CPU are critical to the performance - then again they also say USB cable doesn't matter much at all with the AP2 and probably would have a hard time believing that music player and settings would affect audio quality.  In fact the hardware buffered asynch USB setup is meant to be a silver bullet that makes everything upstream completely irrelevant, but this is definitely not my experience.  AP2 is good at making these things less important, but its not able to make them completely irrelevant.




Again though from the site:

"Total isolation from USB power, gound, and data. When running off battery, relays are used to physically disconnect the PurePower from the noisy USB power source (the PC) so that lowest possible power noise levels are achieved when feeding the Audiophilleo1 and Audiophilleo2 output stages."

Still scratching my head on where the Vaunix comes into play here.



> To add another layer of complexity not all changes vaunted as "improvements" by computer audiophools are actually improvments per se - I tend to disagree with at least a couple of people about specific hardware components and the effect they have on  USB audio performance.  Vaunix could be the same - a change that is perceived by some as in improvement and by others as detrimental to performance.  Because of this I am always looking for specific and articulate impressions to deliver a more informative impression of what the performance differences might be.




Well I am not discounting anything. My bottom line is what technical benefits do you gain with say a Vaunix in addition to the PP unit. Right now, I don't see any.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Per Phillip, adding the PP battery supply does not appreciably change the jitter results of the AP1 or AP2. 
  Quote: 





drez said:


> In fact I'm not even sure why Audiophilleo thought the purepower would have an influence in the first place if it doesn't affect the jitter performance (maybe noise getting to the DAC chip?) but again this is not something that is necessarily predictable.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

So that everyone knows how things are set up in my system:
   
   
 [size=medium] BEFORE:[/size]
 [size=medium] MacBook Pro -->USB cable --> AP2 --> DAC[/size]
 [size=medium] PP powered via the included USB cable[/size]
 [size=medium]  [/size]
 [size=medium] AFTER:[/size]
 [size=medium] MacBook Pro --> USB cable --> _*vaunix*_ --> USB cable --> AP2 --> DAC[/size]
 [size=medium] PP powered via the included USB cable [/size]
 [size=medium]  [/size]
 [size=medium] I have written to Phillip too. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on what might be happening. [/size]


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2. Couldn't agree more. I'm writing up my observations about the AP2+PP. Now, having experienced the Vaunix, I'm going to add it to the write-up as an addendum. However, at this point, I can't imagine using the AP+PP without the Vaunix, the trinity is just too compelling.
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> To add another layer of complexity not all changes vaunted as "improvements" by computer audiophools are actually improvments per se - I tend to disagree with at least a couple of people about specific hardware components and the effect they have on  USB audio performance.  Vaunix could be the same - a change that is perceived by some as in improvement and by others as detrimental to performance.  Because of this I am always looking for specific and articulate impressions to deliver a more informative impression of what the performance differences might be.


----------



## che15

I am looking forward to Phillips explanation of all of this!


----------



## Misterrogers

Thought it worth chiming in. I've used my AP2/PP's through Vaunix (similar to Rdr. Seraphim) for quite awhile. I don't claim to understand why, but found it to make an incremental improvement is blackness, dynamics and detail. While I don't have AP2/PP anymore (just finished the second of two Buffalo DAC's, with eXD USB -> I2S (PCM/DSD) , Paul Hynes regs, etc.) I concur with the general consensus - it's a hell of a device(s).


----------



## Orangecrush

Anybody here used the A1 or A2 with the Anedio D2?

It uses the U2 (xmos) inside. Trying to find out if it would be worth it to try the Audiophilleo.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





orangecrush said:


> Anybody here used the A1 or A2 with the Anedio D2?
> It uses the U2 (xmos) inside. Trying to find out if it would be worth it to try the Audiophilleo.


 

 Read the D2 thread, there's plenty of info on using converters with it.


----------



## sridhar3

Welp, just bought the PurePower upgrade and boxed my AP1 to send out tomorrow.  Hopefully the turnaround time isn't as brutal as it was when the upgrade was first introduced.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I see that you have the Vaunix. Can you try it first without, and then add it back into the system? Would love to hear your impressions. 
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Welp, just bought the PurePower upgrade and boxed my AP1 to send out tomorrow.  Hopefully the turnaround time isn't as brutal as it was when the upgrade was first introduced.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I see that you have the Vaunix. Can you try it first without, and then add it back into the system? Would love to hear your impressions.


 
   
  Sure, I don't see why not.  I can drop in and give some brief insights, but you might have to wait a bit if you're looking for detailed impressions though.  Time is short for me until mid-August.


----------



## drez

I am planning to order the Vaunix and run it from batteries - only thing is whether to use a voltage regulator between battery and hub as according to Vaunix noise is lowest when the unit is fed 12V.  What becomes a problem though is that if one i using a linear regulator one should chose a battery with over 12V output (say 18V) so this is not so straightforward.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

First impressions are fine. Details can come "whenever." Unless, of course, after hearing the difference you can't help yourself! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Sure, I don't see why not.  I can drop in and give some brief insights, but you might have to wait a bit if you're looking for detailed impressions though.  Time is short for me until mid-August.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Uh, that sounds serious! 
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I am planning to order the Vaunix and run it from batteries - only thing is whether to use a voltage regulator between battery and hub as according to Vaunix noise is lowest when the unit is fed 12V.  What becomes a problem though is that if one i using a linear regulator one should chose a battery with over 12V output (say 18V) so this is not so straightforward.


----------



## WNBC

Interesting, those of us that use the 2Stepdance and want good clean portable power use the Energizer XP8000 battery pack (puts out 5-20V) + 12 volt regulator.  The also sell 15V and 19V regulators. 
   
http://www.xpalpower.com/us/products/xp8000/
http://www.shop.energizerpowerpacks.com/xpal-power?product_id=73
http://www.shop.energizerpowerpacks.com/xpal-power?product_id=81
   
   
  I use the XP18000 for charging my laptops on flights.  Never leave home without it.
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I am planning to order the Vaunix and run it from batteries - only thing is whether to use a voltage regulator between battery and hub as according to Vaunix noise is lowest when the unit is fed 12V.  What becomes a problem though is that if one i using a linear regulator one should chose a battery with over 12V output (say 18V) so this is not so straightforward.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





sid-fi said:


> Compared to my setup sounding awful while the AP2 was away getting modded, it sounds glorious right now.
> I'll have to post my AQVOX in the for sale forums tomorrow and save some lucky chap an arm and a leg in shipping from Germany. It cost me $75 to ship the dumb thing from Germany this last Christmas :0.


 
   
  What did you use as a source while waiting to get the unit back and pm me regarding the aqvox if still for sale.

 Thanks!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





wnbc said:


> Interesting, those of us that use the 2Stepdance and want good clean portable power use the Energizer XP8000 battery pack (puts out 5-20V) + 12 volt regulator.  The also sell 15V and 19V regulators.
> 
> http://www.xpalpower.com/us/products/xp8000/
> http://www.shop.energizerpowerpacks.com/xpal-power?product_id=73
> ...


 
   
  Thanks for the links, that battery pack looks pretty sweet all-in-one solution.  By the time you buy battery, protection circuit, voltage regulator, power adapter for charging etc the XPAL looks pretty reasonable.  Does the "willy cable" step down the voltage?


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> Thanks for the links, that battery pack looks pretty sweet all-in-one solution.  By the time you buy battery, protection circuit, voltage regulator, power adapter for charging etc the XPAL looks pretty reasonable.  Does the "willy cable" step down the voltage?




I use this to power my JH3A during playback (I have never ran out of since).


----------



## WNBC

My understanding is yes, it does step down the voltage.  I have never measured the voltage out of the Willy Cable so not sure what the +/- voltage that is allowable.  
   
  Zilch0md has a nice write-up.  I'm using his configuration.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/507835/meier-audio-stepdance-and-2stepdance-discussion-and-impressions-thread/1155
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Thanks for the links, that battery pack looks pretty sweet all-in-one solution.  By the time you buy battery, protection circuit, voltage regulator, power adapter for charging etc the XPAL looks pretty reasonable.  Does the "willy cable" step down the voltage?


----------



## kLevkoff

First off, the PurePower IS just a "battery with extras"; it taps off its charging power from the USB line but doesn't do anything interesting to the data (you'll note that the USB data can go straight to the AP via a separate USB line if you like).
   
  Second, I'm not sure if the USB asynch standard itself allows data re-tries but it doesn't matter for audio because, by the time the receiving device were to detect a data error, it would be too late to re-send the data because the whole system operates in real-time. (I don't know if the AP buffers a full USB data frame, but I doubt it. When USB is used for data - like with a hard drive or stick - it doesn't operate in real-time, so it has plenty of time to request and wait for a retransmission if necessary.)
   
  As for the signal itself.....
   
  The USB data signal is just that... data. On the receiving end of things, unless something is screwed up pretty badly, the data will arrive in one piece. This really isn't, and never was, a big problem - which is why nobody much talks about it. USB data drives work at very much higher data rates than audio, which makes them a lot more likely to occasionally lose a bit or two, which is why they use a mode that supports verifying the data and asking for a retransmission (bulk mode). USB audio, in contrast, operates at a pretty sedate speed, which makes loss of data very unlikely - which is just as well since, because audio operates in real-time, it would be too late by the time an error was detected to retransmit the data anyway. (Some devices may actually include a buffer - and I have no idea if the AP does or not - but it really isn't necessary.) I think it's mostly a made-up problem looking for a solution (which plays better for certain vendors than admitting that a $5 wire will work fine.) Devices like the AP are designed to solve problems with jitter and with power-supply isolation - which don't matter to USB data drives but are a problem with audio systems.
   
  On the AP, the power to run the receiver circuitry is taken directly from the USB line - from the computer - and its good enough to get the job done. On the stock AP, the output section runs on isolated power, which the AP generates via a circuit which gets ITS power from the computer power. The normal way of doing this, which is probably how the AP does it, is to have a tiny switching power supply inside which gets its power from the USB input. The switcher runs through a transformer, which isolates its power output from its input, and that isolated output is used to run the output section of the device. This works pretty well, but the isolation isn't perfect, and the output of the switcher itself has some noise (like any power supply). Using a battery eliminates this last bit of noise, and using a relay scheme to charge the battery (like the AP-PP), provides "perfect" isolation - better than the other way.
   
  Now, as for the player software being bit-perfect or not....
  If you think about it for a few seconds, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the AP (or other device) itself - or shouldn't. This is simply a matter of whether the operating system and the player itself choose to deliberately modify the data (music) before sending it out - which many of them do for a variety of reasons. If Windows (or MacOS) decides to fiddle with the bits, there's nothing the interface can do about it. HOWEVER, the driver that goes with the device could make matters worse by failing to be bit-perfect itself, or by forcing settings that "encourage" Windows to change the bits. (The old V-Link had drivers that told Windows XP that it could ONLY accept 96/24; if you played a 44/16 file, this forced Windows to convert it to 96/24 on the way out so it would "match the requirement"; which resulted in the overall chain NOT being bit-perfect. As far as I know this was an interaction between some versions of Win XP and the driver, and may not  happen with Windows 7.) The AP-1 has a test mode which verifies bit-perfect operation, and is pretty handy since it's pretty well impossible to know for sure unless you have some sort of actual way to verify it.
   
  So the short upshot of this is that the battery option may make the AP sound better because it provides better isolation and cleaner isolated power for the output stage (which is rather like what Philip has always claimed  ). HOWEVER, the difference will be slight, and will depend on how sensitive your audio system is to that last little bit of remaining noise.... and it will make the USB cable matter even less (the technical facts, and my ears, have always suggested that once you go to a good asynch USB implementation it already doesn't matter anyway).


----------



## drez

Something interesting I pulled up on the original HiFace is that it used bulk mode transfer - ie that it can resend data that fails to be transmitted over the USB cable, what is also interesting is that I found the Hiface sensitive to computer side variables apart from bit perfection.  If one were to go purely from theory one would not expect to hear the difference between a Hiface and an Audiophilleo purely on the jitter numbers, as even though they are vastly different the distortion they produce would probably be classified as below the threshold of human hearing, but that is another matter altogether.  I feel I am drifting off topic here but to try to bring my thoughts back into focus - in my experience there is not a very close fit between what engineers expect and what people hear, and an even less close fit between what people perceive and what they hear but that also is another issue altogether.  My third concern from the start is the way in which jitter is measured especially with the AP2 in that is it purely a measure of the clocks and SPDIF output, or is it a measurement of how well the Audiphilleo can take audio data stream coming from a computer and turn it into an SPDIF signal?  
   
  What puzzles me in particular is why M2Tech abandoned bulk mode transfer for the Hiface 2 in preference for the asynchronous XMOS system, especially when other manufacturers are developing ever more expensive devices based on the Hiface 1 USB receiver system?  For me I truly hope the Audiophilleo 2 with purepower is the be-all-and-end-all of transports (as I now own one) but I can't help but feel that we are not reading the whole story here.  Not to worry anyway as the system sounds good to my ears for now and delivered the improvments I was hoping for in terms of timing accuracy and clean transients.
   
  Just tonight I have tried an audio tweak suggested on another forum to do with CPU scheduling granularity which apparently reduced the time the CPU can direct to any one task.  I tried the setting, compared against the two settings windows generated, and very quickly realised that the windows setting giving priority to background tasks produced the result I considered most accurate, while the value suggested in the tweak was now what I would consider Ideal in my system and to my preferences (too much warm tonal glow around musical notes).  Hopefully the differences with the Vaunix will be just as clear cut.  this is not a judgement I would have expected purely from looking at the values (tweak value had smaller variable which might expect to be more analytical but this is not the case)
   
  On the Vaunix though I just had a thought - I wonder if it works by galvanically isolating the power and ground while letting the digital lines straight through?  If not I might try this tweak if the Vaunix is not to my taste.


----------



## kLevkoff

About "Willy Cables" and other interesting gadgets.....
   
  I have to say I find this thread amusing - to say the least.
   
  Yikes! We're here discussing whether a battery pack with relay isolation will sound better than a really well-designed isolated power supply module, and you're talking about using a consumer battery pack that puts out multiple voltages (using who-knows what type of regulation). You do realize that most consumer gear uses nasty, noisy, and not at all well designed switching supplies to do this sort of thing, right? Now, I could be giving it a bum rap, and the Energizer battery pack could be the exception, but I know which side of the bet I'd be taking....... Alkaline batteries also don't have impedance characteristics that are nearly as good as Li-Ion or NimH or lead acid types, so it starts at a serious disadvantage. The whole idea of using a battery is to either use the battery DIRECTLY (if the voltage agrees), or with a really good regulator...... I would trust the excellent isolated supply in the AP a lot more than some cheapo consumer battery pack (especially one not even claimed to be designed for audio applications).
  "Battery" is NOT some sort of "magic word" that automatically helps whatever you connect it to........
  
  DO bear in mind that if you use a "splitter USB cable" so you can use a different power source to power your AP (or other USB converter), you are only changing the plus power supply; you are NOT making it galvanically isolated (because the ground is the same - and MUST remain connected). Since the AP THEN creates its own galvanic isolation later anyway, odds are that you're not going to produce any difference whatsoever. (What you're trying to do is to re-invent the wheel - and do a better job than Philip did - which is doubtful )
   
  If what you're looking for is galvanic isolation, and you don't want the PP option, (or are using some other sort of USB converter) you can buy a "USB isolator" which will do that for you. Here's one with pretty good specs...  (NO, I haven't tried it).
  http://www.electronics-shop.dk/?id=1038&username=&currency=USD&pollanswer=1
  NOTE: This and most USB isolators support "full speed" and NOT "high speed" modes (of course, full speed mode is 12 mbps and USB audio tops out at about half of that, but, since jitter isn't specified, there could be issues - especially with non-asynch converters and inputs - although it's hard to imagine how it could be worse than a typical PC.)
   
  Here's what I would suggest (from an engineering point of view):
   
  Get your galvanic isolation (of the ground) FIRST - with this device or something similar.... (and see if you hear a difference).
  If that goes well, THEN use a splitter cable (downstream) and add a battery to supply the "USB +5" power to the DAC's input section. (And use a decent battery - with a good low noise regulator if necessary.)
   
  PC OUT ------> GALVANIC ISOLATOR ------->SPLITTER CABLE WITH BATTERY +5 ---------> DAC OR CONVERTER INPUT
   
   
  I would expect this to help any converter that doesn't already have its own galvanic isolation....
  (But, since the AP already has that, I wouldn't expect to hear any difference  )


----------



## kLevkoff

Bulk transfer mode is not real time; therefore it requires a buffer.
   
  From an engineering standpoint, you are sort of conflating issues here.... There ARE only two characteristics of an S/PDIF audio stream - the numbers and the timing. So, unless the numbers are actually incorrect, the only factor remaining is the timing (which includes the possibility of actual speed errors and of jitter). All clocks these days are so good in terms of basic speed accuracy that, even with the cheapest one, that is a non-issue. Therefore, with the AP, or anything else, the measure of how clean the S/PDIF is in terms of jitter actually IS the total measure of how good a job it's doing (unless it introduces actual data errors- which isn't going to happen). The only remaining thing is the actual measure of galvanic isolation - which is very difficult to measure in terms of audio effects, and whose effects vary depending on your other equipment.
   
  From a marketing point of view, I suspect that "asynch USB" is considered by so many people to be "the ultimate solution" that the HiFace simply abandoned their buffer-based circuit for the one that was more popular rather than fight the crowd. I also suspect that, possibly, their original model didn't support 192/24. With the new receiver chips, you get that thrown in as part of the package. So, from a product point of view, they moved to the features they needed to offer the easiest way - by switching to a new asynch-USB receiver chip.
   
  As for "galvanic isolation" - ALL signals must be referenced to something (even each other). In principal, the differential signal in a USB cable is independent of ground. In practice, you can't just float the receiver, and so it has to be referenced to ground somewhere.
   
  We should, however, be clear on our expectations. The claimed "direct effect on sound" of jitter is a vague blurring of the soundstage - which could also possibly be interpreted as "lack of space around instruments" or your "vague glow". The effect of LACK of galvanic isolation is going to be background noise (we're talking about the situation where you hear a murmur through the speakers when your Windows screen changes). This could also, in turn, theoretically cause jitter at the receiver by dirtying up the signal.
   
  NONE of these things are going to directly change the frequency response, nor make the sound "warmer" or "brighter"......
  At most, they will produce jitter or other noise that we wrongly interpret as such (just like hiss can make things SEEM like they have more high end).
   
  We should also remember that many devices themselves don't have especially low jitter. Some of the differences we hear are probably just the result of the remaining jitter (what IS the jitter of the old and new HiFaces?) There are also different types of jitter, so it makes sense that, IF the jitter is high enough to hear, then the different types may sound different.
  (Of course the solution is to remove all audible jitter.)
   
  I have an AP1, and I will probably be sending it out for its PP conversion shortly.
  Honestly, I don't expect to hear a difference but, as you say, it is "the be-all and end-all" and that way I don't have to
  waste time fiddling with other battery solutions - or wondering if I should have.
   
  But, just to be clear, once and for all......
  IF the AP (or anything else) is "doing its job" 100.0%, there should be no difference whatsoever no matter what you do at the computer or cable as long as the input remains bit-perfect.
  IF there were two perfect such devices, or two perfect interconnects for that matter, then they WOULD sound identical.
  IF you can hear differences with computer changes, or can REALLY hear cable differences with the AP, then those differences define how far it is from perfect.
   
  [Now I'll backtrack and add a kudo..... if you don't have some way to verify bit-perfect, then asynch-USB is NOT a guarantee that your data IS bit-perfect. Even though asynch USB data is clocked by the receiver, it will "glitch"  if the computer just plain drops or changes a sample. If that happens enough then, of course, things will sound different.]
   
  I suspect, though, that a lot of what people "hear" is due to more prosaic issues. As I mentioned in another post, I used to use a V-Link (the original). I was playing 44/16 files on a laptop running Win XP Pro set not to upsample and I was rather impressed when adding the V-Link "made the audio sound better". The funny thing was that, as it turns out, the V-Link driver told Windows it only accepted 96/24, so Windows was automagically upsampling to 96/24. That was, of course, why it sounded different..... but there was no "overt indication" that it was happening. (Luckily my DAC happens to show the incoming sample rate in the window..... )
   
  I honestly don't think that most people understand "controlling for one variable", nor are they willing to bother (and I'm usually not either).... but this makes any claims by anyone of subtle differences somewhat dubious.... and I cheerfully include myself in that group. I can say, though, that I'm not going to even bother unless there's legitimate engineering justification for hoping for a change...... There's simply too much snake oil and "magic" out there to taste or try all of it and, in the end, I've never heard something that sounded better where there failed to be a legitimate engineering explanation for the difference lurking about somewhere.
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Something interesting I pulled up on the original HiFace is that it used bulk mode transfer - ie that it can resend data that fails to be transmitted over the USB cable, what is also interesting is that I found the Hiface sensitive to computer side variables apart from bit perfection.  If one were to go purely from theory one would not expect to hear the difference between a Hiface and an Audiophilleo purely on the jitter numbers, as even though they are vastly different the distortion they produce would probably be classified as below the threshold of human hearing, but that is another matter altogether.  I feel I am drifting off topic here but to try to bring my thoughts back into focus - in my experience there is not a very close fit between what engineers expect and what people hear, and an even less close fit between what people perceive and what they hear but that also is another issue altogether.  My third concern from the start is the way in which jitter is measured especially with the AP2 in that is it purely a measure of the clocks and SPDIF output, or is it a measurement of how well the Audiphilleo can take audio data stream coming from a computer and turn it into an SPDIF signal?
> 
> What puzzles me in particular is why M2Tech abandoned bulk mode transfer for the Hiface 2 in preference for the asynchronous XMOS system, especially when other manufacturers are developing ever more expensive devices based on the Hiface 1 USB receiver system?  For me I truly hope the Audiophilleo 2 with purepower is the be-all-and-end-all of transports (as I now own one) but I can't help but feel that we are not reading the whole story here.  Not to worry anyway as the system sounds good to my ears for now and delivered the improvments I was hoping for in terms of timing accuracy and clean transients.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





drez said:


> What puzzles me in particular is why M2Tech abandoned bulk mode transfer for the Hiface 2 in preference for the asynchronous XMOS system, especially when other manufacturers are developing ever more expensive devices based on the Hiface 1 USB receiver system?  For me I truly hope the Audiophilleo 2 with purepower is the be-all-and-end-all of transports (as I now own one) but I can't help but feel that we are not reading the whole story here.  Not to worry anyway as the system sounds good to my ears for now and delivered the improvments I was hoping for in terms of timing accuracy and clean transients.
> 
> On the Vaunix though I just had a thought - I wonder if it works by galvanically isolating the power and ground while letting the digital lines straight through?  If not I might try this tweak if the Vaunix is not to my taste.


 
  There are a couple of reasons for using XMOS. One big one is Linux support. The XMOS supports native Class 2 audio, which means no OSX drivers to worry about, and native Linux support as well. The M2Tech interface doesn't support class 2. Second, the original Hiface was honestly a mess. It's design was pretty textbook on how _not _to design a converter. John Kenny was able to get it to perform at the level of the Audiophilleo by throwing most of the parts away, and cutting off the USB power supply entirely. 
   
  The reason why the PP is effective is that USB power is garbage. DC ripple is in the hundreds of mV, and precise clocks don't like garbage power. The original MK1 Hiface mod replaced _only _the power feeding the clocks with a battery, the S/Pdif output stage was still fed by the USB bus and the internal regulators. Just by giving the clocks nice clean DC as opposed to crap, the performance improved considerably. The more you can get away from computer supplied USB power, the better.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> The more you can get away from computer supplied USB power, the better.


 
  Which is why you add a Hynes on the USB...oh wait, this isn't the Empirical thread)
   
  You got it right.  Pure Power is onto something obviously beneficial, and should only get better and better shall Philip REALLY go far with it.


----------



## WarrenR

Posted in error.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The impact on SQ by adding the Vaunix on the processor/USB side of the AP+PP was significant for me. I believe Phillip is looking into it.  
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> Which is why you add a Hynes on the USB...oh wait, this isn't the Empirical thread)
> 
> You got it right.  Pure Power is onto something obviously beneficial, and should only get better and better shall Philip REALLY go far with it.


----------



## pigmode

Looking on the Audiophilleo website, it appears that new as-built Pure Power A2 units are not available yet? All I see is the retro-fit option and the original A2 for $579.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Looking on the Audiophilleo website, it appears that new as-built Pure Power A2 units are not available yet? All I see is the retro-fit option and the original A2 for $579.


 
   
  You're looking for the option to buy a new AP2 with the PP upgrade already done?  It's in the drop-down menu.


----------



## pigmode

A2PP is $579? Cool!


----------



## dailydoseofdaly

pigmode said:


> A2PP is $579? Cool!




That is just for the ap2, if you go to the drop down menu it says 
Standard + Pure Power $999.00 USD


----------



## Currawong

Quick thoughts, because I'm on my iPad and typing sucks...

I have a very resolving system, so the small improvements are very important to me. The Vaunix hub resolved an issue with harshness in the treble when listening which I didn't like. I'm sold on power upgrades because all of my experiences with audio since I joined Head-Fi have proven the benefits to me. Improvements in the digital transport have too, ever since I found out that upgrading the clocks in a DAC made for significant benefits in sound quality, even in cheaper gear. 

That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference, I keep finding different players on my Mac sound very *very* slightly different. I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.

I haven't noticed any difference in USB cable quality. The current thoughts about them seem to be related to noise and the cable's characterisitic impedance being correct.

One of the reasons, incidentally, I use the Vaunix hub is that I can connect more than one DAC/transport to my rack without having to use multiple long cables and I can test the sensitivity of DACs to differences in USB power.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Re the iPad, if I'm typing more than a few sentences, I connect the BT keyboard.  
   
  X2 re the power conditioning, especially for digital audio. Even in my big rig, power conditioning made a significant difference. Due to the intimate nature of headphones, I find the differences easier to detect. 
   
  Look forward to hearing more about your AP+PP+Vaunix experience. I believe my system is fairly resolving as well, and the Vaunix stays. 
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quick thoughts, because I'm on my iPad and typing sucks...
> I have a very resolving system, so the small improvements are very important to me. The Vaunix hub resolved an issue with harshness in the treble when listening which I didn't like. I'm sold on power upgrades because all of my experiences with audio since I joined Head-Fi have proven the benefits to me. Improvements in the digital transport have too, ever since I found out that upgrading the clocks in a DAC made for significant benefits in sound quality, even in cheaper gear.
> That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference, I keep finding different players on my Mac sound very *very* slightly different. I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.
> I haven't noticed any difference in USB cable quality. The current thoughts about them seem to be related to noise and the cable's characterisitic impedance being correct.
> One of the reasons, incidentally, I use the Vaunix hub is that I can connect more than one DAC/transport to my rack without having to use multiple long cables and I can test the sensitivity of DACs to differences in USB power.


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





dailydoseofdaly said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Thanks. Hard decision then compared to a couple others at +$1k.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





currawong said:


> That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference, I keep finding different players on my Mac sound very *very* slightly different. I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.
> I haven't noticed any difference in USB cable quality. The current thoughts about them seem to be related to noise and the cable's characterisitic impedance being correct.


 
   
  The same is true on Windows. JRiver with RAM playback enabled and WASAPI output (bit-perfect) sounds quite different than JPlay with RAM playback and WASAPI output.


----------



## Trogdor

currawong said:


> Quick thoughts, because I'm on my iPad and typing sucks...
> I have a very resolving system, so the small improvements are very important to me. The Vaunix hub resolved an issue with harshness in the treble when listening which I didn't like.




How? Right now the problem I see with all of this is that if the Vaunix is improving the AP2 wPP there is either an issue with Phillip's design or some other phenomenon occurring.

I'd like to understand more on WHY there is any audible differences.

So far no one has given me a technical reason that makes sense (at least to me!). I can only suspect that its placebo (no offense) without listening to it myself (anybody got a spare Vaunix laying around for me to borrow for a week?).

I understand that AP is now looking into it to see if there is indeed an issue, so I await Phillip's analysis.



> I'm sold on power upgrades because all of my experiences with audio since I joined Head-Fi have proven the benefits to me. Improvements in the digital transport have too, ever since I found out that upgrading the clocks in a DAC made for significant benefits in sound quality, even in cheaper gear.
> That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference, I keep finding different players on my Mac sound very *very* slightly different. I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.




Floating point arithmetic would be my guess (perhaps 32 vs 64-bit). Same comment goes to DaveBSC.

In the end Currawong, most of it is placebo. There were some USB audio bugs in 10.6 that caused issues with various devices (clicking noise mainly). AFAIK, Lion+, the players should sound the same. 

Setting up a DBT with a friend or significant others is easy if you truly believe you can tell the difference between players. Try it! Its a lot of fun! 



> I haven't noticed any difference in USB cable quality. The current thoughts about them seem to be related to noise and the cable's characterisitic impedance being correct.
> One of the reasons, incidentally, I use the Vaunix hub is that I can connect more than one DAC/transport to my rack without having to use multiple long cables and I can test the sensitivity of DACs to differences in USB power.




That's a nice idea.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> How? Right now the problem I see with all of this is that if the Vaunix is improving the AP2 wPP there is either an issue with Phillip's design or some other phenomenon occurring.
> I'd like to understand more on WHY there is any audible differences.
> So far no one has given me a technical reason that makes sense (at least to me!). I can only suspect that its placebo (no offense) without listening to it myself (anybody got a spare Vaunix laying around for me to borrow for a week?).
> I understand that AP is now looking into it to see if there is indeed an issue, so I await Phillip's analysis.
> ...


 
  If I had a dollar every time I heard that one.  Like I said before if you try to figure out why gear sounds a certain way before listening to it you have  hard task ahead of you.  Best not to get into sound science here as it will spawn a lot of off-topic nonsense.  I best leave it at that.  We can revive another thread to discuss computer side tweaking etc. or something and about 15 sound science folks can come and get all uppity etc etc.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Or not...


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quick thoughts, because I'm on my iPad and typing sucks...
> I have a very resolving system, so the small improvements are very important to me. The Vaunix hub resolved an issue with harshness in the treble when listening which I didn't like. I'm sold on power upgrades because all of my experiences with audio since I joined Head-Fi have proven the benefits to me. Improvements in the digital transport have too, ever since I found out that upgrading the clocks in a DAC made for significant benefits in sound quality, even in cheaper gear.
> That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference, I keep finding different players on my Mac sound very *very* slightly different. I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.
> I haven't noticed any difference in USB cable quality. The current thoughts about them seem to be related to noise and the cable's characteristic impedance being correct.
> One of the reasons, incidentally, I use the Vaunix hub is that I can connect more than one DAC/transport to my rack without having to use multiple long cables and I can test the sensitivity of DACs to differences in USB power.


 

 The first issue is that many players either are not bit-prefect themselves, or cause the operating system to not be bit-perfect. Once you have the player changing bits then you would expect each one to change the bits in different ways, and so sound different. Likewise, the player may interact with the O/S to cause (or allow) changes to the bit-stream there. Some of the drivers themselves may not be bit-perfect. Luckily, if you have an AP1, you can verify once and for all that you're getting bit-perfect output.
   
  The second issue is that every player (and every other program) interacts with the operating system itself, which is bound to affect the timing - which will end up causing or aggravating jitter. I don't think that, in this context, the jitter issue is as straightforward as we tend to believe. Assuming that each sample arrives approximately when it should (let's say "before the next one is due to arrive"), then removing jitter is simply a matter of re-clocking. But, what if the player (or the O/S) causes enough delay that we get several samples behind? In that case, we MUST have some sort of buffer; simply being able to adjust the timing of each individual sample isn't going to be enough. In the first case, a reclocking scheme (like that included internally in the Sabre DAC) will fix the jitter on the individual samples; in the second case, since it doesn't have a real buffer, it won't be able to replace the samples that are unavailable when they are needed - and the result will be a dropped sample (which could well be audible if it happens enough). Some USB converters have actual buffers while others do not. (A buffer in the driver may or may not eliminate this problem - depending on exactly where the bottleneck is.) The upshot is that, for a given USB-S/PDIF converter, the player could well influence whether the signal is or is not too badly damaged to "be made perfect". It is also true that many converters use various methods to reduce jitter, and different types of jitter will respond more or less to different methods. For example, a specific PLL will eliminate jitter at certain frequencies very well, but work very poorly with jitter at different frequencies. And, yes, the cable could influence this as well. As far as I know, in this context, the AP has buffering, and responds very well to any and all types of jitter.
   
  The third issue is power supply noise. The actual operation of the processor in the computer adds noise to the power and ground lines which is related to the power the computer is using - and what it is doing. If you connect a bad USB DAC to your computer, you can usually actually "hear" what program is running - the noise changes when you switch programs, or when a given program is "working harder". This is obviously going to extend to music player programs as well as other applications. A converter (or DAC) connected to a USB output on a computer is using both the +5V supply and ground. The +5v supply on most computers is really noisy (computers don't care), so something like the Vaunix hub should make an improvement for devices that use that power supply. However, something like the AP (especially with PP), which doesn't use either the +5 or the ground from the computer, shouldn't be affected. Presumably a badly designed cable could also allow the data itself to "bleed" into the supply lines, where it would appear as noise.
   
  Another (related) issue is that there may well be noise on the USB data lines themselves. (The data is ones and zeroes, but minor variations in those levels caused by noise, even though they're ignored by the digital circuitry, may "bleed through" and end up finding their way into the DAC and interfering with things.) With a device like the AP, which has galvanic isolation, both the ground and +5 supply are NOT passed through to the DAC, nor allowed to affect the output data, and the data is totally "rebuilt" by the output USB sender (also running off the isolated power), so this should also be eliminated. The real problem with "galvanic isolation" is that, while it's pretty simple to isolate the DC path, it's much more difficult to ensure that absolutely NO high-frequency noise can leak through. (At a dead minimum, with a single-box solution, you have the possibility that a minute bit of noise will be radiated by the wires coming in, and picked up by the wire going out.... therefore, it's POSSIBLE that reducing the noise going in will make a minute difference. Considering how well designed the AP is, though, I wouldn't be all that worried.
  After all, at some level, having the computer within a few hundred feet of the DAC risks the possibility that noise being radiated through the air by the computer will be picked up by the DAC. Perfect isolation isn't even theoretically possible, so we'll have to settle for "inaudible"  )
   
  From an engineering point of view, the AP with PP seems to cover all the bases, and it seems difficult to conceive of how anything else would improve matters further.


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





drez said:


> If I had a dollar every time I heard that one.  Like I said before if you try to figure out why gear sounds a certain way before listening to it you have  hard task ahead of you.  Best not to get into sound science here as it will spawn a lot of off-topic nonsense.  I best leave it at that.  We can revive another thread to discuss computer side tweaking etc. or something and about 15 sound science folks can come and get all uppity etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  There's a huge problem with your statement - actually two of them.
   
  The first problem is that "expectation bias" will tend to incline us (myself included) to hear what we expect to hear - often leading us to hear things that aren't there. Worse, we may attribute things that are indeed present to the wrong causes. (Did DAC b actually have an ever-so-slightly cleaner high end, or was it just that the humidity was 5% lower when we listened to it?)
   
  The second problem is that there are a huge number of products (and DIY options) out there - and very little opportunity to audition most of them in proper surroundings. Since we won't ever have an opportunity to hear even a minute fraction of them, we need some way to pre-screen the ones that are at least likely to be worthwhile. (And, yes, this often directly conflicts with the first problem.) As far as I'm concerned, the best screening method we have is to consider the scientific (engineering) justification of the product or technique.
   
  In this particular case, the theory is that the AP is NOT insensitive to poor quality power (on the USB side).
  If this is indeed true, then the Vaunix Hub, and several other alternatives, can be tried and would be expected
  to produce similar results.
   
   
  At least we can avoid wasting time on things that don't seem to have "legitimate justification" for our expecting them to work. (Is it possible that some dolt, whose scientific explanation is obviously pure drivel, somehow lucked onto something useful? Yes. Is it likely?)
   
  In the case of the Vaunix Hub, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing magical about it in particular, so the engineering question becomes that of whether running the computer-powered-side of the AP off of cleaner power affects the output or not. If it really does, then there is some flaw in the design (since it theoretically should not). If so, then the Vaunix may help, but a better solution would probably be to identify and eliminate the weakness in the AP. If no such flaw exists, then we had best move on to other tweaks.......
   
  The easiest way to find out if we're chasing our tails or not would be to cut up a USB wire and use it to supply clean power to the PP (on the computer side).


----------



## kLevkoff

Here's an interesting though - about how to test galvanic isolation (qualitative, not quantitative).
   
  Turn the Audiophilleo, your DAC, and your computer on - select the DAC as your source and turn the volume up pretty loud.
  DON'T PLAY ANYTHING.
   
  Now, run some stuff on your computer, and listen to see if any funny noises are there to be heard
  (if the isolation is flawed, then you would hear noises leaking through from the computer).
   
  If your DAC mutes when nothing's playing, you could make up a WAV file that contained a very low level continuous tone;
  now play that file and listen for other noises mixed in with it.
   
  Assuming you hear something like funny noises that way,
  connect up the Vaunix and see if they go away.......
   
   
   
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> How? Right now the problem I see with all of this is that if the Vaunix is improving the AP2 wPP there is either an issue with Phillip's design or some other phenomenon occurring.
> I'd like to understand more on WHY there is any audible differences.
> So far no one has given me a technical reason that makes sense (at least to me!). I can only suspect that its placebo (no offense) without listening to it myself (anybody got a spare Vaunix laying around for me to borrow for a week?).
> I understand that AP is now looking into it to see if there is indeed an issue, so I await Phillip's analysis.
> ...


----------



## Trogdor

klevkoff said:


> The first issue is that many players either are not bit-prefect themselves, or cause the operating system to not be bit-perfect. Once you have the player changing bits then you would expect each one to change the bits in different ways, and so sound different. Likewise, the player may interact with the O/S to cause (or allow) changes to the bit-stream there. Some of the drivers themselves may not be bit-perfect. Luckily, if you have an AP1, you can verify once and for all that you're getting bit-perfect output.




That's a good point but for the most part, all the usual suspects on OSX are bit perfect including iTunes.



> The second issue is that every player (and every other program) interacts with the operating system itself, which is bound to affect the timing - which will end up causing or aggravating jitter. I don't think that, in this context, the jitter issue is as straightforward as we tend to believe. Assuming that each sample arrives approximately when it should (let's say "before the next one is due to arrive"), then removing jitter is simply a matter of re-clocking. But, what if the player (or the O/S) causes enough delay that we get several samples behind?




You will have drops not "audible differences."



> The third issue is power supply noise. The actual operation of the processor in the computer adds noise to the power and ground lines which is related to the power the computer is using - and what it is doing. If you connect a bad USB DAC to your computer, you can usually actually "hear" what program is running - the noise changes when you switch programs, or when a given program is "working harder".




A context switch should not be audible. Do you have any idea how many times a second a context switch happens? So this is a very bad theory! 



> Another (related) issue is that there may well be noise on the USB data lines themselves. (The data is ones and zeroes, but minor variations in those levels caused by noise, even though they're ignored by the digital circuitry, may "bleed through" and end up finding their way into the DAC and interfering with things.) With a device like the AP, which has galvanic isolation, both the ground and +5 supply are NOT passed through to the DAC, nor allowed to affect the output data, and the data is totally "rebuilt" by the output USB sender (also running off the isolated power), so this should also be eliminated. The real problem with "galvanic isolation" is that, while it's pretty simple to isolate the DC path, it's much more difficult to ensure that absolutely NO high-frequency noise can leak through. (At a dead minimum, with a single-box solution, you have the possibility that a minute bit of noise will be radiated by the wires coming in, and picked up by the wire going out.... therefore, it's POSSIBLE that reducing the noise going in will make a minute difference. Considering how well designed the AP is, though, I wouldn't be all that worried.
> After all, at some level, having the computer within a few hundred feet of the DAC risks the possibility that noise being radiated through the air by the computer will be picked up by the DAC. Perfect isolation isn't even theoretically possible, so we'll have to settle for "inaudible"  )




This was in essence what Phillip told me. 

Btw the Vaunix is using a switcher which will be very hard to filter out 100%. If anything, using the Vaunix has a chance of making it worse than better. 

Still confuzzled...


----------



## Trogdor

klevkoff said:


> Here's an interesting though - about how to test galvanic isolation (qualitative, not quantitative).
> 
> Turn the Audiophilleo, your DAC, and your computer on - select the DAC as your source and turn the volume up pretty loud.
> DON'T PLAY ANYTHING.
> ...




I don't have the Vaunix but this is indeed a good test. Silence here.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

If there's a design flaw with the modded AP+PP combo, I want it fixed so that I can get my $200 for the Vaunix back; the difference with the Vaunix while incremental, is not subtle. If you have the AP+PP and the Vaunix, it's easy to tell the difference; if you don't have the Vaunix, it's also easy to tell the difference--just buy the Vaunix. Then report back.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> That's a good point but for the most part, all the usual suspects on OSX are bit perfect including iTunes.
> You will have drops not "audible differences."


 
   
  Jitter doesn't cause a drop-out, not unless the signal is so bad that the DAC loses its lock. An incorrectly set computer buffer will cause skips and drops depending on the hardware. Here's a question. Why does JPlay's hibernation mode sound better than the normal, interactive mode? It's the _same _software, same configuration, same RAM playback in either case. The difference is in OS interaction. In hibernation mode everything is shut down except for the core of the OS. You can disconnect the hard drive and playback will continue, there is zero disk I/O. I have to assume that all of those little tasks and read/writes that Windows performs in the background take their toll on the correct timing of the digital output stream.


----------



## Trogdor

davebsc said:


> Jitter doesn't cause a drop-out, not unless the signal is so bad that the DAC loses its lock. An incorrectly set computer buffer will cause skips and drops depending on the hardware.




He wasn't really talking about signal jitter due to common mode or other insidious causes. My response was to address the following question:

"But, what if the player (or the O/S) causes enough delay that we get several samples behind?"

Its called a drop and it will most certainly not be subtle.



> Here's a question. Why does JPlay's hibernation mode sound better than the normal, interactive mode? It's the _same_ software, same configuration, same RAM playback in either case. The difference is in OS interaction. In hibernation mode everything is shut down except for the core of the OS. You can disconnect the hard drive and playback will continue, there is zero disk I/O. I have to assume that all of those little tasks and read/writes that Windows performs in the background take their toll on the correct timing of the digital output stream.




http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/jriver-vs-jplay-test-results-156

But I don't want to thread crap too much....back to the AP2/PP....need to figure out why there are any changes?!


----------



## pompon

AP have a buffer ... and play music from the buffer. The timing in the PC is not important. The computer role is to ensure to fill the buffer to avoid it's become empty. When it's happen, you will hear a POP.
   
  Make sure your jplay keep your bitperfect. cplay is not bitperfect ... in fact, the soundstage is larger ... you can enlarge more or less with a setting.
   
  Play from ram, hd or whatever is not important with AP (buffer) ... but with soundcard it's matter (no buffer).


----------



## pompon

Probably vaunix clean the signal from some of the noise of the usb ...
   
  Not all USB is the same. Try different USB port, you may hear a difference ...


----------



## sridhar3

My AP1 should come back with the PP upgrade tomorrow.  I intend to daisy chain (Vaunix -> PP -> AP1), rather than having both components connected to the Vaunix.  Anybody know a suitably short (6-8") A-to-B USB cable?  I'm having a hell of a hard time finding one for sale.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





klevkoff said:


> There's a huge problem with your statement - actually two of them.
> 
> The first problem is that "expectation bias" will tend to incline us (myself included) to hear what we expect to hear - often leading us to hear things that aren't there. Worse, we may attribute things that are indeed present to the wrong causes. (Did DAC b actually have an ever-so-slightly cleaner high end, or was it just that the humidity was 5% lower when we listened to it?)
> 
> ...


 
   
  If USB bus power to the receiver is a problem it could be integrated in future purepower models meaning one less box is needed.  
   
  I agree that it is useful to try to do tweaks that make sense from a scientific standpoint to avoid trips down the proverbial garden path, but sometimes something that seemed to look good in [someones] theory doesn't actually make an improvement because another factor has been overlooked, or vice-versa.
   
  As for computer side influences on audio stream I don't think it is as simple as having dropouts or not - I can get dropout free audio from WASAPI or KS but both still sound slightly different, maybe less so than with my previous USB transport but still different.  I haven't blind tested it but this is what I have observed while playing around with software setting and the AP2/purepower.  Feel free to check if you observe something similar or not at your own leisure.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I have found that keeping the AP2 buffer full is actually fairly tricky especially if you are using smaller software buffers.  Some streaming methods and players need larger buffer sizes than I was using with my previous transport, especially for 24/96 files.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The Vaunix hub resolved an issue with harshness in the treble when listening which I didn't like. I'm sold on power upgrades because all of my experiences with audio since I joined Head-Fi have proven the benefits to me.





> That being said, while I don't understand why it should make any difference,





> I am very sensitive to the sound of instruments in jazz and classical so I notice, though now it is at the point of splitting hairs.


 
   
  First sentence you spoke about highly resolved system, but next and most of the following was about "tonality"...Even the clocking statement that you do not understand why it makes a difference (I personally do not think it really does other than maybe what you heard=tonally).  Then the sensitivity-again, tonality, between different music players.
   
  I personally do not have the same "sensitivity/tonality" issues as you do...well...I do, but when it gets as subtle as you are speaking of, which is the same way I hear my sound=everything is so subtle at this level, the tonality aspect really starts to go out the window and I have to know there really is NOTHING one can do about it besides equalizing the speaker/headphones a certain way to help give a little more tonal rightness OR just flat out buy a different speaker all-together that does sound "fundamentally" correct to you.
   
  I do not have the kind of money to spend on Empirical stuff, but if there is anything computer based that sounds on a very high level, very refined, and that "tonal rightness" thing going on, it's the Off-Ramp.  You have as much money in your current setup as the most loaded Off-Ramp 4 is priced at right now.  And if you need more tonal rightness and production, I believe the OR5 adds just that bit more on these very discriminating levels of sound/tonality.

 I do not like that I sound to be endorsing Empirical and this is not a thread to be mentioning it, but it's really the ONLY thing PC based that has had that truly "hi-end" level of tonal rightness, along with a very see-through signal pipeline that as a sum, sound correct.  Fact that I will not toss my money at it sucks because I'd love to have it, but for someone such as yourself that via unloading this setup OR just doing a practically free (only pay shipping) to demo the Off-Ramp 5 vs. this current setup, has that luxury to do so, I'd highly recommend trialing/demoing it.  I just had to mention this because as I say, because all that you said just made me think of why a lot of people prefer the Off-Ramp because they are ALWAYS mentioning the tonal correctness or "analog/organic" sound of it.  Now I would not use such words, but no product I can think of on the USB side has had so much "emphasis" regarding the tonal correctness of the device.
   
  Hope this helps and nothing against the AP1/2 or trying to say one device is superior to another, but to toss this out as it really would be something to seriously consider in the least demoing  with respect to what is sounds like you are after sound wise.
   
  Also wanted to say I always appreciate your comments and also Rdr's...others as well, but you two are very respectable people around here that I appreciate.


----------



## Currawong

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]Trogdor, while I appreciate the limitations of being human, very often I notice differences in things when I expect there to be NO difference. 

Though not the AP, I did take noise measurements of my ULN-2 while on bus power versus the included wall wart and the differences were very significant, even if it were just acting as a digital transport to another DAC.


----------



## Trogdor

currawong said:


> [VIDEO][/VIDEO]Trogdor, while I appreciate the limitations of being human, very often I notice differences in things when I expect there to be NO difference.




Currawong, that of course is being human... 

Its also one of the primary driving forces of the audiophile industry. Our innate urge to hear something different whether there is a difference or not (by no means am I calling you fallacious either, just stating a corollary to the conversation at hand).

So folks who have a Vaunix or AQVox and AP/PP, please post more impressions. I am curious if you hear any difference.


----------



## che15

I wonder if you guys can tell me your views on hOw big of a difference audiophiles USB cables
Make when connecting the pure power and audiophilio .


----------



## drez

very little as far as I can tell.  The AP2/ purepower I bought came with a Wireworld USB cable so if you get that package you could always compare yourself at that point.  Some cable companies offer trial periods so that may be another option.  I always hesitate to offer advice on cables as some people hear differences, some don't.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





che15 said:


> I wonder if you guys can tell me your views on hOw big of a difference audiophiles USB cables
> Make when connecting the pure power and audiophilio .


 

 John Atkinson said that he heard a very slight improvement with a $300 AQ USB cable over a basic one when connected to the Off-Ramp 4, but found no measurable proof why that would be so. IIRC he said the basic cable actually had slightly lower jitter. When connected to a dCS Debussy, he said the sound was identical.
   
  The Audiophilleo on its own, or other bus powered converters like the Stello U3 may benefit a bit more from a higher quality cable than converters that mostly or completely use their own power. Regardless, I think your money is much better spent on a SoTM card, Vaunix, or AQVOX than an expensive USB cable.


----------



## che15

Thank u guys for the advise, last night I got a silnote silver USB cable for 125$ which I think is a really good deal. I have listened to wirewold and kimber USB both all silver construction .
These 2 cables were in my friends system ( macmini with pure music to a wadia 121 dac and I 
for sure could hear the difference between the 2 the WW was more dynamic with more detail and the kimber was warmer and sweeter sounding. The 2 were great and I could be happy with either.
I asked the question because I did not know if the AP1 wih PP would benefit as much .
Thanks Dave for answering that ? , I have no gotten the vaunix because I taught I better wait to see if Phillip come out with something similar to the vaunix .


----------



## drez

I have received my Vaunix hub - initial impressions are unfortunately not so good - after hooking the Vaunix up with the stock switchmode PSU I noticed  slight warming of the upper mids, a slight vagueness in the lower mids and overall a slight loosening in the timing.  To give an example piano notes are less precisely imaged, especially the left hand seems very muddled, whereas with direct USB every note is distinct from both hands and each note seems to originate from a unique point in space.
   
  Seems the Vaunix only uses positive and neutral from the wall power.  I would be willing to test a cheap ebay LiPo battery but I think the current problem is that I have just introduced two new elements into the USB chain which each will introduce their own losses to the digital signal (the Vaunix and the USB A-B adapter.)  I specifically chose a USB adapter as I wised to minimise the additional length of the USB connection, and this one seems decent enough with gold plated connections and hopefully isn't soldered by apes but honestly I don't think the USB adapter is the problem here.  I will try the short USB cable supplied with the AP2/purepower but I do not expect miracles to be honest.   I had plans to modify the internal voltage regulator in the Vaunix but I don't think that is worth the risk at this point either.
   
  Withouth lab equipment to test the ripple on the USB power coming from the Vaunix I cannot verify how good or bad the power is.  I should also note that the power from my computer PSU has very little ripple - the only possible issue is the ground point of the computer, but again this might not be a problem at all.  I also had my eye on a nice large capacity 12V LiFePO4 with protection circuit and charger I spotted but again I am really not very confident to spend another $150+ on this tweak at this point.
   
  EDIT:  Maybe its just that Phillip is right and only the power to the clocks and SPDIF output matter?  At this point I know where I would hedge my bets.


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> I have received my Vaunix hub - initial impressions are unfortunately not so good - after hooking the Vaunix up with the stock switchmode PSU I noticed  slight warming of the upper mids, a slight vagueness in the lower mids and overall a slight loosening in the timing.  To give an example piano notes are less precisely imaged, especially the left hand seems very muddled, whereas with direct USB every note is distinct from both hands and each note seems to originate from a unique point in space.
> 
> Seems the Vaunix only uses positive and neutral from the wall power.  I would be willing to test a cheap ebay LiPo battery but I think the current problem is that I have just introduced two new elements into the USB chain which each will introduce their own losses to the digital signal (the Vaunix and the USB A-B adapter.)  I specifically chose a USB adapter as I wised to minimise the additional length of the USB connection, and this one seems decent enough with gold plated connections and hopefully isn't soldered by apes but honestly I don't think the USB adapter is the problem here.  I will try the short USB cable supplied with the AP2/purepower but I do not expect miracles to be honest.   I had plans to modify the internal voltage regulator in the Vaunix but I don't think that is worth the risk at this point either.
> 
> Withouth lab equipment to test the ripple on the USB power coming from the Vaunix I cannot verify how good or bad the power is.  I should also note that the power from my computer PSU has very little ripple - the only possible issue is the ground point of the computer, but again this might not be a problem at all.  I also had my eye on a nice large capacity 12V LiFePO4 with protection circuit and charger I spotted but again I am really not very confident to spend another $150+ on this tweak at this point.




As I stated earlier, the Vaunix if anything would hurt not help the sound. Adding a wallwart power supply to an already nicely designed supply seems counterproductive to me.

This is what happens when you try to solve problems that AFAICT don't exist.


----------



## sridhar3

Did everybody's PP work straight out of the box?  I installed the drivers and flashed the firmware on the PP to the latest version.  When I connect the PP to the AP1, the PP starts making clicking sounds and cycling "AP Powered On" and "AP Powered Off".  The AP1 keeps showing a red message at the bottom that says "No Ext Power".  Not sure what the deal is.  Thoughts?

 Edit: I had the two daisy chained when this was going on.  When I connected each one individually to the computer, the issue stopped.  Not sure why this is.  I'd prefer to have the two daisy chained.
   
  Edit 2: Never mind, figured it out.  Swapped out the small USB cable that came with the PP for a different one, and now it works daisy chained. I guess that cable is busted.  Just tossed it in the garbage.


----------



## tme110

good troubleshooting.  Looking forward to your impressions.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Looking forward to your impressions with the Vaunix too... 
   
  EDIT: Is it possible to plug the Vaunix into your Audience? Would there be any benefit? 
   
  Quote:


sridhar3 said:


> Did everybody's PP work straight out of the box?  I installed the drivers and flashed the firmware on the PP to the latest version.  When I connect the PP to the AP1, the PP starts making clicking sounds and cycling "AP Powered On" and "AP Powered Off".  The AP1 keeps showing a red message at the bottom that says "No Ext Power".  Not sure what the deal is.  Thoughts?
> 
> Edit: I had the two daisy chained when this was going on.  When I connected each one individually to the computer, the issue stopped.  Not sure why this is.  I'd prefer to have the two daisy chained.
> 
> Edit 2: Never mind, figured it out.  Swapped out the small USB cable that came with the PP for a different one, and now it works daisy chained. I guess that cable is busted.  Just tossed it in the garbage.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





tme110 said:


> good troubleshooting.  Looking forward to your impressions.


 
   
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Looking forward to your impressions with the Vaunix too...
> 
> EDIT: Is it possible to plug the Vaunix into your Audience? Would there be any benefit?


 
   
  Thank you, gentlemen.  I'll do a brief write-up when I have a chance.  Based on what's been requested, looks like I'll need to move some gear around.
   
  I actually don't have the Vaunix plugged into the aR2p, but I could do that.  I actually hadn't thought of it.  Good idea.


----------



## sridhar3

I know how much you guys like pictures, so here's a quick teaser:
   
 
   
 
   
 
   

   
  Will be using AP1/PP -> Benchmark DAC1 USB -> Gilmore Lite w/ DPS -> Sony Qualia 010.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

THAT looks like a highly resolving system! 
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> I know how much you guys like pictures, so here's a quick teaser:
> 
> Will be using AP1/PP -> Benchmark DAC1 USB -> Gilmore Lite w/ DPS -> Sony Qualia 010.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> THAT looks like a highly resolving system!


 
   
  It is!  I'm planning to swap out the GLite for an SPL Phonitor in the next few months, hopefully.


----------



## tme110

the pp is larger than the AP itself?


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





tme110 said:


> the pp is larger than the AP itself?


 
   
  You bet!  Yeah, I was surprised too.  It's heavier as well.  Build quality is excellent though.


----------



## tme110

interesting, thanks.


----------



## sridhar3

Got some bad news.  Looks like once the AP1 has been modded, it's not designed to work without the PP.  Tried to unhook the AP1 from the PP and connect it directly to the Vaunix/laptop.  The bitrate display just flickers, and the error message "No Ext Power" appears on the bottom of the AP1 screen in red letters.


----------



## tme110

even more interesting and def good to know.  does kinda  make sense (since it had to be modified)


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That's my understanding as well; all modified AP devices require the PP battery supply. They're married at the barrel connector (hip).  
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Got some bad news.  Looks like once the AP1 has been modded, it's not designed to work without the PP.  Tried to unhook the AP1 from the PP and connect it directly to the Vaunix/laptop.  The bitrate display just flickers, and the error message "No Ext Power" appears on the bottom of the AP1 screen in red letters.


----------



## sridhar3

Aaaaaand now it's doing the clicking thing again.  I'm not sure what it is this time.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Check that the firmware is current via the menu. Should be v1.9. This is a know issue with previous versions of the firmware. 
   
  EDIT: Mine did the same thing on an earlier version of the firmware. 
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Aaaaaand now it's doing the clicking thing again.  I'm not sure what it is this time.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Check that the firmware is current via the menu. Should be v1.9. This is a know issue with previous versions of the firmware.
> 
> EDIT: Mine did the same thing on an earlier version of the firmware.


 
   
  It's v1.9.  I just updated the AP1 this afternoon.
   
  I'm going to uninstall all the drivers and try this from scratch.
   
  Edit:  Close to three and a half hours of troubleshooting.  DiskCleanup, Microsoft Windows Resource Checker (SFC), Check Disk, and reinstalling literally every single USB driver and controller.  Did all that, and it's still showing up as "Unknown Device" in the "Universal Serial Bus Controllers" section.  But for whatever reason, it seems to be working.  Only question is, when will it stop working and start clicking away to hell again?  If/when it does, it's going back to Audiophilleo.  I'm so ******* done with this nonsense.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

So, both the PP and the AP are current? PP firmware should be v1.9, the AP firmware should be 1.2? If you are current with those, then there's something wrong. Call Phillip. 
   
  I'm a Mac user, so no drivers necessary.


----------



## sridhar3

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> So, both the PP and the AP are current? PP firmware should be v1.9, the AP firmware should be 1.2? If you are current with those, then there's something wrong. Call Phillip.
> 
> I'm a Mac user, so no drivers necessary.


 
   
  AP1 firmware is v1.21.  PP firmware is 1.9.  Everything seems to be working okay... for now.  I'm going to just leave the damn thing alone and hope it doesn't start going haywire again.  If it wasn't such a neat toy, I probably wouldn't have expended so much effort to get it working again.  If it acts up again, I'll call Phillip.
   
  Thanks.


----------



## Currawong

I had weird issues with the PP seeming to drop dead, which Philip instructed me how to reset. Since then it has been fine, but it might not have liked being plugged and un-plugged at some point. Just brought out some very nice recordings made by Kostas Metaxas in Melbourne and enjoying the greater sense of space and pinpoint imaging with my whole kit.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I've experienced something similar a couple of times. I went through the PP interface to reset the device. Is that what you did? Are you still using the Vaunix? Any reflections/observations with or without? 
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> I had weird issues with the PP seeming to drop dead, which Philip instructed me how to reset. Since then it has been fine, but it might not have liked being plugged and un-plugged at some point. Just brought out some very nice recordings made by Kostas Metaxas in Melbourne and enjoying the greater sense of space and pinpoint imaging with my whole kit.


----------



## kLevkoff

I hate to be a buzz-kill, but hooking things up that way doesn't make a lot of sense.
   
  The Benchmark DAC1 (all versions) has a non-defeatable ASRC in it to reduce jitter.
  This means that ALL INCOMING DATA is reclocked to the Benchmark's internal clock.
  (You can read their tech briefs as to the details and why they were chosen....)
   
  I believe the USB input on the Benchmark is NOT asynchronous.....
  but the USB clocking doesn't matter because the ASRC will be reclocking the signal anyway.
  Using an asynch USB adapter might avoid the occasional actual USB error,
  and the ground-isolation of the AP + PP might reduce or eliminate some ground noise,
  but overall it's really a bit of a waste.
  (It WILL let you do 192/24 USB - which you couldn't before - but that's about it.)
  The whole point of paying the price of the AP is outstanding jitter reduction and,
  since the Benchmark will be discarding the nice low jitter clock produced by the
  AP and replacing it with its own clock anyway, that benefit will be wasted.
   
  The AP makes good sense with any DAC WITHOUT an ASRC (most don't have one),
  or with one like the new Emotiva XDA-2 (where the ASRC can be bypassed),
  but it's sort of wasted on a DAC with a non-bypassable ASRC.
   
  (With the Benchmark, a much cheaper, higher jitter asynch USB adapter will give you the same USABLE benefits,
  since the jitter at the input doesn't matter anyway.)
   
  Sorry
  Keith
   
   
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> I know how much you guys like pictures, so here's a quick teaser:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> I know how much you guys like pictures, so here's a quick teaser:
> 
> 
> 
> Will be using AP1/PP -> Benchmark DAC1 USB -> Gilmore Lite w/ DPS -> Sony Qualia 010.


----------



## kLevkoff

Harrumph.......
   
  It's only the DATA lines that are (and should be) 90 Ohms impedance.
  Since you aren't going to cut the data lines anyway, the cable project is trivial.
  The original data lines stay right where they are.
  Cut the power lines and run them to a separate connector and you're done.
  (The only cost is the two cables you'll be sacrificing.... and the one that becomes the power
  feed should be nice and heavy, but there's no point whatsoever in using an "audiophile" one for that.)
   
  Another thing to consider is that some USB devices may not like running on a power source that
  has no ground reference whatsoever to the data source.
  With a normal USB connection, both devices are connected to the same ground and +.
  This means that they (and the data) are REFERENCED to the same ground.
  The data itself is a differential signal (a data + and a data -).
  IN BASIC PRINCIPLE, differential signals don't need a ground but, in practice, that may not be true;
  it depends on the actual circuitry in the sender and receiver.
   
  When you cut that wire, and use a battery, you are totally floating the grounds between the sender and receiver.
  Some senders and some receivers simply may not be willing to work that way.
  (Devices INTENDED to provide galvanic isolation SPECIFICALLY incorporate circuits that work well that way.)
  Also, by cutting the ground reference connection, you open the possibility of OTHER noise happening between them.
  (One of the reasons common ground are normally used is to prevent noise voltages developing BETWEEN grounds.
  By isolating the grounds we are eliminating this protection.)
   
  The most sensible solution is to design the USB input of the DAC itself to incorporate galvanic isolation
  if the DAC is sensitive to ground noise.
   
  From the information provided, the Vaunix hub is designed using proper engineering principles...
  The power and signal grounds are separate (probably connected at a single point somewhere).
  This means that the Vaunix does a very good job of providing clean power to the receiver.
  I believe it also incorporates filtering to remove out-of-band noise from the signal and power lines themselves.
  It does NOT provide galvanic isolation between the source and receiver (and isn't intended to).
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> I don't that Y-cable needs to be that expensive - I was going to DIY one (just need to calculate the impedance to be close to 90 Ohms).  One could also just butcher a wirewold etc by running a stanley knife down the middle and reterminating the ends - it wouldn't be pretty but it would be a cheap[er] Y-cable with sure 90 Ohm impedance.  Perhaps like the starlight that came with the AP2/purepower
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sridhar3

Quote:  
   
  It's temporary. Will move the AP1/PP back to the Cary Xciter once I get my Cary CAD300-SEI.  Xciter only takes 48/16 over USB, and I need 96/24 input, so I use BNC via AP1.


----------



## pompon

So the purepower worth it ?
  Anyone else have try a simple usb hub and power it with AA battery like me to compare ?


----------



## kLevkoff

According to Philip, the AP (with PP) will NOT work without the PP unit connected -
  because the PP mod replaces the original isolated power supply that runs the output side of the AP with the input from the PP.
  If the PP's battery is dead, then it passes the power from the computer through to the AP (probably with some filtering),
  but you can't run the AP without the PP box connected.
   
  It is my understanding that the reason they couldn't include the option to switch back and forth is that the mod involves
  actually removing the original isolated power supply module that provides galvanically isolated power to the output
  section of the original AP.
   
  In principle, it should be possible to modify a USB cable to tap into the USB power from the computer,
  and then route this power to the PP input connector on the AP to power the other half of the AP.
  The end result would be similar to the AP with PP when the PP is discharged (and so running in charge mode).
  (This would let you run a modified AP "portable" without the PP, but would eliminate your galvanic isolation,
  so the result would NOT be equivalent to an unmodded AP, would almost certainly compromise the performance of the AP,
  and might actually risk damaging it..... It hardly seems worth the risk)
   
  As for the problem someone reported with power switching on and off.....
  all USB ports have a set limit on the amount of current they can supply,
  and there is a lot of variation between them (it's supposed to be a standard value).
  This is why some USB hard drives just won't work right attached to some PCs.
  There is also often a variation between individual ports on a single PC - or between front panel and rear panel ports.
  I've especially noticed that it tends to happen with some ports on some laptops.
  Also remember that EACH USB PORT has a set current limit.....
  so, if you plug an unpowered hub into a port, the single power limit on that port applies to the SUM of everything you plug into the hub (plus the hub itself).
  (So plugging an AP with or without a PP plus other stuff into a single unpowered hub would be a bad idea, and might even be bad with a wimpy powered hub.)
  Depending on which ports you use in certain computers, you may have the same situation.
  The solution there is to use a powered hub (ANY powered hub - preferably a decent one).
  Another solution, if you're using ports on a PC, is a wire that taps power from TWO USB ports.
  (It has two connectors that go to the computer, one full, and one that just uses the two power leads.
  These wires often come with USB hard drives.)
   
  Keith
   
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





sridhar3 said:


> Got some bad news.  Looks like once the AP1 has been modded, it's not designed to work without the PP.  Tried to unhook the AP1 from the PP and connect it directly to the Vaunix/laptop.  The bitrate display just flickers, and the error message "No Ext Power" appears on the bottom of the AP1 screen in red letters.


----------



## Trogdor

Does anyone know if Phil is on vacation or otherwise disposed? My LCD stopped working and I have been trying to contact him for the last day and half now. 

It was working fine then all of sudden, no display (unit still functions though).


----------



## Sid-Fi

Hi Currawong,
   
  I'm curious if the PP seemed to be as big of improvement as it has to be. I was expecting a subtle improvement, and was shocked to find that the jump in performance seemed to be close to the level of going from no interface to the AP2 - which was close to shocking for me. Then again my laptop and DAC at the time might have contributed to that perception. I was using the Audio-gd NFB-10WM as a dedicated DAC. I have since ordered the Yulong Sabre D18, but haven't received it yet.
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> I had weird issues with the PP seeming to drop dead, which Philip instructed me how to reset. Since then it has been fine, but it might not have liked being plugged and un-plugged at some point. Just brought out some very nice recordings made by Kostas Metaxas in Melbourne and enjoying the greater sense of space and pinpoint imaging with my whole kit.


----------



## Trogdor

trogdor said:


> Does anyone know if Phil is on vacation or otherwise disposed? My LCD stopped working and I have been trying to contact him for the last day and half now.
> It was working fine then all of sudden, no display (unit still functions though).




Phli's customer service is fantastic. He was away but got back to me and turned around my replacement in a day! 

I can not overstate how much better my JH3A sounds through the AP2 w/PP over the stock USB DAC or HiFace Gen1.


----------



## Currawong

I've finally (took a while!) posted a review on the product page for the Audiophilleo 1. Here it is though:
   
   

   Some years ago I upgraded the clock in a fairly inexpensive DAC experimentally and realised the importance of the quality of the digital input to the quality of the sound output. It wasn't long after that a number of companies came out with digital converters, especially USB ones, since the quality of USB inputs in DACs at the time was generally poor. They also allowed older DACs without USB to be used directly from a computer in a manner that improved over the usually low-quality optical or coax S/PDIF outputs available.
   
  I scratched my head for a long time over whether to buy a Halide Bridge or something from Empirical Audio. While I pondered what to get, Audio-gd made it easy by developing the Digital Interface, making the decision easy. I had, prior to that, used the Audiotrack Prodigy Cube as a converter, but after mine died and I read about their reputation for being un-reliable, I had wanted something else. 
   
  When the Prodigy Cube died, preventing me using my Reference 1 DAC, I impulse-bought a CD player, but felt that something was lacking in the sound quality. The idea that converters could sound different hadn't occurred to me., but along with my experiment with clocks, it was to lead me to search out great, and then far greater improvements in the sound quality from my DACs.
   
  As a jump from the Digital Interface, I eventually settled on the Audiophilleo 1. While it was considerably more expensive than the AP2, it has a number of useful features that were helpful, especially when attempting to trouble-shoot a lack of sound coming from my DAC, which has no display indicating what is going on inside. It can also simulate jitter and adjust the output to compensate for longer cables if necessary, as well as including a signal generator, which has been very useful for testing purposes. Part of the expense comes from the addition of a Wireworld USB cable (which is now optional if you want the AP1 but want to save a few dollars). The other thing that appealed to me was that it could be connected directly to my Reference 7 with an included BNC to BNC converter bypassing any possible effect of a cable. The inclusion of an attractive and functional case was welcome too. Choosing a colour was the hardest part.
   
 Connection:   
  With my MacBook Pro, connection couldn't be more simple: Plug it in and it works with audio files up to 24 bit and 192 kHz sample rates, including all the common frequencies from CD quality up to that. 
   
  With iTunes playback I've not ever had any issues. Using audiophile players, such as Pure Music, Amarra and others I've occasionally had issues of the music not playing. It's important to set the bit rate to 24 bit in Audio Midi set-up so the players can change the sample rate, which they can't do if it is set to 16-bit. Sometimes, after my new MacBook Air is put into sleep mode and woken (in Mountain Lion), I have to restart the AP1 for Amarra to continue working. Back when using Lion, a friend's Pure Music set-up refused to work at all with the AP1, though I've successfully used it, Pure Music I've noticed sometimes needs a bit of fiddling in the audio settings to recognise new components.
   
  With the AP1 connected and set as the main audio output device, the system volume controls the AP1's internal volume, the display of the AP1 updating to show the current volume in decibels, down as far as -72dB. A plug-in infrared remote sensor on a cable is included with the AP1, allowing the use of a remote control after programming to control the volume and some of the AP1's features, which is potentially very useful if you want to use it as a digital volume control.
   
  A cable is also included for a 12V trigger allowing the AP1 to switch on other compatible components in a system when it receives music.
   
 Sound:   
  I used the AP1 in three ways: The first by itself connected directly to my MacBook Pro. The second using a Vaunix lab-grade USB hub to power it; and the third using the hub and the Pure Power upgrade.
   
  It was immediately apparent that the AP1 was a significant upgrade over the Digital Interface. While the latter has a smooth and very listenable presentation, it doesn't deliver the clarity that the AP1 does. I did find, using the AP1 directly from my MacBook Pro or from a regular powered hub, that the treble in my system was mildly unpleasant. When I switched to using the Vaunix hub, which is designed for their signal generators and has a high quality power supply built in, any unpleasantness in the treble disappeared, leaving just the clarity. 
   
  From both discussions with manufacturers as well as research, my understanding is that despite there being low jitter, the quality of the S/PDIF output is equally important. This might explain why, despite having incredibly low jitter and a very carefully designed internal power supply, the AP1 still was slightly lacking using the power from my MacBook Pro.  
   
  This leads me to the Pure Power upgrade, which provides battery power for parts of the AP1 and AP2. In itself the Pure Power (PP from now on) is quite a bit more than just a battery pack. It requires irreversible modifications to the AP1 or AP2, to allow for a second power input. The consequences of this upgrade are harder to gauge, as I was without the AP1 for some weeks. However, after the units had "burned in" (my AP1 was replaced during the upgrade as the USB socket had become loose), I can only describe the result with my Reference 7.1, Metrum Octave and Calyx DAC as the kind of effortless, fatigue-free clarity one expects of the best high-end audio gear.
   
  With the Reference 7.1, the main addition was greater clarity. Some vagueness (something I experienced more with the older Reference 1 which had a more inferior digital input circuit) disappeared, resulting in an awesome balanced of clarity and naturalness. With the AP1 by itself, I'd sometimes wanted to use the Metrum Octave instead, with its more "organic" sound. With the addition of the Pure Power, that desire has gone.
   
  The Calyx DAC is an interesting unit, being USB-powered and having a high-quality USB digital input. The AP1, connected to the S/PDIF input easily bested the USB input. Using both with the Vaunix Hub raised the Calyx DAC closer to the level of my Reference 7.1 I felt (at least with my Stax rig. I think I'd need to try with a high-end speaker rig to tell them apart). Prior to that, the Calyx had, while presenting a wide and detailed soundstage, sounded rather flat and unmusical.  Sabre-based DACs already require very high quality digital inputs, due to their high-frequency internal clock, but it was interesting to note that the best possible will bring out the real capabilities of such DACs, which are otherwise at a disadvantage compared to their old-school R2R competitors which I usually prefer.
   
 Overall:   
  I'm very pleased with the improvements the AP1 and Purepower makes with my DACs over the Audio-gd Digital Interface (which I was already happy with). The value of the model 1 is decidedly in the features and most people will likely choose the bare-bones AP2 for $300 less.  However, I feel that it made a solid $895 upgrade to my DACs, significant because at the level of my DAC large improvements require investing a DAC much more expensive than that.


----------



## Orangecrush

Nice review Currawong. I ordered a A2 and PP for my Anedio D2. I already have an Aqvox. I was not expecting a huge improvement until I just read your findings with the Calyx. Now I can't wait to receive it!


----------



## axw

I also had issues with my USB socket. Hopefully, warranty service of Audiophilleo is fantastic, I received a repaired unit in a week or two. Highly recommended..
   
  On a side issue,  very curious how does AP compare with Kingwa's latest USB32 interface.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





orangecrush said:


> Nice review Currawong. I ordered a A2 and PP for my Anedio D2. I already have an Aqvox. I was not expecting a huge improvement until I just read your findings with the Calyx. Now I can't wait to receive it!


 
   
  I look forward to your impressions. I don't know why I bought the Calyx and not the D2 actually, as it would have been more practical.


----------



## hpz

Hi Guys,
   
  I just purchased a AP2 + PP and hooked it up to my PC running WASAPI from foobar.
   
  Current Chain
  Foobar WASAPI--> AP2 --> Wyred4Sound DAC2.
   
  I'm having problems with playing songs... It would cut out the first second of the songs i start to play.  It doesn't matter what bit rate from 44.1khz to 192khz.
   
  When I play a song, it initially starts playing for about 0.5secs and then there is silence for about 1 second before it resumes playing.
   
  This issue has never happened with the original onboard USB interface built into the DAC2.  It seems that the dac is relocking on the sampling rate during this time and hence i get a pause in sound, but I don't get why this should be the case....
   
  HPZ


----------



## sridhar3

Maybe your buffer is too high? Try 1020.


----------



## hpz

Further testing show that this still happens for all types of playback modes.  ASIO, WASAPI, KS and even Direct Stream all have the same problems.  I've tried all sorts of buffer settings and still can't get rid of the problem   This is pretty annoying because I lose the first second of the song each time I press play.  Also the DAC also relocks any time I skip into different parts of the track of the same song.
   
  I've tested on a Macbook (bitperfect) --> AP2 --> Wyred4Sound DAC2 and this combo works normally.  The DAC doesn't lose sync when I start playing a track.  It only relocks when i change to a hi rez file (which is normal).
   
  Anyone with any suggestions?
   
  HPZ


----------



## FauDrei

...and you are using audiophilleo windows dirver of generic windows driver?


----------



## hpz

I've tried both with and without the driver, the problem still exists


----------



## FauDrei

OK, few other things to check/try:
   

 audiphilleo firmware version? (1.20 is currently latest; Device manager, Sound, video and game controllers)
 audiophilleo on another USB port on same computer?
 using audiophilleo on same computer through powered USB hub?
 audiophilleo on another (similar windows) computer?


----------



## Orangecrush

Listening to the Audiophilleo and Purepower with the Anedio D2 and SBT with EDO. Works flawlessly. Will report more after 100 hours of burn in, but there is a significant improvement, especially with high rez files.

Has anybody ever compared the Aqvox with the Vaunix?

Also, how long is the jumper cable that comes with the Vaunix?


----------



## hpz

Well my AP2 died on me a few days back.  Back to the dealer it goes  
   
  Hopefully a new AP2 will fix the problems that I have been experiencing when it was working.


----------



## Caution

hpz, just as an FYI I have the same problem depending on what USB port I use, even if I turn off USB power saving mode via windows and my motherboard BIOS. Have you tried different ports or a different computer? I found the Foobar2000 is more susceptible to this issue over J river Media Center.


----------



## hpz

I tried two different ports on my computer (one at the front and one at the back), but that didn't solve it.  I don't have the AP2 anymore so i can't test any further.
   
  @Caution
   
  So you are saying that you got it working fine just by using a different usb port? If that's the case, there is still some hope for me lol


----------



## drez

Quote: 





hpz said:


> I tried two different ports on my computer (one at the front and one at the back), but that didn't solve it.  I don't have the AP2 anymore so i can't test any further.
> 
> @Caution
> 
> So you are saying that you got it working fine just by using a different usb port? If that's the case, there is still some hope for me lol


 
   
  I think there's a fair chance that whatever caused your audiophilleo to die may have contributed to the problems you encountered before.  I guess there's plenty of time to worry about the computer you were using when it gets back, but... a few general windows setting tweaks you may want to try:
   
  -turn off all power management options, no powering down of hard drives, no CPU power saving, no powering down usb devices etc.
  -turn off speed step or any power saving or speed stepping options for the cpu.
  -set performance priority to background tasks.
  -turn wifi off if you can.  LAN cable connection seems to be better if possible (windows wifi service tends to create a nasty latency spike ever minute or so which you will probably hear as a dropout)
  -use a lightweight antivirus like Vipre (less background I/O activity)
  -go through blackviper list and disable unnecessary processes (less background I/O activity)
   
  depending what you are using the computer for some or all of these settings may not be practical, so I guess some discretion is required.  Sorry if you have already gone through some of this stuff.


----------



## Caution

Quote: 





hpz said:


> I tried two different ports on my computer (one at the front and one at the back), but that didn't solve it.  I don't have the AP2 anymore so i can't test any further.
> 
> @Caution
> 
> So you are saying that you got it working fine just by using a different usb port? If that's the case, there is still some hope for me lol


 
   
  Yep! Also my laptop doesn't have this problem, I can use any port.


----------



## hpz

Thanks for the help guys,  I'll report back once I get it all back together.


----------



## Solude

Anyone running an AP1 or AP2 confirm what options you have for shared playback in Windows 7?  I got mine today and big downer no 88 or 176 options for 16 or 24 bit playback.  Kind of a big deal for the Octave which won't do 192.  Let me know soon because unless it flat out destroys the toslink Octave and USB fed DAC-2 I'll likely return it.


----------



## drez

from audiophilleo site:
   
*Why don't the 88.2 and 176.4 sample rates show up in the Windows control panel?*

All versions of Windows have a bug which causes these sample rates to not be displayed even though they are available. This will happen with any audio device.


----------



## Solude

Ya except that its not true.  The m2tech in my W4S shows 88 and 176 as does my onboard toslink soundcard.  But they suck so 
   
  Other observations, the slow mute thing... please make it an option.  Sucks to mute and still have a finger up 'one minute, almost there, ok go'


----------



## Orangecrush

Ok, I have well over 100 hours on the the Audiophilleo 2 + PurePower. I am feeding it with a SBT + EDO into an Anedio D2 Dac which is feeding my beloved Decware Torii MKIII and Zu Soul Superfly's.

I won't repeat everything said by Currawong and others on this excellent thread, but suffice to say, it is all true. It removes that last bit of glare, smoother and more organic presentation, wider and deeper soundstage, more 3 dimensional, tighter bass, more defined imaging and so on. 

The USB on the Anedio D2 is very, very good, but the Audiophilleo + PP clearly improves everything. These improvements are especially noticeable on High Rez tracks to which I am now addicted!

I was pleasantly surprised that my sweet spot is now much wider and I can turn up the volume much louder than before. Most of all, I just love how effortlessly the music flows. I thought my system was already engaging, but now it is simply sublime.

That automatic charging is flawless. You can just forget about it.

I will definitely be keeping mine!


----------



## Solude

Thought I might take a few shots so I'm being clear...
   
  W4S DAC-2 (m2tech hiface OEM)
   

   
  AP2 (1.7 driver)


----------



## drez

Quote: 





solude said:


> Thought I might take a few shots so I'm being clear...
> 
> W4S DAC-2 (m2tech hiface OEM)
> 
> ...


 
   
  That is pretty odd, I never looked at this.  Does anyone have a DAC that shows the sampling frequency of the incoming SPDIF signal?


----------



## DaveBSC

Do you need 88 or 176 in shared mode anyway? What's the point?


----------



## Solude

To be able to oversample before the DAC.  NOS DACs fed 44k do nasty stuff.  I don't play anything but 44k material so I need it up/oversampled before the NOS DAC.  If the W4S bests it, then yes it doesn't matter since it can do 192k and even fed 44 it upsamples so, no biggy.
   
  The other technical side of it is the way I use my rig, I rarely just sit and listen with nothing else going on.  Having the higher rates means a better mix is sent to the DAC, NOS or not.  Mixing anywhere from 2-128 sources to 16/44 is, not surprisingly, not lossless


----------



## Solude

Apparently the bug is limited to 24bit, which is why it shows up under 16bit for the m2tech.  Guess it comes down to whether you fancy more  lower res sample or less high res samples /shrug


----------



## Solude

Well I've finished my W4S DAC-2 v Metrum Octave using the AP2 on both, using JRiver WASAPI originally at 176K but dropped back down to 44K since I felt the higher rates pushed things to extreme left/right.  Anyway my notes are shall we say minimalist at best today but the overwhelming take away was the Metrum is just as detailed, tonally more balanced and doesn't stop events early.  I wouldn't have said so before but after the W4S sounds shouty in comparison, starting and stopping unnaturally fast.
   
  But this is a AP2 thread so... well now I'm on the Metrum exclusively and switching between onboard toslink and the AP2 isn't jumping out at me.  Granted this is not a critical listen but you'd think I'd be able to point at something.  Will also add that since the AP is supposed to be direct connected, that it should be redesigned to be an RCA male output with BNC adapters.  I say this because frankly most DACs have RCA jacks not BNC and the adapters provided have a lot of give.  They tend to drop signal often if not under pressure.  I might try a JKSPDIF but I have to say the new model is brutally ugly compared to the original Mk3 with toggle and led.  Or I might just call it a day and get a sound card with 22 and 24MHz clocks onboard.  Sigh.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





solude said:


> But this is a AP2 thread so... well now I'm on the Metrum exclusively and switching between onboard toslink and the AP2 isn't jumping out at me.  Granted this is not a critical listen but you'd think I'd be able to point at something.  Will also add that since the AP is supposed to be direct connected, that it should be redesigned to be an RCA male output with BNC adapters.  I say this because frankly most DACs have RCA jacks not BNC and the adapters provided have a lot of give.  They tend to drop signal often if not under pressure.  I might try a JKSPDIF but I have to say the new model is brutally ugly compared to the original Mk3 with toggle and led.  Or I might just call it a day and get a sound card with 22 and 24MHz clocks onboard.  Sigh.


 
   
   
  You're going to change your USB converter over an adapter? Just get a different S/Pdif cable, BNC on one end, RCA on the other.


----------



## Solude

No no just a suggestion for the manufacturer.  Even if your DAC was BNC you have to use an adapter.  Make the output the actual connection with an adapter to the other.  I'm likely going to change because its $600 and no better to my ears than the throw in on my motherboard.
   
  John Kenny has been good to talk to, very honest, but the new model is just ugly beyond belief.  The new functionality is great but the old look would have been better.
  
  The reality is I'll likely just get a good internal sound card with 44 and 48 clocks and call it a day.


----------



## DaveBSC

The reason behind using BNC is for accuracy. If you want a true 75 Ohm output, you need BNC for that. It's also supports much higher bandwidth than RCA, which could become important when dealing with 24/176 or 192 files. Nearly all of the converters have native BNC outputs for that reason, the Off-Ramp is one of very few high-end models that even offer an RCA output.


----------



## tme110

BNC can also transmit a signal with substantially less jitter compared to RCA (and significantly more when compared to optical).  You can just just a cheap adapter and you're exactly where with straight RCA but with the capability to use better cables (with correct impedance) later.


----------



## Solude

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Nearly all of the converters have native BNC outputs for that reason, the Off-Ramp is one of very few high-end models that even offer an RCA output.


 
   
  If by nearly all you means roughly 50% than sure.  RCA terminated digital cables that meet the 75ohm requirement have existed, and for cheap, for years now.
   
  Anyway I shot Phil an email, see if I got a dud adapter.


----------



## Solude

Well with help from John Kenny I finally dialed into what the presumably lower jitter 'sounds' like.  Ended up being easier to find on speakers than headphones.  The bass punches harder and image placement is more focused, pinpoint, less space.  John explained it as events occurring within a tighter frame so its less spread out over time.  When harmonics line up... more punch.  When events have clear edges... so does the stage.
   
  So now the question is... is there another way here for less than the $600 AP2? JKSPDIF comes in at $450 shipped, the MF V-Link 192 at $250, the m2tech HF2 $185.


----------



## che15

I have both the Audiophileo 1 with pp and JKDAc32 . I use the Audiophileo pair with amarra and the JKDAC with jriver and jplay. The Audiophilio with one of my headphone rigs and the JKDAC with my quad - spendor and rel system. They both produce amazing sound , like I never heard before .
I have listen to a few 10k DACs and CD players and nothing has bettered these 2 amazing converters. I would recommend them to everyone outthere


----------



## Orangecrush

The Audiophilleo really blossoms after 200 hours. Listen to it straight for a week or two and then try removing it. For me it was night and day. Mine will never leave my system. Also have PurePower.


----------



## hpz

Well I got my replacement AP2 (working for now) and the original issue with the 1 second skipping still exists.
   
  I've now tried it on every single usb port and still no luck 
   
  I've tried it with another dac and the issue still occurs.  But plugging it back into the mac and the problem is solved.
   
  It's definitely something to do with how foobar executes the play command and causing the AP2 to lose sync for 1 second. I'm just not sure what yet.


----------



## Caution

Hey Hpz, try a trial version of Jriver Media Center (Not to be confused with Jriver Media Player - this one doesn't have bit perfect output options iirc) see if that fixes the problem.


----------



## hpz

Just tested Jriver media Center and it works normally! yay.
   
  Something strange happening with foobar 
   
  Update: Actually it seems that the default crossfade in JRiver some how doesn't cause the 1 second skip.  I changed it so that there is no crossfade and the issue still remains.  
   
  As a side note at least in JRiver i can place a small 0.1 sec crossfade and the skip will not occur.  The 1 second skip still occurs when playing the very first song, which is bearable I guess.
   
  Setting the Seek so that it is on Gapless gets rid of the skipping issue while seeking.


----------



## Solude

The AP2 powers down if not used.  Big time grrr moment since I don't care about the tiny amount of A/C it uses.  But that could be your 1s silence.  I tend to double tap play to wake it, then play it.  I believe the AP1 has an option to disable that in the menu.


----------



## hpz

The AP2 only powers down after about 30 or so mins of non use i think.  It definitely isn't the case of the AP2 powered down because it will constantly happen and I can repeat the issue. 
   
  For now I'm using the JRiver media centre with relatively good success.  The first song gets the stutter, but all subsequent songs played work fine (thanks to the crossfade).  Its something to do with the usb needing to reinitialise if i start the playback of a song.  The crossfade makes certain that the audio feed continues between songs and hence there is no stutter.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





solude said:


> If by nearly all you means roughly 50% than sure.  RCA terminated digital cables that meet the 75ohm requirement have existed, and for cheap, for years now.
> 
> Anyway I shot Phil an email, see if I got a dud adapter.


 
   
  At the high-end, converters with single S/Pdif outputs tend to use BNC jacks. Making an S/Pdif cable with a 75 Ohm impedance isn't that hard. RCA connectors and jacks are a different matter. Most of them are _not _75 Ohm, regardless of what they claim.


----------



## Solude

Most aren't, Canare RCAPs are   That said, define high end.  The only DAC on my radar is the PS PWD2 and its RCA as well.
   
  In the end it really doesn't matter.  Think we can agree on this though... if you have BNC on one end and RCA on the other... you lose any advantage BNC had and possibly even worse since 75 ohm RCA standards aren't designed around BNC on the other side, ya?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





solude said:


> Most aren't, Canare RCAPs are   That said, define high end.  The only DAC on my radar is the PS PWD2 and its RCA as well.
> 
> In the end it really doesn't matter.  Think we can agree on this though... if you have BNC on one end and RCA on the other... you lose any advantage BNC had and possibly even worse since 75 ohm RCA standards aren't designed around BNC on the other side, ya?


 

 High-end converters. Anedio U2, Audiophilleo, ART Legato, Alpha USB, CIAudio Transient MK2, Diverter 192, Human Audio Tabla, Wavelink HS, Off-Ramp 5, all have BNC outputs as standard. The Soulution 590 USB and the Stahl-tek ABC offer both. Most high-end DACs offer both, the Alpha DAC is one of the few that is BNC only.


----------



## kLevkoff

He's sort of right.
   
  Windows doesn't always display the available sample rates correctly... it depends on the driver and Windows.
  The AP will cheerfully do 88 or 176 in WASAPI, or in Windows XP, so it can certainly do them.
  Presumably, however, Windows 7 doesn't correctly interact with the AP driver.
   
  The bigger issue is that whatever rate you have set in that "shared" dialog actually serves as a default,
  and Windows 7 will usually re-sample anything you play to that sample rate (anything you play in DS mode),
  which you would probably prefer it didn't do.
   
  You play something in Foobar, in DS mode, with nothing else playing, and the "allow apps to have exclusive control" box checked,
  and you will find that, while Foobar displays the correct rate, what's actually coming out is being re-sampled to
  the rate you have chosen in that dialog box.
   
  It won't do that in WASAPI (which works as it should).
   
  Windows XP doesn't do any of that odd stuff.....
   
   
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> from audiophilleo site:
> 
> *Why don't the 88.2 and 176.4 sample rates show up in the Windows control panel?*
> 
> All versions of Windows have a bug which causes these sample rates to not be displayed even though they are available. This will happen with any audio device.


----------



## Solude

True and if I wasn't running a NOS DAC it wouldn't matter.  Actually as it turns out... still doesn't matter since after actually using the damn thing instead of reading about it, I prefer 44 to 96.
   
  In other news, I'm likely going to bring in 1 more DAC so round out my 'trials' and Philip has been super cool about extending my trial period to accommodate the comparison.  The AP isn't cheap but the support is awesome!


----------



## tme110

Quote: 





solude said:


> Most aren't, Canare RCAPs are   That said, define high end.  The only DAC on my radar is the PS PWD2 and its RCA as well.
> 
> In the end it really doesn't matter.  Think we can agree on this though... if you have BNC on one end and RCA on the other... you lose any advantage BNC had and possibly even worse since 75 ohm RCA standards aren't designed around BNC on the other side, ya?


 
   
  I'm pretty sure you'd still come out ahead with only one side BNC.  Then you could still use a proper 75 ohm cable and then a simple adapter.  The adapter is just a short and could wind up being the same as some bnc connectors anyway.  Besides, you next DAC may have bnc too.  I think all mine have bnc and my adapters have bnc though it was something I looked for.


----------



## che15

I wonder if you guys could help me to set up my PP and Audiophilio 1 so that the batteries r always charged. It use to work fine in that regard but I have some problem with them and resetting everything has messed things up. My PP use to only come on when I started amarra, now it comes on as soon as my iMac comes out of sleep mode and the battery gets used up. This did not happen before. 
I wonder what setting I messed up!

Thanks


----------



## Solude

Email Phil.


----------



## che15

I have, printed the manual and read it . Have not been able to fix.
Phillip must be busy or still sick , he was sick over te weekend.


----------



## WarrenR

Hello all.
   
  I have come across a AP 2nd hand and I'm going through with the purchase.  Its an original one bought over a year ago.
   
  I also have £100 ($150) extra to either buy a AQVOX power supply or a battery pack (if one exists for that price).
   
  How would I best spend the £100?  Are there any battery packs available for £100?
   
  I will be using the AP with a Rega DAC and a Mac Mini with Pure Music software.
   
  I currently have a HiFace 2 which is decent, but the AP is too good to turn down.
   
  Thanks.


----------



## Solude

On music.  The AP series has its transformer isolation before the clocks so they are not fed by 'dirty' power.


----------



## WarrenR

Really?
   
  What I've reads seems to state that battery power is beneficial to the AP.


----------



## Solude

Probably is if done right, but do you actually know that the AQVOX is done right?  Or that the cheap battery packs don't have even noisier charging units than your USB?  I know my PC power supply has stupid low ripple and noise so its not even on my radar.  Audiophilleo's own battery unit is routed to the clocks and output only so its pretty clear they believe its more important to isolate the processor and output more than anything else.  That and frankly, you could very well not even be able to tell the difference between the AP2 and HF2 depending on your DAC.


----------



## WarrenR

Quote: 





solude said:


> Probably is if done right, but do you actually know that the AQVOX is done right?  Or that the cheap battery packs don't have even noisier charging units than your USB?  I know my PC power supply has stupid low ripple and noise so its not even on my radar.  Audiophilleo's own battery unit is routed to the clocks and output only so its pretty clear they believe its more important to isolate the processor and output more than anything else.  That and frankly, you could very well not even be able to tell the difference between the AP2 and HF2 depending on your DAC.


 
   
  I don't know why you are shooting me down.  I only asked a question.  You are also inferring that I'm wasting my time buying the AP if I have a HiFace 2.  
   
  What is your problem??  
   
  The AP is a good deal.  If it doesn't make a difference I can sell it for what I paid.  
   
  I only asked the question because I have heard a battery pack can make a difference.  I have also read posts from people who have used the Aqvox to good effect.


----------



## Solude

Not shooting you down.  Shooting down the idea that just because you can do something that it makes it a good idea   Last I checked you don't make the AQVOX or AP   And no one who has liked the AQVOX can show you that its a clean supply, its an assumption.  The other thing is its EU 220V only so your location isn't listed but if you are here in NA... not an option.
   
  The point of a usb>spdif adapter is to get a good spdif output.  Once you have that, diminishing returns kick in.  My Metrum has 0 input jitter reduction scheme going on, so it is a good candidate for having the 'best'.  The PWD2 I have coming in has a great jitter reduction scheme so I don't think the AP2 will be even needed.
   
  Your DAC could be good enough to not care whether its fed by an AP2 or HF2, so keep your money until you know one way or the other.


----------



## grokit

Who sells the Metrum Octave?


----------



## Solude

I do in a few weeks   Otherwise HiFi Heaven http://hifiheaven.net/store/Metrum-Acoustics-NOS-Mini-DAC-Octave


----------



## Solude

Well my new cables came in allowing me to compare the AP2 w/ WireWorld UV to my old EMU 1212m which also has dedicated crystal clocks for 44 and 48 as well as galvanic isolation.  As good as the 1212m was back in 2004 for PC audio... it just doesn't compete with the AP2.  In comparison the 1212m almost sounds broken.  The sound is brighter, edgier, not fuzzy and still focused but completely flat down low.  Imagine a sound that start flat and laid back and as frequency increases so does attack and dynamics... weird result let me tell you 
   
  My PWD2 should hit my door Monday or Tuesday and then the real, almost fair, comparison can begin.  A big part of me hopes the PWD2 has a USB input that is as good as the AP2 because well $600 is $600 
   
  But for now its fair to say the AP2 is without a question better than onboard spdif and professional soundcards as well.  The level above the EMU costs more than the AP2 so... not really relevant.  I'd love to have another usb>spdif on hand to see how much of the performance is from being out of the PC but since I'm happy with the AP2, not much point


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





solude said:


> Well my new cables came in allowing me to compare the AP2 w/ WireWorld UV to my old EMU 1212m which also has dedicated crystal clocks for 44 and 48 as well as galvanic isolation.  As good as the 1212m was back in 2004 for PC audio... it just doesn't compete with the AP2.  In comparison the 1212m almost sounds broken.  The sound is brighter, edgier, not fuzzy and still focused but completely flat down low.  Imagine a sound that start flat and laid back and as frequency increases so does attack and dynamics... weird result let me tell you
> 
> My PWD2 should hit my door Monday or Tuesday and then the real, almost fair, comparison can begin.  A big part of me hopes the PWD2 has a USB input that is as good as the AP2 because well $600 is $600
> 
> But for now its fair to say the AP2 is without a question better than onboard spdif and professional soundcards as well.  The level above the EMU costs more than the AP2 so... not really relevant.  I'd love to have another usb>spdif on hand to see how much of the performance is from being out of the PC but since I'm happy with the AP2, not much point


 
  I see some things listed in your for sale section)
   
  Ever heard or considered using the Off-Ramp 5 if you really want to hear a proper sounding USB converter?
   
  My .02=I have listened to a LOT of converters/soundcards/plain vanilla dvd players etc. etc. etc.  I have heard differences, but at the same time, the differences are so tiny, I question what exactly it is that people hear. Now on different systems, I can hear very very apparent to simply more subtle but easily enough heard based differences.  This all said, every time I came back from auditions of extremely high rez/exceptional recordings+top flight front ends using the very best USB converters or all in one DAC's with superior conversion on the usb side, I find my system using a nice front end w/mediocre 'source" to sound vastly superior.  It is not to say I think my sound is something to take pride in, but when some of these systems I have heard have won the best of RMAF or CES shows, I scratch my head.
   
  When I have tested various sources in my system, I hear differences, but the funny thing is, these differences disappear depending on the listening position.  I.E. I play a disc via dvd or cdp, I listen to a high end USB converter (I consider AP2 to be mid-fi in the scale of costs/performance/etc.), or even one of these budget mid-fi converters.  I say wow, this sounds very lively but not necessarily in a bad or good way...just initial impression vs. another source.  I put on the other source and say, ahhh, it sounds more "hi-fi", as in, more refined.  I put on a different one and say it sounds like this/that/and so on and so forth.  BUT, for whatever reason, when the listening position is changed, so is the sound of the source to the extent that even the most big buck source that supposedly rivals anything ever made as a source, is absolutely no different or so very subtle in difference I need to constantly a/b the two...I cannot be convinced to say one is absolutely and in fact superior or inferior.
   
  I do not hear any of these adjectives or words you have said about bass drop off or sound stage focus and blah blah blah stuff.  If I had all the money possible, I would use the Off Ramp 5 since it has the most refined sound that I have heard, even if this sound is extremely subtle to be heard for me, it is there and I would pay the money for one if I had it.  Well I do have the money, but no offense to this exceptional converter that has made the AP2 sound absolutely atrocious and terrible/mediocre in another's system, I still find the differences of the sources I have to be so close that it really doesn't make any sense to dish out $1500 more than what I use.
   
  In the end, I have concluded that the source is very important, but it is very important per one's own system.  I have been told that my system may not be high enough resolution to hear the grand differences, but I have never once told the person that their sound is absolutely terrible and misses a TON of information that my system is producing, along with far more musical satisfaction.
   
  My .02 is to have a listen at various listener's positions to see if you still hear such drastic differences before you continue on the dac/source/blah blah blah path.  I may be the only one or one of few, but my ears are extremely discriminating even when in the end, the flawless system for me is the one we all know to be compromised, but fills in the majority of the things we love most about the sound we hear and enjoy as a hobby and pass time.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## WNBC

You are saying at some point there is limiting return for what we spend on higher end audio gear?  That's not too hard to believe.  Really depends on how much each person is willing to pay for experimentation and acquiring subtle improvements.
   
  Since you reviewed the Hiface 2 in one thread can you compare it to the AP2?  A lot of people are interesting in hearing such a comparison.  
   
  Quote: 





audioexcels said:


> I see some things listed in your for sale section)
> 
> Ever heard or considered using the Off-Ramp 5 if you really want to hear a proper sounding USB converter?
> 
> ...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





wnbc said:


> You are saying at some point there is limiting return for what we spend on higher end audio gear?  That's not too hard to believe.  Really depends on how much each person is willing to pay for experimentation and acquiring subtle improvements.
> 
> Since you reviewed the Hiface 2 in one thread can you compare it to the AP2?  A lot of people are interesting in hearing such a comparison.


 
  I personally did not care for the AP2.  The Hiface 2 was nothing special but is a cheap method for a good enough source.  I would not say the Hiface 2 is superior since this is all system relative, but it wasn't obtrusive like the AP2 was.  A friend also could not stand the sound of the AP2 nor could another person that we tested the Off-Ramp 4 and 5 against AP2 stand.  But maybe others are getting a sound from the AP2 that is good for whatever their ears and system hear which is why I would not write off the AP2 since it's only been my own impression+a close friend's+a guy that has a truly top shelf system even if I think my own sounds superior.  I own some Tad based speakers and if I cannot hear these amazing differences between sources through them, I guess I need Tad's Reference Ones maybe?  Even my other speakers that are highly resolving were very similar with how each source is as I described and only a very subtle difference all in all.  I personally think my pre-dac has a lot to do with things, but that others have shared my same thoughts/opinion means my ears hear well enough.
   
  AP2 is aggressive and was overpowering by comparison to the Hiface 2.  AP2 may have "seemed" more detailed, but after a lot of listening to various stuff, I absolutely would not stand to hear Charlie Parker's sax sound as if it was playing the sound of a horn without a person blowing into it to make that sound.  Hiface 2 was simply regular sounding, definitely more new sounding than the Hiface 1...kinda like comparing an older cdp with a newer one...you get more crispy/detailed/energetic sound, but after listening to the two and at different listening positions (cannot emphasize this enough), they sound the same.  I never did compare Hiface 1 vs. 2 like this because I did not realize how things were influenced or became influenced as a consequence, but my guess is that both would have or do sound quite similar enough if you listen to one at one position, one at another position.
   
  The only thing I can say about what may be happening in my own situation is the issue of gain where a properly done source simply provides a proper coax that is as linear as is possible.  For example, the Hiface and even AP2 all pushed gain into my system, linear or not so, I have no idea.  It simply mean turning down the gain on my pre-dac.  The Off-Ramp had a very linear gain where it went in steps and made for a very clean signal from amps-preamp-dac-source.  Sure it uses very expensive and fancy clocks, but I don't "hear" these things IMHO, but do hear how well the device simply sits in the chain and enables the rest of the equipment to match well with it.
   
  Sorry I cannot be of any help with the AP2 vs. Hiface 2 other than to say it really is user dependent more than anything else.


----------



## Trogdor

audioexcels said:


> I personally did not care for the AP2.  The Hiface 2 was nothing special but is a cheap method for a good enough source.  I would not say the Hiface 2 is superior since this is all system relative, but it wasn't obtrusive like the AP2 was.  A friend also could not stand the sound of the AP2 nor could another person that we tested the Off-Ramp 4 and 5 against AP2 stand.  But maybe others are getting a sound from the AP2 that is good for whatever their ears and system hear which is why I would not write off the AP2 since it's only been my own impression+a close friend's+a guy that has a truly top shelf system even if I think my own sounds superior.  I own some Tad based speakers and if I cannot hear these amazing differences between sources through them, I guess I need Tad's Reference Ones maybe?  Even my other speakers that are highly resolving were very similar with how each source is as I described and only a very subtle difference all in all.  I personally think my pre-dac has a lot to do with things, but that others have shared my same thoughts/opinion means my ears hear well enough.
> 
> AP2 is aggressive and was overpowering by comparison to the Hiface 2.  AP2 may have "seemed" more detailed, but after a lot of listening to various stuff, I absolutely would not stand to hear Charlie Parker's sax sound as if it was playing the sound of a horn without a person blowing into it to make that sound.  Hiface 2 was simply regular sounding, definitely more new sounding than the Hiface 1...kinda like comparing an older cdp with a newer one...you get more crispy/detailed/energetic sound, but after listening to the two and at different listening positions (cannot emphasize this enough), they sound the same.  I never did compare Hiface 1 vs. 2 like this because I did not realize how things were influenced or became influenced as a consequence, but my guess is that both would have or do sound quite similar enough if you listen to one at one position, one at another position.
> 
> ...




Wow! I have the EXACT opposite opinion:

I have been a Hiface 1 user for a long time and based on measurements and my own ears, its has always been the weakest link in my setup. The sound is just not as detailed as the AP2 and I find bass sorely lacking with the Hiface 1. I mean the AP2 was a magic moment when I first tried it - it was that much of a step up (I remember telling a fellow HeadFier that I had to turn DOWN the JH3A bass knob because all of sudden there was so much more of it).

Another problem with the original Hiface is the coaxial output was off spec which caused distortion. I believe this has been rectified by the Hiface2. But since the 2 is still not isolated from the USB bus, I am going to venture that guess is still some degradation in the signal (whether that's audible or not that's significant or not I won't comment on).

I am using MBP->Audirvana Direct Mode->AP2 w/PP->JH3A->JH16P. 

What I DO BELIEVE you might have ran into because here is something I did notice:

Older recordings sound worse because the AP2 is very revealing. Poor recordings will just get worse and worse as your reproduction system gets better and better. I found the Hiface much EASIER on the ear because of this. Another way to balance or flavor your sound is to have a very revealing source and then use some high quality tube amp to soften the edges (fuzzy distortion can be quite sexy with older jazz recordings breathing new life in a digital world - its not for me, but I understand the appeal).

YMMV and I have not had the chance to try the Hiface 2 yet.


----------



## pompon

Hello, someone with Audiophilleo + PurePower experimented a "better" usb cable on it ? Signifiant difference or not ?
   
  And with vaunix + purepower it's stack ?


----------



## drez

I have purepower ap2 here. I tried vaunix and didn't like it. Cables still sound a little different, they are worth trying IMO, I can recommend a good one PPAStudio green label. You can use vaunix with purepower but I did not like the results and did not find it to be an improvement. I think my computer 5v is already better than vaunix anyway, very low ripple, maybe that is why. I also dont like adding more cables and connections than is necessary, but that is just my philosophy.


----------



## Currawong

I started using the Vaunix before I got the Pure Power upgrade. Since the PP upgrade improves the S/PDIF output, which the Vaunix likely helped with, it wouldn't surprise me if the Vaunix would make for little, if any improvement afterwards.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

After repeated tests with and w/o the Vaunix feeding the PP, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits for the PP/AP2 combo are negligible. Remember that when the PP is active, the USB power source should be disconnected--the battery is supposed to be the primary power source. If there is a change, then something must be wrong with the DC/PP interface as the PP would be still drawing power from the USB power source. However, I still have the Vaunix in the loop because it's my only USB hub. 
   
  For me the PP was a significant addition and allows the AP2 to get out of the way of the music. Any vestige of grain that was left with the AP2 alone is gone.
   
  I like what I'm hearing.
   
  I'd still like to audition the EA stuff, but I'm enjoying my music system too much to consider any changes at this time. (Well, maybe there are some new headphones in my future 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.)


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Oh, on USB cables? It made a difference for me, and I still love my Wire World Platinum Starlight USB cable. It's smooth and neutral (which is probably how my system as a whole sounds).


----------



## Tuberoller1

I have an AP2 with an AQVOX power supply hooked up to it.  I am thinking of sending it off to get pure power installed.  Has anyone ever compared PP to AQVOX, and if so is it worth it?


----------



## Solude

I don't think the AP2 benefits much from either unless your power is really fubar because of where the AP2 puts its isolation.  That said, if you have to empty your pocket...
   
  http://sotm-audio.com/english/products/tx-usbexp.php
   
  This way the feed is clean and when you ditch the AP2 or get another DAC with a good receiver... you're still set.


----------



## Trogdor

solude said:


> I don't think the AP2 benefits much from either unless your power is really fubar because of where the AP2 puts its isolation.  That said, if you have to empty your pocket...
> 
> http://sotm-audio.com/english/products/tx-usbexp.php
> 
> This way the feed is clean and when you ditch the AP2 or get another DAC with a good receiver... you're still set.




The PP improves the AP2. Talk to Phil about the measurements, its worth the upgrade.


----------



## Solude

The problem with measurements when trying to sell a power add-on is that you aren't going to seek out a noise free PC to do it


----------



## Trogdor

solude said:


> The problem with measurements when trying to sell a power add-on is that you aren't going to seek out a noise free PC to do it




Well...I'll say this, for everyday use with commodity (mainstream) notebooks and desktops, the PP is a worthy update. If you can achieve the same or better results via other third-party products, great.


----------



## drez

You could always upgrade computer poower supply if you are into DIY windows machines.
   
  Purepower is a definite improvement, much better coherency and separation, I have compared stock and purepower side by side and the difference was obvious.  
   
  IMO purepower should be a step above solutions that just feed power to the USB as it bypasses the AP2 internal regulator and feeds very clean power to where it matters most.  In fact I tested the Vaunix (which is not linear supply like the AQVOX bit is switching) with the PP AP2 and found it did more harm than good in my setup (my computer PSU already has very low ripple).  I might try a USB supply in the future but IMO purepower is pretty much optimal.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Quote: 





drez said:


> You could always upgrade computer poower supply if you are into DIY windows machines.
> 
> Purepower is a definite improvement, much better coherency and separation, I have compared stock and purepower side by side and the difference was obvious.
> 
> IMO purepower should be a step above solutions that just feed power to the USB as it bypasses the AP2 internal regulator and feeds very clean power to where it matters most.  In fact I tested the Vaunix (which is not linear supply like the AQVOX bit is switching) with the PP AP2 and found it did more harm than good in my setup (my computer PSU already has very low ripple).  I might try a USB supply in the future but IMO purepower is pretty much optimal.


 
  After more than a first impression in my system, the Vaunix "did no harm." but did not improve things as I originally reported.


----------



## Sid-Fi

I had this exact same setup and ended up adding the PurePower. It was much more noticable of an improvement than I was expecting. It has been quite a while since I added the PurePower, but I remember the background feeling blacker, micro-details improving, and it sounding noticeably more organic/musical. I didn't think the difference between using the Aqvox in front of the AP2 was very noticeable, if at all. I only did it since it seemed like it might help a little at least theoretically. I sold the Aqvox a time later and bought the PurePower, and haven't looked back.
  Since then, I added a much more resolving DAC in my Yulong Sabre D18 (compared to my Audio-gd NFB-10WM. The micro-detail and blackness of background are awesome with this DAC and AP2/PP. It became clear that AP2/PurePower can continue to scale with better and better gear.
   
  Quote:


tuberoller1 said:


> I have an AP2 with an AQVOX power supply hooked up to it.  I am thinking of sending it off to get pure power installed.  Has anyone ever compared PP to AQVOX, and if so is it worth it?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Here's the new, "not-a-color" (Black) Audiophilleo Pure Power Battery Power Supply. It's the same as before, but in svelte Black. I like it.  
   
  As background, I received one of the very first PP releases which turned out to have a screen anomaly--it would light up, but the readout was very faint. Held it at very awkward angles, I could just barely make out the display. I contacted Phillip and described the condition. He offered to send me a new unit right away, so that I didn't have to be without music. Phillip has provided exceptional service throughout my product relationship with him. 
   
  The new "not-a-color" Black units aren't on the Web site yet, but I'll bet they're right around the corner!
   
  For those with AP1/AP2 units, the latest firmware has been posted to the Web site, v. 1.25.


----------



## rsbrsvp

Can Audiophilleo and pure power be sonically superior to direct Asynchronys USB input? Has anyone compared them? It would seem that it would not be as good. True- the device has it's own Asyn USB input, and let's even say it has a much better clock than my DAC's USB asyn input. Nevertheless, the second this device transfers the signal to SPDIF- the jitter increases, unlike direct asyn USB input where whatever jitter is removed by the clock- at least it for the most part does not increase.


----------



## Solude

Thinking about it wrong.  The AP2 and all USB > SPDIF devices, including the one inside the box, take USB, process it and spit out SPDIF to the DAC.  The question is whether your internal usb>spdif is better than the AP2.  A lot of them use the m2tech HiFace OEM or Tenor... which is to say a garbage one


----------



## pompon

My AP1 + PP is on the way.
  I ordered red ferrary.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> Can Audiophilleo and pure power be sonically superior to direct Asynchronys USB input? Has anyone compared them? It would seem that it would not be as good. True- the device has it's own Asyn USB input, and let's even say it has a much better clock than my DAC's USB asyn input. Nevertheless, the second this device transfers the signal to SPDIF- the jitter increases, unlike direct asyn USB input where whatever jitter is removed by the clock- at least it for the most part does not increase.


 
   
  It really depends on the async USB being used in the DAC vs. its S/PDIF input. The only thing I've had match it is the new VIA 32-bit chip with custom drivers outputting I2S directly into the Audio-gd DACs. I haven't tried the TAS1020B solutions yet (from Centrance and Wavelength that are used in a number of DACs from various companies). The AP1/PP wipes the floor with the single XMOS-based solution I have here though.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Just a heads up that I listed my Audiophilleo2 and PurePower on the for sale forums. I have really loved this setup as I have described in all of my posts in this thread over the last year or two. Changes to my work/life scheduled have made it increasingly difficult to find time to sit and enjoy my full-size rig, so I have decided to sell it off and go to a high-end portable setup.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/646081/audiophilleo2-with-purepower-upgrade-w-free-wireworld-ultraviolet-usb-cable


----------



## Trogdor

sid-fi said:


> Just a heads up that I listed my Audiophilleo2 and PurePower on the for sale forums. I have really loved this setup as I have described in all of my posts in this thread over the last year or two. Changes to my work/life scheduled have made it increasingly difficult to find time to sit and enjoy my full-size rig, so I have decided to sell it off and go to a high-end portable setup.
> 
> 
> [COLOR=810081]http://www.head-fi.org/t/646081/audiophilleo2-with-purepower-upgrade-w-free-wireworld-ultraviolet-usb-cable[/COLOR]





What's sad is for me, this IS part of my high-end portable setup! Sigh....


----------



## Currawong

I've been playing around with my iPad and audio streaming. Using the Vaunix hub in the middle to allow the iPad to work with it, I had it almost streaming 192k. The AP1 showed 192k but the music was distorted.  Going back to 96k files, they sound better streamed through the iPad than direct from my MacBook Air. Not sure if the "better" is actually better or not, but the binaural Amber Rubath album sounds gentler and more delicate from the iPad, but more forward and aggressive with the MacBook Air. It's quite maddening. Would be great if the AP1 worked with 192k from the iPad though!


----------



## Sid-Fi

Haha, that is funny... .
   
  On a side note, my Audiophilleo2 and PurePower sold already. It only lasted a day on the for sale forums. I'll surely miss it.
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> What's sad is for me, this IS part of my high-end portable setup! Sigh....


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Interesting observations. How are you streaming 192K files? 
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> I've been playing around with my iPad and audio streaming. Using the Vaunix hub in the middle to allow the iPad to work with it, I had it almost streaming 192k. The AP1 showed 192k but the music was distorted.  Going back to 96k files, they sound better streamed through the iPad than direct from my MacBook Air. Not sure if the "better" is actually better or not, but the binaural Amber Rubath album sounds gentler and more delicate from the iPad, but more forward and aggressive with the MacBook Air. It's quite maddening. Would be great if the AP1 worked with 192k from the iPad though!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





solude said:


> Thinking about it wrong.  The AP2 and all USB > SPDIF devices, including the one inside the box, take USB, process it and spit out SPDIF to the DAC.  The question is whether your internal usb>spdif is better than the AP2.  A lot of them use the m2tech HiFace OEM or Tenor... which is to say a garbage one


 

 Not exactly. The Anedio basically has a U2 inside the box that converts the signal to S/Pdif which then goes through the DAC's digital receiver. Many of them go direct from USB to I2S inside the DAC, there is no S/Pdif conversion. So how can a converter beat that? Well if the input isn't isolated and is bus powered, a whole bunch of garbage from the computer goes straight into the DAC, which has a tremendously detrimental effect on the sound.


----------



## drez

davebsc said:


> Not exactly. The Anedio basically has a U2 inside the box that converts the signal to S/Pdif which then goes through the DAC's digital receiver. Many of them go direct from USB to I2S inside the DAC, there is no S/Pdif conversion. So how can a converter beat that? Well if the input isn't isolated and is bus powered, a whole bunch of garbage from the computer goes straight into the DAC, which has a tremendously detrimental effect on the sound.




X2 to this. There are very few usb dacs out here that have properly isolated usb inputs. You then have a choice between a dac with a good usb input or the dac you actually want and a high quality usb transport.


----------



## Solude

Pretty sure you two are saying different things   I'm saying being internal or external alone means nothing as there are poor examples of each.
   
  Ie the W4S DAC-2 USB input is terrible, the PS Audio PWD2 USB input is quite good.  AP2 helps the W4S, hurts the PWD2.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Interesting observations. How are you streaming 192K files?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm streaming them using the iTunes Sharing feature. Would be fantastic if I can get this working. Apple has likely done a silent update of this feature to allow this, but the AP1 doesn't like the output.


----------



## pompon

I got my AP1 today...
  I enjoy use a remote to control my music and bypass my actual preamp using the volume control from the ap1.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Congrats.. Let us know what you think of the sound....


----------



## pompon

I upgraded from AP2 so I know what I have.  Battery is a must IMO ... My preamp powered with supply or battery, it's the same thing. Each time I put a battery somewhere, it's a great improvement.
   
  Purepower is plug and forget. It's not cheap but the device is well designed. It's possible to bring things better with stock AP2 when cleaning usb power. I was using hub + battery pack was very convincing. Having to manage battery charged ... not very practical ... it's work for a time ... but after need to the true device.
   
  Purepower give even better sound than outside usb battery, more isolation, DC-DC noisy chip out the way ...
   
  AP2 to AP1 ... very fen to have all those features. The biggest difference was to bypass my preamp using only dac on the amp using ap1 to control the volume. Have a remote in my hand to adjust the volume, mute, restart song, next, previous ... very convenient. I still need to use my computer but both together is very fun.
   
  Now I need to figure if I can stack 50 foots of USB without impact the sound. I will test my hub + battery to see if that affect the sound of AP1 + purepower (probably not signifiant).


----------



## Caution

Lookie at what arrived in the mail today.
   

   
  Will be posting impressions after a week or two of a/bing.


----------



## Sid-Fi

Good to see you on here Caution. I'm glad everything made it to you so quickly. I look forward to your impressions. That being said, I think my old AP2/PP is gonna kick your AP2's --- lol. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Quote: 





caution said:


> Lookie at what arrived in the mail today.
> 
> 
> 
> Will be posting impressions after a week or two of a/bing.


----------



## ljhodad

Finally pulled the trigger today...on Schiit DAC & amp to set up new laptop system:
   
  FLAC/Foobar/JPLAY 4.3 > Wireworld Ultraviolet > AP2/AQVOX > Black Cat Silver Star > Mini-Circuits HAT-10dB > Gungnir > Pyst XLR > Mjolnir > Moon Audio Blue Dragon 4-pin XLR > HE-500.
   
  First time running balanced - impressions to follow.


----------



## drez

For anyone who finds the AP2 aggressive and grainy, I highly recommend enabling SPDIF bit 28  (thanks to HumanMedia from SNA for bringing this setting to my attention).  For AudioGD Reference 7.1 it won't work as the DIR9001 wont accept the clock level.  My NFB7.32 works fine though, WM8805 might be more chance of working as well.
   
  Instructions can be found in the new manual, as well as in the new firmware package.


----------



## Currawong

The WM8805 works with it but indeed, the DIR9001 wont work with bit 28 set.


----------



## ljhodad

*[size=medium]Need some help getting 192 files to work. [/size]*
   
   
   
   
  [size=medium]<96 works fine, 192 is garbled with only a second or two not distorted.[/size]
*[size=medium]AP2 firmware 1.27, Driver V1.9[/size]*
  [size=medium]Windows7 64bit[/size]
  [size=medium]foobar2000 v1.2.2[/size]
  [size=medium]Components: foo_jplay & *WASAPI output support 3.1*[/size]
  [size=medium]Playback - No DSPs[/size]
  [size=medium]Output Device WASAPI (event) : SPDIF Interface (2- audiophilleo 1_2 192Khz/24bit)[/size]
  [size=medium]Buffer length 2070 ms[/size]
  [size=medium]Output format 24-bit[/size]
  [size=medium]Advanced Playback buffering up to (kB):1024[/size]
  [size=medium]WASAPI Hardware buffer in MS – event mode : 25[/size]
   
  FLAC/foobar/JPLAY 4.3 > Wireworld Ultraviolet > AP2/AQVOX > Black Cat Silver Star > Gungnir > Pyst XLR > Mjolnir > Moon Audio Blue Dragon 4-pin XLR > HE-500.
   
  (woot! post 1000)


----------



## ljhodad

I ditched JPLAY and 192 worked...I read somewhere else that AP & JPLAY may not play well together.
  Anyway, based upon my previous post, do the settings look okay?
   
  Even though I've only had a few hours on it, I'm very pleased with the overall sound I'm getting. Not (over) bright at all, which was my biggest fear.
  With more time I'll do some critical listening - but right now I'm enjoying the music!


----------



## FauDrei

currawong said:


> The WM8805 works with it but indeed, the DIR9001 wont work with bit 28 set.


 
   
  Really?
   
  My RE-7S (DIR9001) locks on all supported sample rates (44,1 KHz; 48 KHz; 88,2 KHz; 96 KHz) with ap2 on firmware 1.27 with all bits enabled (24-27 "sample rate" bits enabled + bit 28 "level I clock" enabled).
   
  Strange.


----------



## ljhodad

Well good news, a few days after tossing JPLAY 5, 5b comes out and it works!  I now know I prefer the sound of 5b ASIO (KS, Beach, Native, 256 Samples) vs. just Audiophilleo WASAPI (event). The bass sound fuller, tight and not veiled, while the treble extends without sibilance. Sounds more real to me than before. The song that convinced me was Ry Cooder's Ganges Delta Blues from A Meeting by the River 88.2/24. End-game good now.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





faudrei said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > The WM8805 works with it but indeed, the DIR9001 wont work with bit 28 set.
> ...


 
   
  The Master 7 might have a different set-up. Oh well. The whole S/PDIF bit settings are new to us. Might have to investigate more.


----------



## HumanMedia

Aren't bits 24-27 set to on by default?
  and bit 28 is off by default.
  So unless you want to block certain sampling rates, bits 24-27 should be left alone anyway.
  not sure, but I think this is the case.


----------



## nkbg

Spent the whole day in bed and had enough time to read through the PurePower manual, noticed that the power connector needs to be pushed in _again_ after threading for proper locking.
   
  It makes a satisfying click once it's locked. Mine was spinning freely for months now. Locking made an improvement in quality.
   
  The manuals says "Push, thread, then push again"

  http://www.audiophilleo.com/docs/manual_purepower.pdf
   
  Something worth checking?


----------



## hpz

I have Actually noticed that in the manual, but I have never been able to lock it in like the picture. I have the ap2 though, maybe it is a bit different.


----------



## Currawong

Whenever I move my kit around, this catches me out. Very easy for it not to be inserted correctly leaving the AP1 having a fit.


----------



## nkbg

It locks on my AP2, just needs and extra push.


----------



## TheWuss

so, i tried the Ehanced Digital Output mod for my Squeezebox Touch last night.
  i downloaded the necessary app, and then plugged the Audiophilleo2 w/ PurePower into the squeezebox USB port.
   
  i can report that this works without a problem.  and the sound is excellent.
  compared to my Empirical Audio Synchro-Mesh, which i was using before, there's not a big difference - perhaps just a touch tighter all around...
   
  i am using the Vaunix USB hub with this SBT setup, just to make sure the PP charges correctly.
  i have seen reports that the AP/PP will work without a hub, and charge off the SBT usb output.  but i did not try it without the Vaunix.
   
  my 2 channel rig now competes in SQ with my head-fi rigs, and this makes me very pleased...


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote: 





caution said:


> Lookie at what arrived in the mail today.
> 
> 
> 
> Will be posting impressions after a week or two of a/bing.


 
   
  And the verdict is?


----------



## HumanMedia

I have an AP2 with PP and love it.
  I was reading reports recently of the Teddy Pardo power supplies and how they are better than a DC battery. How much bettter it is I don't know, but it got me thinking - how much more room is there for improving the AP performance? Also got me wondering how well an AP with an iFi USB (and no PP) would perform against an AP with PP?
   
  I'm also assuming that the quality of the USB Cable into the AP would make a difference, hence the supplied Wireworld Violet, with its separation of power lines from data. But how about separating them further as with the iFi Gemini cable? And making the cable as short as possible?
   
  Likewise with the supplied USB cable connecting he PP to the AP, how about if this were eliminated with an even shorter cable or a small adapter only (no cable)?
   
  Steve N from Empirical mentions that there is still performance to be eked out of his devices, particularly in the area of power supply, so is there still more that we can get out of the AP also?
   
  Lots of questions. Any answers? Or further thoughts?


----------



## pompon

I have AP1 + PP and tested tonight the ultraviolet usb cable with a generic 36 feets usb cable (active).
   
  USB cable MATTER even with Purepower.
   
  I don't know if I like the ultraviolet. It's "sterile" sound ... RCA (brand name) USB cable is very cheap and sound very good.
   
  My 36 feets sound more open but it's less black background, less transparent, less dynamic, less detailled and have a bit less bass than the ultraviolet.
   
  Pure power is a big upgrade over stock ... I tested my purepower against a stock audiophilleo and it's a no brain upgrade for me.


----------



## HumanMedia

Anyone tried connecting the PP to the AP via an Empirical Audio Shortblock?


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> Anyone tried connecting the PP to the AP via an Empirical Audio Shortblock?


 
   
   
  It wont work. The AP needs power.


> The Short Block severs the +5V wire in the USB cable, so devices that rely on the +5V power in the USB cable cannot use the Short Block.


 
   
   I've connected mine (which has the PP) to various "clean" USB power sources but honestly I haven't noticed any improvement.


----------



## HumanMedia

Maybe I wasn't clear - connect the PP to the AP with a ShortBlock.  This connection does not require 5v as it is cut here and uses 5v from the battery.  The position you can't use the ShortBlock in is between the source and the PP which does require 5v for charging.


----------



## Sid-Fi

I find the iUSB to be a very interesting device as well. I did have the Aqvox low noise USB power supply, and the PurePower absolutely blew it out of the water. Not sure how much better iUSB might be. 



humanmedia said:


> I have an AP2 with PP and love it.
> I was reading reports recently of the Teddy Pardo power supplies and how they are better than a DC battery. How much bettter it is I don't know, but it got me thinking - how much more room is there for improving the AP performance? Also got me wondering how well an AP with an iFi USB (and no PP) would perform against an AP with PP?
> 
> I'm also assuming that the quality of the USB Cable into the AP would make a difference, hence the supplied Wireworld Violet, with its separation of power lines from data. But how about separating them further as with the iFi Gemini cable? And making the cable as short as possible?
> ...


----------



## Sid-Fi

After having sold off my AP2 and PP months ago, I picked up a brand new Musiland 03 USD and have been pretty pleased with its performance. It seems like a good performing value solution. Granted I still wouldn't mind having my AP2 PP back. I just needed to liquidate some stuff. It felt like reference level performance.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear - connect the PP to the AP with a ShortBlock.  This connection does not require 5v as it is cut here and uses 5v from the battery.  The position you can't use the ShortBlock in is between the source and the PP which does require 5v for charging.


 
   
  The USB input to the AP, even the PP version, uses the 5V power line, so it wouldn't work. The PP only supplies the internal clock. See the diagram picture on the PP site: http://www.audiophilleo.com/ppgallery.aspx


----------



## HumanMedia

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The USB input to the AP, even the PP version, uses the 5V power line, so it wouldn't work. The PP only supplies the internal clock. See the diagram picture on the PP site: http://www.audiophilleo.com/ppgallery.aspx


 
  Thanks for this info. So there is probably even more scope for cleaning signal AND power before it gets to the AP. Could it improve it I wonder?


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I doubt it. A few of us have tried using better power through USB with no noticeable differences. That only seems to work with the standard AP1/2 (without the Pure Power).


----------



## drez

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> Thanks for this info. So there is probably even more scope for cleaning signal AND power before it gets to the AP. Could it improve it I wonder?


 
   
  There is a possibility, but chances are you will be doing more harm than good.  Tweak money is better spent towards an even higher performing transport IMO.


----------



## brunk

Just curious, but do you guys notice a difference using the AP with a DAC that reclocks signal? It seems redundant to me.


----------



## pompon

Yes, It's did the same difference.
  I tried dCS Delius + Purcell with AP1 with great succes.
  Anedio D1 same
  Yamamoto same
  Audio-gd nfb8 same


----------



## absolutk

Quote: 





brunk said:


> Just curious, but do you guys notice a difference using the AP with a DAC that reclocks signal? It seems redundant to me.


 
  I was under the impression that most DACs that reclock, only reclock for USB input. Is there an example of a DAC that reclocks a SPDIF signal?


----------



## drez

I think Benchmark does this, probably a few others I can't think of.  If reclocking 100% fixes jitter then yes you may as well use any asynch USB input as they all should be the same performance.  IMO its not that simple, these boxes also offer galvanic isolation which cuts down the noise on the digital inputs to the DAC, whereas very few USB inputs to DAC's are properly isolated.


----------



## Trogdor

absolutk said:


> I was under the impression that most DACs that reclock, only reclock for USB input. Is there an example of a DAC that reclocks a SPDIF signal?




Most of the high-end DACs I believe do this since the SPDIF signal does not actually contain timing information as out of band data (this is from memory so please look it up on Wiki or Google). 

The sender dictates the rate for the receiver to clock to in real-time. Any fluctuations in the sender will result in jitter (whether its audible or not is completely up for debate).

My biggest beef with the AP1/PP design is I wish it was one unit.


----------



## mtruong34

Hello,
  New AP2 owner here and loving what I hear so far feeding my Bryston BDA-1 DAC.  Previously used a HiFace converter until it stopped working and can tell the AP2 is much better.  I've read through most of the posts in this thread and conclude that the PP is a significant improvement.  However, it's a bit expensive to me and I want to explore cheaper altenatives.  I've read mention of the Vaunix hub and the Aqvox, and both seem inferior to PP.  I've heard mention of iUSB but no feedback.  Any further thoughts on iUSB vs PP, or any other alternatives?  Thanks


----------



## brunk

Quote: 





mtruong34 said:


> Hello,
> New AP2 owner here and loving what I hear so far feeding my Bryston BDA-1 DAC.  Previously used a HiFace converter until it stopped working and can tell the AP2 is much better.  I've read through most of the posts in this thread and conclude that the PP is a significant improvement.  However, it's a bit expensive to me and I want to explore cheaper altenatives.  I've read mention of the Vaunix hub and the Aqvox, and both seem inferior to PP.  I've heard mention of iUSB but no feedback.  Any further thoughts on iUSB vs PP, or any other alternatives?  Thanks


 

 Im using a KingRex UC384 you can see my sig for additional info too. Their landing page is here You can get a custom AES/EBU cable from RedCo Audio for it as well if you wish. Hope that was helpful! Oh and 32/384 capability via IIS is on the way!


----------



## Andrew_WOT

Quote: 





mtruong34 said:


> Hello,
> New AP2 owner here and loving what I hear so far feeding my Bryston BDA-1 DAC.  Previously used a HiFace converter until it stopped working and can tell the AP2 is much better.  I've read through most of the posts in this thread and conclude that the PP is a significant improvement.  However, it's a bit expensive to me and I want to explore cheaper altenatives.  I've read mention of the Vaunix hub and the Aqvox, and both seem inferior to PP.  I've heard mention of iUSB but no feedback.  Any further thoughts on iUSB vs PP, or any other alternatives?  Thanks


 

 Besides PP iUSB could be the best option today.
  There is a good discussion on Computer Audiophile forum.
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ifi-iusb-power-supply-neat-tweak-and-upgrade-usb-dac-13832/
  Internals of iUSBPower
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/my-review-ultra-fi-abisque-usb-filter-and-audio-optimization-guide-mountain-lion-14696/#post203426


----------



## negura

Has anyone directly compared the SQ of the AP2 with AP1? With or without PP. If it's been posted sorry, but I couldn't find it.
   
  -------
   
  Later update:
  Answered meanwhile.


----------



## negura

Today I have received my AP2. No Pure Power. I hooked it up to the SPDIF end of my Burson Conductor and I was immediately impressed. However, giving the whole shabang a few hours to warm-up this is what I've got: an immersive 3d soundstage with lots of air, everything flows, superb microdetail and extension accross of the frequency spectrum, liquid natural sounding vocals. Even some previously forgettable music (but well recorded), is now so immersive it makes you forget everything else. The latter part is actually coming from my wife who was previously thinking I'm starting to lose the plot for spending this money on "an USB port". This was the best £300something (deal price) I've ever spent on audio.
   
  Tomorrow or Friday I should receive my IFI IUSB from Amazon and find what that brings to this table. Will have another update in a couple of days or so.


----------



## pompon

Keep us informed for the ifi ...
   
  I have AP1 + PP ... USB cable still matter and it's not subtle at all for me.
   
  Don't be afraid to try different usb cable, it's MAJOR in SQ ...
  I have active 32 feets usb cable, ultraviolet 3 feet and usb to rj45 adaptor ... It's all different sound. It's system dependant ... taste ... RJ45 and ultraviolet are those having the most details. The 32 feets active is just fun to listening because it's a bit "blurry" and I find it more musical to others.
   
  I am sure adding a USB cleaner in the path will give something different again in the equation.


----------



## negura

I have been compiling a lot of findings in regards to AP2, AP2 + IFI IUSB, various USB cables and should update very shortly.  It's all sounding very good indeed.


----------



## negura

Hi folks,
   
  As this is as much related to AP2 as is to IFI IUSB, as well as a comparison, I decided to post it in its own thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/663672/audiophilleo-2-ifi-iusb-review
   
  Enjoy and let me know your thoughts!


----------



## Elberoth

Quote: 





mtruong34 said:


> I've read mention of the Vaunix hub and the Aqvox, and both seem inferior to PP.


 
   
  No wonder. Aqvox is just a small linear transformer with a cheap voltage regulator. iFi iUSB is a much more elaborate design as far as voltage regulation goes.


----------



## Elberoth

Quote: 





pompon said:


> Yes, It's did the same difference.
> I tried dCS Delius + Purcell with AP1 with great succes.
> Anedio D1 same
> Yamamoto same
> Audio-gd nfb8 same


 
   
  The dCS and Yamamoto DACs do not reclock. Not sure about the other two as I don't know those designs..


----------



## pompon

I tried tonight USB to RJ45 to my AP1 + PP compared to straight Ultraviolet.
   
  USB 2 RJ45 (with 50 foots cable) is less dynamic, more confused, less bass, less soundstage than stand alone Ultraviolet.
   
  I wonder if adding iFi after the converter RJ45) will bring thing same than just the 3 feets Ultraviolet ?


----------



## Lappy27

I received my new Audiophilleo2 + PurePower today after experimenting with a plain Audiophilleo2 for the last week or so.
   
  I am listening to AP2 + PP right now. Out of the box and without any burn-in time (well two hours of listening session) I would say I am really, really impressed with the improvement the combo bring to my musical experience compare with plain AP2.
   
  The most significants improvements are the bass and refinement. The bass is fuller, deeper and more accurate than on the regular AP2. The refinement bring more details and clarity along with a really addictive smooth yet dynamic sound. Fast, punchy but non-agressive.
   
  I would say without hesitation that this sound is the best I ever heard from my set-up.
   
  JRiverMC18 - Wasapi
  Audiophilleo2 + PurePower
  NAD M51 balanced
  Bryston BHA-1 balanced
  LCD-2r2
   
  So for all the headfiers who like I was before, are on the fence to decide if the PurePower worth the extra $420.00, the answer is a definite YES!
   
  I would say that the difference adding the PurePower is on the same magnitude as the one made by adding the plain AP2 to the NAD's USB input.
   
  And the best thing is that this combo is suppose to improve his performance with about 200 hours of burn-in time. How cool is that?
  ­­


----------



## Trogdor

lappy27 said:


> I received my new Audiophilleo2 + PurePower today after experimenting with a plain Audiophilleo2 for the last week or so.
> 
> I am listening to AP2 + PP right now. Out of the box and without any burn-in time (well two hours of listening session) I would say I am really, really impressed with the improvement the combo bring to my musical experience compare with plain AP2.
> 
> ...




The bass IS really spectacular when you add the PP.


----------



## pompon

I never ported attention to the burn-in ... out of the box AP1 + purepower was WOW compared to my old AP2.


----------



## SwanSong

drez said:


> It would be pretty useful for a number of applications IMO - pretty much wherever a cable is not necessary.  I wonder if you could adapt a cable mounted BNC eg replace the strain releif with a washer set from a panel mount connector or something.
> 
> Anyway I ordered a purepower AP2 - couldn't resist.  Just need to figure out how best to wire this thing up.  So it goes computer - USB - purepower - USB - AP2 or something?



I notice you have JK SPDIF profile pic are you a mk3 guy? Can you compare the two devices pros and cons? I plan to buy one or the other soon.


----------



## SwanSong

drez said:


> Got my purepower thanks to A2A for shipping so fast.  Man the AP2 is tiny, I was expecting something twice as big.  Build quality of the purepower is a little disappointing though - the battery is not fixed properly and rattles around.
> 
> As for sound its a moderate upgrade from the JKSPDIF mk3, more refined but with better timing and detail, more cohesive but also a little more forward because of this which is possibly why people could call the soundstage smaller.  It is slightly more musical the the JKSPDIF in my system too, I no longer have to cringe on some cymbal hits or trumpet parts.
> 
> It is not however immune to computer performance and timing - KS in JRiver sounds much better than Event Wasapi, and you need to manage buffer size otherwise you will get glitches and dropouts.  The JKSPDIF is easier to set up in this regard - probably because it just accepts whatever timing variances the computer throws at it rather than having to manage a proper buffer.  I would not be surprised if USB cabling had an influence up to a certain point as well, given my experiences with streaming methods.




I was hoping to get a direct comparison to JK mk3 or the new Ciúnas would be even . How's the low end differ?


----------



## shipsupt

I thought I'd pass on a little trouble I had with my Audiophilleo 1.  I began to get an intermittent signal, and eventually no signal to my DAC.  I found that jiggling the SPDIF connector resulted in the signal cutting in and out.  I checked the SPDIF adapter and all was good.  The external portion of the connector on the unit looked good, so I opened the unit to see if there was anything wrong inside.  If found the VERY small wire from the center pin to the PCB had come loose from where it had been soldered.  
   
  I believe that this has been caused by stress of the unit hanging off the back of my DAC, compounded when I pull gear in and out to change things etc...  I would recommend that you treat it gently as the wire is very small and the solder pad even smaller.
   
  I was able to unsolder the wire, clean things up and re-do the connections.  All is back to normal, but it is a tight little job!  Have you magnifying glasses ready.
   
  I should have taken pictures, but I can open it up and detail where the work was done if there is any interest.  I thought I'd share in case anyone else runs into similar issues.
   
  I've now got a small pad cut to size to allow the A1 to rest on keeping it from putting strain on the DAC connection.


----------



## negura

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I thought I'd pass on a little trouble I had with my Audiophilleo 1.  I began to get an intermittent signal, and eventually no signal to my DAC.  I found that jiggling the SPDIF connector resulted in the signal cutting in and out.  I checked the SPDIF adapter and all was good.  The external portion of the connector on the unit looked good, so I opened the unit to see if there was anything wrong inside.  If found the VERY small wire from the center pin to the PCB had come loose from where it had been soldered.
> 
> I believe that this has been caused by stress of the unit hanging off the back of my DAC, compounded when I pull gear in and out to change things etc...  I would recommend that you treat it gently as the wire is very small and the solder pad even smaller.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Very good to know, it never inspired too much confidence hanging about like that.
  I have found a good SPDIF cable does wonders SQ wise with the Audiophilleo. So much about the direct connection marketing.


----------



## shipsupt

I have not dug back into the thread, but has anyone played around with the virtual cable function?


----------



## pompon

Direct connexion bring more details and more precision. I consider If I have more details and more precision, it's better.
   
  If you want a coloration try:
  BNC-BNC gold plate adaptor, it's quite different to the brass one and specially not expansive ! Gold give less emphasis on the highs and tend to give the impression to have more body and more fluid presentation.
  Coax attenuator, different value give different result.
   
  I have a few coax cable, all gave a different presentation. My Oyaide DB-510 is good but I prefer direct connexion to my dac.
   
  I never really tried the virtual cable function ... I like a lot the bit perfect test !
   
  A good addition is the iFi IUSB with USB to RJ45 adaptor (as usb cable) ... It's work terrific and allow to use infinite length without impact the sound. iFi is not cheap but the USB to RJ45 is something like 15-20$ and same for the CAT6 cable for 50-75 feets.
  It's quite better to my 3 feet Ultraviolet


----------



## project86

Can't believe I haven't joined in on this thread yet! I've been using the AP1+PP combo for several months now, and it's become an indispensable part of my system. Obscenely clean sounding - simply the best I've heard in terms of transport. For some history, I've owned quite a few CD players and transports that cost me a lot of money.... far too much in retrospect. My favorite was probably the Marantz SA-1 with Audiomod upgrades, which was roughly $14k all told. The Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower, driven by any laptop (nothing fancy required), is a far better transport than the Marantz. Same thing applies to my old transports from Esoteric, Krell, Lexicon, and various others. As many of us are gravitating towards computer based playback rather than fiddling with optical discs, a device of such high caliber is highly welcome. I know some guys spend big bucks on the MacBook Pro with the idea that it will sound better as a USB playback device. I say: of course, if you like Mac then go for it. But if SQ is your chief concern, you'd probably be better off going with any decent laptop, and getting the Audiophilleo gear instead. A nice Windows-based machine plus an AP1+PP is roughly the same price as some of the MacBook Pro options anyway. 
   
  Here's a scenario some people might be interested in - what if you already have a really good USB signal to work with? Well, in those cases, the AP1+PP may have less of an impact, but in a really high end system it's still worthwhile in my opinion. For example: I use an Auraliti PK90 music server. It's basically a dedicated computer running Voyage MPD Linux, custom tailored for audio duty. It uses the SOtM tX-USB card which is tightly regulated and produces one of the cleanest USB signals around. It doesn't draw power from the motherboard but rather gets it straight from the power supply via 4-pin connection. In my case, I feed it with a NuForce LPS-1 linear power supply. So basically this is an ultra-clean setup dedicated purely to USB playback. And in that sense it's excellent, among the best I've experienced (up there with the SOtM sMS-1000 which costs a lot more). 
   
  But you know what? Adding the AP1+PP still makes this already clean signal sound even better. How? I don't really know or care. It just does. I noticed it sounding better right from the start but didn't fully appreciate the difference until I went back and used the system without it. It's a significant improvement over what I thought was the best signal around. That's quite a feat. 
   
  I'll have more to say about the AP1+PP when I find time for a full write up. But for now I can say it's an absolute reference grade option. I recently had a chance to hear the new Bel Canto RefLink as well as the Empirical Off-Ramp 5. Both of those are quite good in their own right, and both bring a few things to the table that might be appealing for certain users (HDMI, AES/EBU, etc). And I know we tend to love newer stuff and figure it must be better than the older.... but in this case I just didn't hear it that way. Neither seemed, to my ears anyway, to match Audiophilleo combo in terms of resolution as well as pure involvement. The AP1+PP just seemed more lifelike to me, and this was on a highly transparent speaker based system where the differences were more noticeable than usual. So At the end of the day I'm sticking with the AP setup.


----------



## negura

Quote: 





project86 said:


> Neither seemed, to my ears anyway, to match Audiophilleo combo in terms of resolution as well as pure involvement. The AP1+PP just seemed more lifelike to me, and this was on a highly transparent speaker based system where the differences were more noticeable than usual. So At the end of the day I'm sticking with the AP setup.


 
   
  +1. Additional to my headphones setup, I also have a (high-end) speaker setup and nothing I've tried quite matches the resolution, soundstage and imaging of the AP. On speakers it's even more prominent. Maybe because of everything combined or whatever, but the end result is that the Audiophilleo transmits musical emotion much better. I am so glad you have similar findings, as I've been saying this around for a while.


----------



## dleblanc343

I borrowed Lappy27's audiophileo combo and hooked it up to my NAD M51->McIntosh MC225->HD800/HE6 and unfortunately did not feel the changes in sound to be an overall improvement, but rather a slight step back in terms of my preference.

I had an audioquest carbon going from my computer directly into the NAD and the Audiophileo 1 and 2 were hooked up with the wireworld starlight and audioquest coffee usb cables. I tried all 9 usb cable configurations through the chain and came to the same conclusion. The bass lost its visceralness and, dare I say, extension. I directly A/B'd with the click of a button on the NAD remote, so within a second the coax would switch to USB and vice versa. I was startled by my experience as Lappy27 was telling me how much the bass tightened up and gained body whereas I observed the complete opposite! Now isn't that weird or what?! I do find however that instruments such as brass and winds seemed to have been "enveloped" slightly more realistically in their own defined space. Not necessarily a sense of more air, but more like a smoother instrumental separation. But it was really not that obvious; unlike the lack of extension in bass notes.

Gear and cables' ohmage variations, driver type variations, tube vs SS and DAC firmware can all play roles in different experiences. Lappy uses the NAD M51/BHA-1 and LCD-2 whereas I use what I stated above previously. Lappy's gear consists of a dark sounding headphone with forward amp vs my two brighter sounding headphones with a warmish amp.

I definitely believe the audiophileo can bring notable improvements to certain systems; but it won't change things for the better for everyone it seems! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






I felt kind of bad when I returned the gear to Lappy27 without being wow'ed like he did, but I really have to say that I'd pass on this for my current system but am not claiming it to be bad in any way because I did hear sound and perception changes for certain.


----------



## HumanMedia

I had a major improvement with the AP2 +PP on my NAD M51.
  However I probably had mine connected differently. NAD claim the AES/EBU is the best digital input so I used a 75ohm BNC to 110ohm XLR Impedance transformer. Direct connected the AP2 to the BNC on the impedance transformer.  Sounded better than using that cheap little digital RCA connector, and it let the AP2 do its improvements.


----------



## Lappy27

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> I had a major improvement with the AP2 +PP on my NAD M51.
> However I probably had mine connected differently. NAD claim the AES/EBU is the best digital input so I used a 75ohm BNC to 110ohm XLR Impedance transformer. Direct connected the AP2 to the BNC on the impedance transformer.  Sounded better than using that cheap little digital RCA connector, and it let the AP2 do its improvements.


 
  Can you tell me exactly which (brand, model) device you used to transform BNC to AES/EBU?
   
  Thanks


----------



## Tuberoller1

I have an AP-2 with an AQVOX power supply.  I'm thinking of upgrading to PP, is it worth it compared to the AQVOX


----------



## Gintaras

I have bought AP2 with Pure Power and i could not be happier, big improvement across all ranges. I have Metrum Octave DAC and AP pairs amazingly well with it sending signal from Mac Mini. Sound is organic, rich and very much analogue, especially voices become so live real simply stunning, piano is like it is played in front of you and you can hear all subtleys of hammers ticking strings inside cabinet, drums ambush you with so much air that you nearly feel it punching you in your chest, this is like opening a window on a fresh frosty morning, like a sea breeze in evening, simply a dream.

Biggest gain is in dynamics, tonal refinement allows for subtle details and nuances, black space becomes much blacker helping improve imaging and opening truly 3D stage. I understand my Evo was not on par so for me all improvements were worth the price. I did not compare to other expensive converters but in my opinion this combination with PSU unit will be very difficult to beat.

Update:

yesterday listened to some symphonic and jazz with Metrum and Audiophilleo, one word OMG... This combo blew my socks off, stunning, paired with good tube amp it produced something i cannot describe easily, i never felt so immersed into musical act, unreal but i never thought something this cheap could challenge my Naim CDX2 but after audition i can only say music never felt so easy flowing, unobstructive and full, love every bit of these little boxes.

If i would be a reviewer i would put a highly recommended for Audiophilleo and Metrum, AP does amazing job for openning up sound and removing digital stress. I am afraid repeating myself but digital music never sounded so analogue in my setup.


----------



## drez

project86 said:


> Can't believe I haven't joined in on this thread yet! I've been using the AP1+PP combo for several months now, and it's become an indispensable part of my system. Obscenely clean sounding - simply the best I've heard in terms of transport. For some history, I've owned quite a few CD players and transports that cost me a lot of money.... far too much in retrospect. My favorite was probably the Marantz SA-1 with Audiomod upgrades, which was roughly $14k all told. The Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower, driven by any laptop (nothing fancy required), is a far better transport than the Marantz. Same thing applies to my old transports from Esoteric, Krell, Lexicon, and various others. As many of us are gravitating towards computer based playback rather than fiddling with optical discs, a device of such high caliber is highly welcome. I know some guys spend big bucks on the MacBook Pro with the idea that it will sound better as a USB playback device. I say: of course, if you like Mac then go for it. But if SQ is your chief concern, you'd probably be better off going with any decent laptop, and getting the Audiophilleo gear instead. A nice Windows-based machine plus an AP1+PP is roughly the same price as some of the MacBook Pro options anyway.
> 
> Here's a scenario some people might be interested in - what if you already have a really good USB signal to work with? Well, in those cases, the AP1+PP may have less of an impact, but in a really high end system it's still worthwhile in my opinion. For example: I use an Auraliti PK90 music server. It's basically a dedicated computer running Voyage MPD Linux, custom tailored for audio duty. It uses the SOtM tX-USB card which is tightly regulated and produces one of the cleanest USB signals around. It doesn't draw power from the motherboard but rather gets it straight from the power supply via 4-pin connection. In my case, I feed it with a NuForce LPS-1 linear power supply. So basically this is an ultra-clean setup dedicated purely to USB playback. And in that sense it's excellent, among the best I've experienced (up there with the SOtM sMS-1000 which costs a lot more).
> 
> ...




Pretty interesting, I upgraded from AP2 + PP to Reflink (much more nuance and clear timing) and a friend of mine also has AP2 + PP and BADA USB and finds the latter to be better. I have heard that people find AP1 to sound better than AP2, so maybe there is some more to this? AP1/2 has advantage in not needing coax SPDIF cable, so this may make up for some of the difference depending how good the SPDIF cable is. I might see if someone has an AP1+PP for comparison as your findings have me intrigued.


----------



## Gintaras

i have AP2+PP with dedicated Mac Mini Server with Audirvana Plus and SPDIF Wireworld cable and i cannot see where else or how i can get more improvements because sound purification is already top notch. perhaps Windows machine is not best fit for dedicated digital playback. i know Mac Mini is faved by all audiophiles with higher end setup.
   
  in a separate word Audirvana Plus wins easily over Pure Music for me.


----------



## drez

I haven't really optimised my mac laptop but in terms of outright transparency by PC is ahead, at least with Amarra vs Jie Extreme Player. I haven't tried audirvana yet.. I don't think Mac is necessarily the best possible server either, with dedicated music servers from SoTM, Auraliti etc running customised operating systems, drivers etc. I think a lot of people with higher end setups already like Mac for other reasons, like library management, form factor, familiarity with the OS etc. I don't agree that all audiophile with higher end setups use mac. But this is drifting off topic. In any case differences in operating systems should not skew preferences one way or the other, my freind runs mac mini server and on his system Reflink and BADA USB still won out. Like I said it could be that AP1+PP is a completely different beast to AP2+PP ( i have heard this elsewhere) or that there were some poor cabling choices.


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> I haven't really optimised my mac laptop but in terms of outright transparency by PC is ahead, at least with Amarra vs Jie Extreme Player. I haven't tried audirvana yet.. I don't think Mac is necessarily the best possible server either, with dedicated music servers from SoTM, Auraliti etc running customised operating systems, drivers etc. I think a lot of people with higher end setups already like Mac for other reasons, like library management, form factor, familiarity with the OS etc. I don't agree that all audiophile with higher end setups use mac. But this is drifting off topic. In any case differences in operating systems should not skew preferences one way or the other, my freind runs mac mini server and on his system Reflink and BADA USB still won out. Like I said it could be that AP1+PP is a completely different beast to AP2+PP ( i have heard this elsewhere) or that there were some poor cabling choices.




AP1 and AP2 are identical. I'm not sure why you are even insinuating otherwise?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> AP1 and AP2 are identical. I'm not sure why you are even insinuating otherwise?


 
   
  One of those cognitive dissonance scenarios, project86 says AP1+PP is better than Reflink, in my own experience Reflink was more accurate and nuanced than AP2+PP.  Either we are hearing different things, or there are some other factors that are affecting things.  Most people who compare Reflink favourably to AP2+PP, but I haven't seen any other AP1+PP compared to Reflink.


----------



## Trogdor

drez said:


> One of those cognitive dissonance scenarios, project86 says AP1+PP is better than Reflink, in my own experience Reflink was more accurate and nuanced than AP2+PP.  Either we are hearing different things, or there are some other factors that are affecting things.  Most people who compare Reflink favourably to AP2+PP, but I haven't seen any other AP1+PP compared to Reflink.




I was addressing your comments about the AP1+PP being a "completely different beast" than the AP2+PP. This is not right. They are identical. 

I had both, and I repeat, they are identical.

I can't speak about the Reflink.


----------



## Gintaras

guys, i do not understand what are your particular points comparing to Reflink?
  i have AP2+PP and honestly i find it magically sounding, it pairs so well with Metrum that i cannot see why would i wish to upgrade. how much is Reflink?


----------



## drez

trogdor said:


> I was addressing your comments about the AP1+PP being a "completely different beast" than the AP2+PP. This is not right. They are identical.
> 
> I had both, and I repeat, they are identical.
> 
> I can't speak about the Reflink.




Thanks for clarifying, I was speaking speculatively.

Reflink was $1600 when I bought it.


----------



## Gintaras

ufff... a cool 1600$? dammit crazy


----------



## project86

For what it's worth - Philip at Audiophilleo told me the AP1 and AP2 _are _in fact the same, with these exceptions: AP1 has the OLED (obviously) which he made sure to isolate so it's doesn't impact the sound. And more importantly, the AP1 has VirtualCable function, which _could_, in some systems, help achieve better sound. Having said that, he believes most users will get best results leaving it set at default. So we're back to AP1 and AP2 sounding the same again.
   
  From my comparisons (and I'll have more to say in an upcoming article at (PartTimeAudiophile.com) the RefLink was closer in character to the AP1+PP, but just not as satisfying. The Empirical OffRamp5 was darker, which I suppose could be more to the liking of some listeners, or be superior in some systems. Not mine though.


----------



## Trogdor

project86 said:


> For what it's worth - Philip at Audiophilleo told me the AP1 and AP2 _are_ in fact the same, with these exceptions: AP1 has the OLED (obviously) which he made sure to isolate so it's doesn't impact the sound. And more importantly, the AP1 has VirtualCable function, which _could_, in some systems, help achieve better sound. Having said that, he believes most users will get best results leaving it set at default. So we're back to AP1 and AP2 sounding the same again.
> 
> From my comparisons (and I'll have more to say in an upcoming article at (PartTimeAudiophile.com) the RefLink was closer in character to the AP1+PP, but just not as satisfying. The Empirical OffRamp5 was darker, which I suppose could be more to the liking of some listeners, or be superior in some systems. Not mine though.




Hey project86, can you elaborate about the OR5? I am told by some folks that this converter has been the defacto standard for a while. I have still not heard it though. Just curious on your thoughts!


----------



## Tom W

Quote: 





project86 said:


> The Empirical OffRamp5 was darker.


 
   
  I've read this on another forum too (comparing the OR5 to the AP2).
   
  It's somewhat difficult to imagine that a string of ones and zeroes can sound dark given a bit perfect source.
   
  I purchased an OR5 a few weeks ago and although it's my first experience with PC audio I will say that it's darker sounding than all of my previous sources (various CD and DVD players used alone and with an Audio DI as a re-clocker).
   
  I'm not big on the whole 'smiley' thing but if we had a 'scratch your head' smiley I'd put it here.


----------



## project86

Quote: 





tom w said:


> I've read this on another forum too (comparing the OR5 to the AP2).
> 
> It's somewhat difficult to imagine that a string of ones and zeroes can sound dark given a bit perfect source.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  It's more complicated than just a string of bitperfect ones and zeros. There's jitter, which is far more complex than most of us know. There's noise, which comes at a wide range of frequencies and does different things to different DACs. There's a bunch more stuff too, but it's too early in the morning for me to use much brain power to discuss.
   
  "Dark" is probably an inaccurate analogy, but it did seem to fit based on my experience.


----------



## project86

For anyone who might be interested in reading it, I just got my review up of the AP1 with PurePower over at Part Time Audiophile. I remain exceedingly impressed with this combo. Others are plenty nice as well - OR5 and RefLink on the higher end, iFi iLink on the lower end. But if I could take my pick of anything out there (and honestly, I can) the AP1+PP remains my top choice.


----------



## negura

project86 said:


> For anyone who might be interested in reading it, I just got my review up of the AP1 with PurePower over at Part Time Audiophile. I remain exceedingly impressed with this combo. Others are plenty nice as well - OR5 and RefLink on the higher end, iFi iLink on the lower end. But if I could take my pick of anything out there (and honestly, I can) the AP1+PP remains my top choice.


 
  
 Excellent review and I agree. The Audiophilleo was my favourite interface for a good while. With all the DACs I have tried and that includes the PWD2 I presently own, a good interface brought very significant improvements. It's good to see you have tested the Audiophilleo with a cable. That is my preferred option. The direct connection isn't all its made to be imho. It is after all a 4cm wire with a random quality at that.
  
 I have used my AP2 extensively, but instead of going the Pure Power route, I went with:
 AP2 + IFI GEMINI + linear regulated 5V USB power supply + AG500 power regen. 
 A huge improvement to stock AP. 
  
 It took a lot to replace the Audiophilleo, and that was the PUC2Lite. With the added bonus the PUC2Lite is a huge bargain for the SQ it delivers. A good quality AES cable is a must.


----------



## Tony1110

I also concur. I bought the AP2 recently and the improvements over direct USB connection to my Burson Conductor are hugely significant - especially with regards to soundstage, imaging and, most notably, treble extension. Anybody listening to the LCD-2 for the first time on my current setup would probably be left wondering why they have a reputation for sounding dark and closed in. The AP2 remedies all the Audeze shortcomings as well as improving upon their traditional strengths. I'd never have thought a USB interface could make such a difference and I'm contemplating sending my AP2 in for a Pure Power upgrade.


----------



## Lappy27

tony1110 said:


> I also concur. I bought the AP2 recently and the improvements over direct USB connection to my Burson Conductor are hugely significant - especially with regards to soundstage, imaging and, most notably, treble extension. Anybody listening to the LCD-2 for the first time on my current setup would probably be left wondering why they have a reputation for sounding dark and closed in. The AP2 remedies all the Audeze shortcomings as well as improving upon their traditional strengths. I'd never have thought a USB interface could make such a difference and I'm contemplating sending my AP2 in for a Pure Power upgrade.


 
  
 Absolutly agreed on that. I have LCD-2 too and after adding Audiophilleo2 + PurePower to my NAD M51 everything became really more open, but tightly placed and much more musical. I held a mini-meet at my workplace with about ten Headfier two weeks ago and dleblanc343 who heard my system last year (the dac at that time was Wyred4Sound Dac-2 with direct USB connection) was totally surprised by how the sound was more open as he remembered from last year meet. And don't let me start with the bass improvments with the add of AP2 + PP...
  
 On a side note, I started to experiment with a new USB cable last night (Silnote Poseidon Siver Statement Reference) and I would say without a doubt that the improvment this cable brought to my system is as significant as adding the AP2 + PP. I previously used WireWorld Starlight Serie 7 and Transparent Performance. Sold both and will be keeping the Silnote.


----------



## hpz

Very nice review project 86 !
  
 I too am using the AP2 w/PP on my invicta and it does improve the sound quality by a bit.  The improvements aren't as apparent as my older dac,the Wyred4sound DAC2.  I think I mentioned this last time, but I did a one time comparison (on a speaker system) between the Reflink and AP2 w/PP and the Reflink was the clear victor there.  The main differences were in the high frequencies, where the Reflink just seemed more relaxed and controlled, whereas the AP2 sounded a little harsh and strained at times.  This is however using AP2 with just the direct connection vs Reflink with a cheap 1.2m spdif cable.  In the future I may have to test the AP2 with a cable to see if this changes anything.
  
 On another note, I have the Berkerly Alpha Design Audio (BADA) USB to test against the AP2.  I found that the BADA to have the smoothest high frequencies of the 3 usb converters that I've used.  But the BADA really shined with the low frequencies.  The AP2 normally improves the bass by tightening up the low end, but the BADA not only tightens it up, it also adds a little more impact to each of the bass notes, giving it that slightly more engaging feel.  It may be system dependent, but the added bass clarity with impact is ideal in my situation.
  
 To sum up the order of high frequency (Brightest to least bright):
  
 AP2 w/PP > REFlink > BADA usb
  
 Bass clarity and impact :
  
 BADA usb > AP2 w/PP = REFlink
  
 YMMV but these were my findings in my system.
  
  
 PS: BADA usb was using a 1.5m AES cable.


----------



## Somnambulist

negura said:


> Excellent review and I agree. The Audiophilleo was my favourite interface for a good while. With all the DACs I have tried and that includes the PWD2 I presently own, a good interface brought very significant improvements. It's good to see you have tested the Audiophilleo with a cable. That is my preferred option. The direct connection isn't all its made to be imho. It is after all a 4cm wire with a random quality at that.
> 
> I have used my AP2 extensively, but instead of going the Pure Power route, I went with:
> AP2 + IFI GEMINI + linear regulated 5V USB power supply + AG500 power regen.
> ...


 
  
 Where did you get the PUC2 Lite from? Seems hard to find online. It'd be ideal to connect to my NAD M51 since it has an AES input.


----------



## Gintaras

tony1110 said:


> I also concur. I bought the AP2 recently and the improvements over direct USB connection to my Burson Conductor are hugely significant - especially with regards to soundstage, imaging and, most notably, treble extension. Anybody listening to the LCD-2 for the first time on my current setup would probably be left wondering why they have a reputation for sounding dark and closed in. The AP2 remedies all the Audeze shortcomings as well as improving upon their traditional strengths. I'd never have thought a USB interface could make such a difference and I'm contemplating sending my AP2 in for a Pure Power upgrade.


 
  
 +1
  
 since i got AP2+PP i see little reason to be worried about upgrades, i understand some solutions might still be better but is margin improvement a big enough?
  
 for me Audiophilleo brings transparency and clarity on a whole new level, i nearly can feel drums now since palpations are rendered with more air and subtleys, voices come glass clean and sound immediacy becomes striking.


----------



## project86

I think the Audeophilleo has something of a disadvantage compared to other devices, just in terms of perception - simply because it's been on the market for a bit longer. We tend to get excited about the new stuff, and forget about the things that came before. Do people get excited about HD650 any more? Even LCD-2 and HE-500, which were blockbuster news at first, have become rather common. Doesn't mean they aren't still _really _good.


----------



## pompon

project86 said:


> I think the Audeophilleo has something of a disadvantage compared to other devices, just in terms of perception - simply because it's been on the market for a bit longer. We tend to get excited about the new stuff, and forget about the things that came before. Do people get excited about HD650 any more? Even LCD-2 and HE-500, which were blockbuster news at first, have become rather common. Doesn't mean they aren't still _really _good.


 
  
 Exactly. The taste of the month ... after no more love.
  
 I have AP1+PP and love it. The convenience to plug & forget and program ANY remote is convenient.


----------



## preproman




----------



## Gintaras

Preproman, have a glass of Coca Cola too


----------



## zhunter

Philip is a very cool guy, response the email quick and super quick dispatching, I received the PP's shipment notification with tracking id after making the payment 10-15mins.

 So exited and can't wait for my AP2+PP to arrive!


----------



## project86

zhunter said:


> Philip is a very cool guy, response the email quick and super quick dispatching, I received the PP's shipment notification with tracking id after making the payment 10-15mins.
> 
> So exited and can't wait for my AP2+PP to arrive!


 
  
  
 Nice! That makes your V800 (which is already a very good DAC) step up to even higher levels. Nice system you have there!


----------



## zhunter

Thanks John, but I just sold my V800 a couple of days ago, and actually missed its sound, really :<, it was a great DAC.

 If I can afford to keep it, I would, but sometimes budget becomes a issue, and I have to let something go to try the new stuff. And good news is I'll be pairing the AP2+PP with the new NAD M51, really exited about trying that combo when they arrive.

 Btw John, I really enjoyed reading your AP1+PP review, love your writing style lol, and im actually intrigued to try the AP+PP.


----------



## Lappy27

zhunter said:


> Thanks John, but I just sold my V800 a couple of days ago, and actually missed its sound, really :<, it was a great DAC.
> 
> If I can afford to keep it, I would, but sometimes budget becomes a issue, and I have to let something go to try the new stuff. And good news is I'll be pairing the AP2+PP with the new NAD M51, really exited about trying that combo when they arrive.
> 
> Btw John, I really enjoyed reading your AP1+PP review, love your writing style lol, and im actually intrigued to try the AP+PP.


 
  
 You will be very pleased with Nad M51 and AP + PP (tons of resolution).


----------



## Andrew_WOT

Has anyone experienced the problem with their DAC and AP properly locking with 24/192 material? This is the first converter Chord DAC64 has problems with.


----------



## Tony1110

andrew_wot said:


> Has anyone experienced the problem with their DAC and AP properly locking with 24/192 material? This is the first converter Chord DAC64 has problems with. :mad:




Don't think the AP2 supports 24/192 properly. Mine plays some 24/192 files with no problems; others it clicks like mad.


----------



## Currawong

It is more likely to be an issue with the USB from your computer.


----------



## Tony1110

I don't think so. Everything else is fine. The one 24/192 file I have on my computer is the only file I've encountered a problem with. 

Plays fine when I use Conductor's USB.


----------



## k1n0n3

I thought the AP driver was required for 192 support ?


----------



## Tony1110

k1n0n3 said:


> I thought the AP driver was required for 192 support ?




That's more likely the problem. Lol


----------



## Gintaras

tony1110 said:


> Don't think the AP2 supports 24/192 properly. Mine plays some 24/192 files with no problems; others it clicks like mad.


 
  
 have AP2 with PP unit and no issues with 24/192khz files. i use Mac Mini and Audirvana Plus, both do excellent job.
 it would make sense to try your unit on another PC and if problem persist then exchange your AP2.
  
 but like the others suggested this is most likely the problem of driver software or perhaps the file itself...? do not know. i would go to exclude all software issues before blaming hardware.
  
 one addition, Audiphilleo is a company run by audio enthusiast and offers great response and service unlike some bigger names. so if you decide to exchange your unit i am sure you will be treated well. i have also Metrum DAC and 1p2 which are made similarly by great enthusiasts and i never had a better service because their owners understand us audiphilles and our concerns so well.


----------



## Tony1110

It'll be the driver (or lack of). I vaguely remember reading something about one needing to be installed for 24/92 but I forgot all about it. Having only one 24/192 file on my computer it's not really that important to me.

I'll download the driver anyway and report back.


----------



## project86

Yep, Mac users get to plug and play but Windows needs the driver to go above 24/96.


----------



## Tony1110

Yep, I'm a Windows user. It doesn't seem so long ago when it was the other way round: Mac users having to install all the annoying drivers. Everything is Mac native these days.


----------



## project86

tony1110 said:


> Yep, I'm a Windows user. It doesn't seem so long ago when it was the other way round: Mac users having to install all the annoying drivers. Everything is Mac native these days.


 
  
 It's not really that the Audiophilleo is Mac native, but rather that the newer OSX versions (I believe Snow Leopard 10.6.4 and newer) support USB Audio Class 2 protocol, while Windows 7 does not.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

andrew_wot said:


> Has anyone experienced the problem with their DAC and AP properly locking with 24/192 material? This is the first converter Chord DAC64 has problems with. :mad:



I have used HIface, Hiface2, iLink and didn't have any issues. So this is combo of AP and Chord, perhaps receiver is more sensitive as Burson Conductor works just fine. Weird.


----------



## Lappy27

I had the same problem when I got my AP2. I contacted Philip at Audiophilleo, he then sent me a driver to play 24/192 and the magic came!


----------



## Andrew_WOT

lappy27 said:


> I had the same problem when I got my AP2. I contacted Philip at Audiophilleo, he then sent me a driver to play 24/192 and the magic came!


 
 Was that a different one from what is available on their web site?
custom device driver v1.16


----------



## Andrew_WOT

project86 said:


> For anyone who might be interested in reading it, I just got my review up of the AP1 with PurePower over at Part Time Audiophile. I remain exceedingly impressed with this combo. Others are plenty nice as well - OR5 and RefLink on the higher end,* iFi iLink on the lower end.* But if I could take my pick of anything out there (and honestly, I can) the AP1+PP remains my top choice.


 
 I am having the hardest time of my life trying to spot any significant sonic differences between iFi iUSB/iLink combo and AP2+PP.
 Using Chord DAC64->GS-1 (updated modules)->HD800. They both sound excellent, at first I thought that AP is more forward, now they are the same to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 EDIT: Finally figured it out. AP sounds more focused with tighter bass which result in better PRAT and head boobing inducing transients. iLink is a bit more relaxed and laid back, may be even slightly diffused. But it really takes quite an effort, right material, and properly set up for critical listening test to spot the difference. AP+PP is probably 5-10% improvement over iLink+iUSB.


----------



## project86

andrew_wot said:


> I am having the hardest time of my life trying to spot any significant sonic differences between iFi iUSB/iLink combo and AP2+PP.
> Using Chord DAC64->GS-1 (updated modules)->HD800. They both sound excellent, at first I thought that AP is more forward, now they are the same to me.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Yeah, it's one of those things that some people will describe as being massive, other people will call barely noticeable. I'm somewhere in between. I figure if the differences between two good DACs can be fairly clear, then so can the differences between DDCs. But that's wearing my "analytical" hat and really focusing on differences. 
  
 It also matter what DAC is used. Some of my DACs, even really good ones, don't show the differences as much as others.


----------



## Tony1110

project86 said:


> Yeah, it's one of those things that some people will describe as being massive, other people will call barely noticeable. I'm somewhere in between. I figure if the differences between two good DACs can be fairly clear, then so can the differences between DDCs. But that's wearing my "analytical" hat and really focusing on differences.
> 
> It also matter what DAC is used. Some of my DACs, even really good ones, don't show the differences as much as others.





Yeah, I think the Conductor, V800 etc are precisely the kind of DACs that AP2 does benefit: not so cheap as to forgo the Audiophilleo in favour of a better DAC; not so high-end that they can't be improved. If you're paying mega bucks for a DAC, you'd expect it to have similar technology incorporated without having to pay the extra for a USB interface.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

project86 said:


> It also matter what DAC is used. Some of my DACs, even really good ones, don't show the differences as much as others.


 
 Funny you said that, as on Conductor I could barely spot any difference at all, but with Chord it was much easier, I had to disable Chord buffering though.


----------



## project86

andrew_wot said:


> Funny you said that, as on Conductor I could barely spot any difference at all, but with Chord it was much easier, I had to disable Chord buffering though.


 
  
 It probably has something to do with their SPDIF input. We talk a lot about USB inputs - XMOS versus TE8802 versus VT1731 etc. But SPDIF inputs can vary quite a bit, from really good to pretty mediocre. Take a great input using something like a Wolfson WM8805 or the new TI DIX9211, with galvanic isolation for good measure. Those will be more capable than an old Cirrus CS8416 input or the like, and will allow more difference in input quality to shine through. 
  
 I could be wrong, but I suspect the Conductor uses the integrated SPDIF receiver function of the ES9018 DAC chip. But they also do some funky configuration stuff with the chip where they don't use it like most others do. So that could be the problem.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

tony1110 said:


> Yeah, I think the *Conductor*, V800 etc are precisely the kind of DACs that AP2 does benefit:


 
 I could be in minority who disagrees on that, except this reviewer , but using latest Burson drivers and Burson ASIO Async output I cannot detect any difference between onboard USB and AP2+PP. And to be honest I've spent significant efforts running these back to back tests, changing output in foobar2000. What I've noticed that if you spend time unplugging cables, plugging different source, restarting player, you will hear some perceived difference. But if you have two inputs connected at the same time, and quickly flip the source button on Conductor and output device in foobar2000, you won't be able to notice anything.
  
 This article helped me quite a bit on principles of proper ABX testing.
 http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/audio-equipment-testing-wp
  
 I do not discount the possibility that some computers with inherently bad and noisy USB benefit, but with two laptops I've used for tests I couldn't detect any undoubtful differences.


----------



## preproman

Hey John,
  
 I have a question from reading your review.  You said this:
  
"how important is a transport? I’d say it’s very important; critical even, as long as the system is good enough to reveal differences."
  
 How does this compare to the DACS that only have USB inputs ie..  QB-9, JK Ciunas?  I know you haven't heard the Ciunas yet, but what about any other USB DACs that has a very good USB implementation?  Or a good SPDIF receiver vs. a good USB receiver?
  
 They're some that even do USB to I2S ie.. http://www.exadevices.com/Home.aspx not many DACs do this yet. 
  
 I thought going from USB to a SPDIF receiver would induce more jitter so to speak instead of going from the USB receiver straight to the DAC.  I could be wrong.  Just would like to know the advantages and disadvantages to both.


----------



## Gintaras

Prep, i think converter purpose is to minimise jitter but good implement USB or Firewire can be as good or even better.

As regards components everything plays big role in good system, i cannot say if transport or DAC or converter or cable, from my experience everything plays pretty much high role. This is why i picked AP2 with PP unit finally. I trust good USB implementation but problem is such is usually found on higher priced units.

Anyway, only trying can tell what you will like more.


----------



## project86

preproman said:


> Hey John,
> 
> I have a question from reading your review.  You said this:
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Good question. It's important to remember that there's a lot going on here. See the SimAudio Moon 300D for a basic example - adaptive USB input fails the Miller Audio Research battery of tests, with sub par performance in signal to noise, distortion, stopband rejection, etc. SPDIF input passes all those tests, so that would be an obvious case where a DDC would prove beneficial. 
  
 But what about DACs with async USB inputs? Aren't they immune to jitter? Well, no, some of them still have jitter problems regardless. And even if they do a good job, is it the same as a really good dedicated DDC? Probably not. But there's so much more than just jitter. Noise is a big deal, and there are many ways to approach it. The AP1 with PurePower completely isolates high frequency noise from getting into your system and causing issues. Could the same result be achieved by using a CAPS (or similar) server with a good linear PSU and the SOtM card? It's definitely a step in the right direction, but I don't know if it matches the same level of isolation. In my case I do both - why not? 
  
 Basically, any DAC (USB only or multiple inputs) needs to have the USB section evaluated against the dedicated DDC to see which does a better job. For most reasonably priced DACs, it's not really a fair fight - even a midpriced DDC has more resources available to it (quality clock etc) than the USB section of a $1500 DAC. It's just a matter of allocating resources - kind of like some gear which offers a stock power supply and then upgraded versions or aftermarket versions. 
  
 I'm not sold on the whole I2S thing yet. For one, it's pretty non standard in terms of format, though it looks like the PS Audio driven I2S over HDMI method is gaining popularity. But I2S was never intended to be used for external transmission - it's normally found internally, for very short runs (a few centimeters or so). Of course, "conventional" audiophile wisdom says I2S has lower jitter due to having a dedicated line for clocking info, but I have yet to see the measurements that reflect this. That same wisdom says jitter takes a hit when converted to SPDIF, yet the Audiophilleo system (and others, of course) have some crazy low measurements.


----------



## Girls Generation

Just received t he Hiface Two so now I must compare it to the Audiophilleo 1  Will be back with findings.


----------



## Gintaras

wait for your impressions


----------



## Girls Generation

So I did some A/Bing and the most immediate differences are that the AP1 has more depth and microdetail, but the Hiface was a bit smoother, more buttery I guess. More to come~ Or not since I don't really feel bothered enough to do serious indepth A/Bing. For me, the HiFace is enough. Without having both to A/B side by side, I wouldn't even notice or even feel bothered which sounds better. It all converges and becomes a fuzzy line when you start trying compare via memory. Personally, I think I'd invest $850 in something else. AP1 is definitely a step up but for the amount of improvement, my wallet can't afford it.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

girls generation said:


> So I did some A/Bing and the most immediate differences are that the AP1 has more depth and microdetail, but the Hiface was a bit smoother, more buttery I guess. More to come~ Or not since I don't really feel bothered enough to do serious indepth A/Bing. For me, the HiFace is enough. Without having both to A/B side by side, I wouldn't even notice or even feel bothered which sounds better. It all converges and becomes a fuzzy line when you start trying compare via memory. Personally, I think I'd invest $850 in something else. AP1 is definitely a step up but for the amount of improvement, my wallet can't afford it.


 
 Yep, most of the times these "differences" are blown out of proportion.
 Having said that I could relatively easily spot the difference between HiFace2 and iLink/iUSB combo, but till today still not sure that I will be able to tell iLink and AP2+PP apart in a blind test. They sounded identical on Burson Conductor and Chord DAC64. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Apollo, does your AP have PP or any inline USB conditioner?


----------



## Girls Generation

andrew_wot said:


> Yep, most of the times these "differences" are blown out of proportion.
> Having said that I could relatively easily spot the difference between HiFace2 and iLink/iUSB combo, but till today still not sure that I will be able to tell iLink and AP2+PP apart in a blind test. They sounded identical on Burson Conductor and Chord DAC64.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nope, no PP because I personally think $500 for that is bs. I'd rather spend $1500 to upgrade my amp to a GSX2 or something to make much more of a difference =_= But then again, I'd spend $3000 on something more useful in my life like investments/stocks/etc. or two nice Saint Crispin's shoes hehe. But if I were tied to audio, then getting an ASW Genius 400 speaker would make much more sense. This speaker made everything I own and have owned up to now sound pale in comparison.
 Plus it wouldn't be fair to the Hiface2 anyways


----------



## Andrew_WOT

girls generation said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, most of the times these "differences" are blown out of proportion.
> ...


 
  
 LOL. Agree 100%, someone was asking in Conductor thread if OR-5 ($2K with Turboclock) would improve its sound. Speaking of lipstick on the pig.


----------



## Girls Generation

andrew_wot said:


> LOL. Agree 100%, someone was asking in Conductor thread if OR-5 ($2K with Turboclock) would improve its sound. Speaking of lipstick on the pig.


 
  
 What in the mother effin world... Uhhhhhhhh would an excessively loud and ugly sounding muffler make my crapty prelude drive more like a GTR? :B
  
 I understand spending a couple hundred for that last stretch of sound when you finally have put together your own "grail" rig, but when you're spending 1.5k-2k on something that makes such a small improvement, when you haven't even found your grail rig, is just saying you need to go see a therapist. I don't want to hear that "to each their own" bs, cuz NO ONE should be doing that unless they're Kim Jong Un or Putin. Plus, no one should be buying high end converters retail. AP1 retails $1k but it drops to $500 as soon as you try to sell it -_-...


----------



## Gintaras

GirlsG, to each his own, you prefer shoes, someone else prefers AP+PP 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 actually for myself i pick all-tailor made shoes or good Italian shoes, even cheaper ones if bought directly from Italy
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 speaking of AP i found sound imrpovements worth it, but i agree you will not get the most out of it if the rest of your digital playback chain does not deliver. AP is purifying sound in a very nice way, it will not wow you like a brand new amp but if your DAC or transport are good enough AP will grow on you so there is no way back.
  
 price wise AP+PP is damn expensive but electronics is not shoes which you purchase every season, so i dare to say in the end AP turns cheaper than your shoes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 for me i picked AP2+PP because i saw little use of AP1, was nice investment and makes me smile in pleasure when listening to music.


----------



## Girls Generation

gintaras said:


> GirlsG, to each his own, you prefer shoes, someone else prefers AP+PP
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 For me, in terms of value, I would say the shoes would give me more since they would be more useful in my life, but that's besides the point. A top-tier converter may very well be worth it but my point is that if one is trying to acquire a converter that costs more than his amp or dac in order to chase grail, then he's doing it wrong. 
  
 Might I ask, what kind of Italian shoes do you prefer? I couldn't possibly afford bespoke since they go up to $5000 for a pair...


----------



## Gintaras

GirlsG, funny, i spoke about total spending bill, because you buy shoes more often to have several pairs at least.
 no, no Bespoke shoes but hand made taylor made shoes from smaller boutiques. Italian shoes plenty and i did not care so much about the brand, you know in Italy they have many factories who make shoes for top brands and then run same line production with no-name label to sell same shoes cheaper. i just visit factory store to pick what i want 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 but taylor made shoes which wear as comfortable as a pair of slippers are not cheap, normally 800-1000 euros a pair.
  
 coming back to AP i believe AP2+PP is the way to go. however i agree with you it would make little sense to put AP2 combo into weaker chain or use this in so-so setup.
  
 in terms of usibility even a cheap pullover will beat any audio gear because the usibility of audio is all about pleasure and nothing else while you cannot skip clothes and shoes from your spending list


----------



## philo50

gintaras said:


> coming back to AP i believe AP2+PP is the way to go. however i agree with you it would make little sense to put AP2 combo into weaker chain or use this in so-so setup.


 
 +1


----------



## project86

As I mentioned in my review of the AP1+PP - it makes very little sense to add that combo to a lower priced system, when the money would be better spent on some other aspect. Once you settle on some top level headphones (or quality speakers), and have a nice DAC which couldn't be easily surpassed by a bit more, _then_ you should consider the Audiophilleo combo. In that context I do think it's worth it.


----------



## Lappy27

project86 said:


> As I mentioned in my review of the AP1+PP - it makes very little sense to add that combo to a lower priced system, when the money would be better spent on some other aspect. Once you settle on some top level headphones (or quality speakers), and have a nice DAC which couldn't be easily surpassed by a bit more, _then_ you should consider the Audiophilleo combo. In that context I do think it's worth it.


 
  
 Totally agreed.
  
 I start with a loaner plain AP2 and then I tried AP2 + PP. I have decided to keep the AP2 + PP at the second I heard it. Definitly worth the extra cash. In my system at least.
  
 Talking about retail prices, when you send email to a small company like Audiophilleo, you are communicating directly with the owner/president /conceptor. That guy knows that there are other attractives and competitives options out there. So, you never know what a nice chat can bring to you as good discount. Just saying


----------



## 3daudio

I have been using the ap2 for a couple of weeks now on my Audio gd NFB 10.32.

I bought it second hand and combined it with a 5V power supply manufactered by a friend who is up to the task being an engineer at Bosch Electronics.

I am more than satisfied with this combination. The ap is really plug and play at its best.

Cheers


----------



## philo50

3daudio said:


> I have been using the ap2 for a couple of weeks now on my Audio gd NFB 10.32.
> 
> I bought it second hand and combined it with a 5V power supply manufactered by a friend who is up to the task being an engineer at Bosch Electronics.
> 
> ...


 
 +1


----------



## Pinch

Hello head-fiers.
 I've been following this thread for a long time, and wanted to recount a recent experience with the AP2. I've been using the AP2 in my system for over a year and a half. Initially I had the 'vanilla' AP2, and very quickly added the AQVOX PSU - this made a big improvement at the time, and before adding it I'd found that adding the AP2 brought both positive and negative changes to the sound (the latter being an overly upfront sound, and a harsh midrange). The AQVOX tamed those negative aspects, and the sound was very satisfying for a while. I later added the SoTM PCIe USB output card, which brought further improvements (deeper, cleaner bass, and increased depth to the sound stage). At the time, I experimented with removing the AQVOX, and noted that it no longer seemed to make a difference whether or not it was in place - I surmised that whatever the SoTM card was doing was negating the need for the AQVOX. But still, I kept it in the chain, since I liked that it removed the need for having power drawn through the USB cable. I then, some months latter, added the pure power upgrade to the AP2. This brought further, though a little more subtle, improvements. Again, I experimented with removing the AQVOX, and again found that it made no noticeable difference, but I kept it in the chain anyway, for the reasons I've stated. I have just recently added the SoTM battery back into the mix, powering the USB output from that, rather than the PC's PSU. This made a very noticeable, and surprising (in that, I didn't know my speakers could sound like this) improvement to the sound - significantly improved the realism of the presentation. Again, I experimented with removing the AQVOX, and _this time_ found that doing so made a noticeable, negative difference - the improved realism was gone, and it sounded more akin to the way that it had done before I'd added the SoTM battery. My impression then, is that even with the pure power upgrade, and the various SoTM bits, the AQVOX can yield an improvement, but - on this experience - only when the other things are in place. I had actually been hoping for the opposite outcome, as it would be useful to free-up the power socket that the AQVOX occupies, but it looks like I'll be keeping it in place. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has had similar experiences.
 Cheers!


----------



## Gintaras

Pinch, i am curious what system components you have in chain?
  
 i cannot see how PSU AQVOX can improve sound when knowing PP and AP2 taking power from USB while your PSU is wall plug. i thought battery type PSU should be cleaner than wall plug PSU. correct me if i am wrong.
  
 i use Mac Mini server dedicated only to music playback via USB PP and AP2 into SPDIF DAC and i find this combination stellar sounding for my ear.


----------



## Pinch

So: PC (custom built, low-power, fanless), outputting flac via the SoTM card + SoTM battery --> Furutech USB cable --> AQVOX PSU --> AP2 (+ PP) --> Audiolab MDAC.
  
 The signal is not itself passed through through the PP module and onto the AP2 - as it can be on one configuration - but direct to the AP2, while the PP itself is powered by a separate USB line from the PC (in the manual it stated that - in theory - this might yield marginally better results; I didn't experiment with the alternative).
  
 Looking at the PP gallery on the Audiophilleo website (http://www.audiophilleo.com/ppgallery.aspx), it seems that while the PP feeds clean power to the AP2's clocks, "processeing" - whatever this involves(?) - is nevertheless powered by "dirty" USB power. My only guess would be that feeding cleaner power for processing, via the AQVOX, is yielding some benefit.
  
 As I mentioned, when I experimented with removing the AQVOX after getting the PP upgrade (and before getting the SoTM battery), I couldn't detect a difference - it's only since also adding the SoTM battery that removing the AQVOX seems to make a detectable and negative difference. I've no understanding of why this might be so - just reporting my findings


----------



## KmanChu

pinch said:


> So: PC (custom built, low-power, fanless), outputting flac via the SoTM card + SoTM battery --> Furutech USB cable --> AQVOX PSU --> AP2 (+ PP) --> Audiolab MDAC.
> 
> The signal is not itself passed through through the PP module and onto the AP2 - as it can be on one configuration - but direct to the AP2, while the PP itself is powered by a separate USB line from the PC (in the manual it stated that - in theory - this might yield marginally better results; I didn't experiment with the alternative).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Does the AQVox separate the ground from the computer and AP2? Like you said, the PP part powers only the output section and clocks, but the receiver still relies on bus power. The AP2 unit supposedly provides galvanic isolation, but how well such a small unit could do that I'm unsure of. Does driving the SOtM with battery isolate the the power rails only, or does it lift the ground internally from the rest of the computer? (I don't think it should be able to do this.) If the the AQVox is doing something to provide another solid ground between the two devices or completely disconnecting the grounds then it may be able to remove some noise from the system.
  
 I use an ifi iUSB Power which is a device with similar intents to the AQVox. It makes a very appreciable difference with my SPDIF converter (but it does not have it's own battery supply.)


----------



## Pinch

I'm afraid I don't know enough about these devices to answer your questions, but that's an interesting suggestion re. grounding. Another factor is that, when using the AQVOX, I'm able to set the SoTM card not to output USB power, and perhaps this makes some contribution.
  
 But actually, after swapping back and forth a bit this afternoon, I'm now less convinced about my initial impressions - things are sounding much closer than they struck me as sounding initially.
  
 As I mentioned, I'd like it to be the case that the AQVOX can be removed without losing anything. I think I shall leave everything as it is for now, and take some time to adjust to present sound - I only installed the SoTM battery two days ago, and so haven't got the full measure of things - and once I'm more familiar with it, I shall again try removing the AQVOX. No doubt I'll report back 
  
 One thing that is certain though, is that adding both the SoTM card - which is designed to filter out computer noise - and the battery pack (indeed, this more so) make for significant improvements _even with the PP in the mix_, so the addition of the PP - which also lifts performance - is not the last word on eliminating the effects of dirty PC power on the sound that the AP2 outputs.


----------



## Pinch

Give that man a coconut! I think it must have something to do with this:
  


kmanchu said:


> Does the AQVox separate the ground from the computer and AP2? Like you said, the PP part powers only the output section and clocks, but the receiver still relies on bus power. The AP2 unit supposedly provides galvanic isolation, but how well such a small unit could do that I'm unsure of. Does driving the SOtM with battery isolate the the power rails only, or does it lift the ground internally from the rest of the computer? (I don't think it should be able to do this.) If the the AQVox is doing something to provide another solid ground between the two devices or completely disconnecting the grounds then it may be able to remove some noise from the system.


 
  
 Reason: I was surprised this morning to hear - whilst no music was playing - a little bit of mains/mobo noise coming out of my speakers - inaudible from the main listening position, but there nonetheless. I had thought that I'd resolved these issues a long time ago, so I was a little perplexed. Then I remembered that, once again, I had unplugged the AQVOX. I plugged it back in, and voila, the speakers were silent. I suspect, then, that there may be something to the idea that the AQVOX is, as you say, either providing a solid ground between the two devices, or completely disconnecting them. Either way, I guess it may end staying.


----------



## Gintaras

Thanks, I might buy and try Aqvox psu unit out of curiousity then, sounds interesting.


----------



## BodieBill

I have now been burning in the AP2+PP for 4 days. The special qualities of the AP2+PP were immediately apparent. Depth, detail. There was a wow there.
 However: from the start, and until recently, I was bothered by some graininess in the middle-high frequencies. I tried to enable 'bit 28' on the AP2 which seemed a slight improvement, but not solved it.
 Then I experimented with the Audirvana settings. To my surprise, disabling integer mode solved the problem. Graininess gone.
 So now I use Audirvana direct mode but NO integer mode.
 Anyone had this experience?


----------



## Gintaras

bodiebill said:


> I have now been burning in the AP2+PP for 4 days. The special qualities of the AP2+PP were immediately apparent. Depth, detail. There was a wow there.
> However: from the start, and until recently, I was bothered by some graininess in the middle-high frequencies. I tried to enable 'bit 28' on the AP2 which seemed a slight improvement, but not solved it.
> Then I experimented with the Audirvana settings. To my surprise, disabling integer mode solved the problem. Graininess gone.
> So now I use Audirvana direct mode but NO integer mode.
> Anyone had this experience?




+1 here


----------



## Sanlitun

This thread is a couple of years old now and I am wondering if there is still a notable benefit to using an AP2 with DACs that have more modern Xmos USB interfaces?


----------



## philo50

sanlitun said:


> This thread is a couple of years old now and I am wondering if there is still a notable benefit to using an AP2 with DACs that have more modern Xmos USB interfaces?


 
 IMO yes, but only when used with the Pure Power....


----------



## KmanChu

sanlitun said:


> This thread is a couple of years old now and I am wondering if there is still a notable benefit to using an AP2 with DACs that have more modern Xmos USB interfaces?


 
 It seems like most DACs still benefit from a really good source. The Xmos is a good place to start but does not guarantee a good implementation. The effect on newer devices with true asynchronous performance may be due to the electrical isolation the separate converter unit provides (as the previous post alluded to the PurePower option often brings the biggest improvement.)


----------



## drez

kmanchu said:


> It seems like most DACs still benefit from a really good source. The Xmos is a good place to start but does not guarantee a good implementation. The effect on newer devices with true asynchronous performance may be due to the electrical isolation the separate converter unit provides (as the previous post alluded to the PurePower option often brings the biggest improvement.)


 
  
 So true, apparently AP with purepower measures the same jitter as without, yet it sounds miles better.  I tend to forget this from time to time.


----------



## project86

sanlitun said:


> This thread is a couple of years old now and I am wondering if there is still a notable benefit to using an AP2 with DACs that have more modern Xmos USB interfaces?


 
  
 I still use AP1+PP as a reference source for all DAC reviews. Much of the time, though not always, this method is superior to the built-in USB. I'd say modern USB inputs are certainly better than a few years back, but still don't keep up with a purpose-built system like the AP. 
  
 That said, once you go PurePower you can't run the device without it, so I don't know how well it would stack up without that component. The difference would surely diminish.


----------



## negura

One work-around is to use a Y-split USB cable and a 5V linear regulated PSU. It granted very significative improvements over the USB powered AP2.
  
 With enough gain the effects of dirty power or noisy USB data lines can be heard. Think of a powerful speaker amplifier (obviously if any music was to play it would likely kill the headphones, so careful if you try this @home). Under most conditions, on normal spec gain, while the dirty power is not audible, I found, unsurprisingly, it messes up the sound quality.


----------



## KmanChu

negura said:


> One work-around is to use a Y-split USB cable and a 5V linear regulated PSU. It granted very significative improvements over the USB powered AP2.
> 
> With enough gain the effects of dirty power or noisy USB data lines can be heard. Think of a powerful speaker amplifier (obviously if any music was to play it would likely kill the headphones, so careful if you try this @home). Under most conditions, on normal spec gain, while the dirty power is not audible, I found, unsurprisingly, it messes up the sound quality.


 
  
 Not to take the thread off topic but, Negura, how do you like the ifi Gemini with the Yellowtec? I am using a conventional cable from an ifi iUSB Power supply to the Puc2 Lite but was considering trying the dual headed Gemini. Have you compared the Gemini to other dual headed options with the Yellowtec?


----------



## negura

kmanchu said:


> Not to take the thread off topic but, Negura, how do you like the ifi Gemini with the Yellowtec? I am using a conventional cable from an ifi iUSB Power supply to the Puc2 Lite but was considering trying the dual headed Gemini. Have you compared the Gemini to other dual headed options with the Yellowtec?


 
  
 I did not have any other Y cables to compare it with, except for a DIY silver cable, but that's hardly relevant to anyone but me. I have only compared it with "normal" USB cables. But I am pleased with it. The signature is neutral with very good detail.
  
 The weakness of IFI IUSB is the cheap switching wall wart it comes with. When I realized I was going to need a linear regulated PSU, I decided to switch to an Y split cable + linear reg PSU as it doesn't require an additional USB cable... Anyway although I have spent a lot of time with interfaces/cables/power solutions, I feel I just began to scratch the surface to what various combos offer.


----------



## KmanChu

negura said:


> I did not have any other Y cables to compare it with, except for a DIY silver cable, but that's hardly relevant to anyone but me. I have only compared it with "normal" USB cables. But I am pleased with it. The signature is neutral with very good detail.
> 
> The weakness of IFI IUSB is the cheap switching wall wart it comes with. When I realized I was going to need a linear regulated PSU, I decided to switch to an Y split cable + linear reg PSU as it doesn't require an additional USB cable... Anyway although I have spent a lot of time with interfaces/cables/power solutions, I feel I just began to scratch the surface to what various combos offer.


 
  
 I was skeptical at first but am now a believer. iFi is fairly proud of their wall-wart and claim to have custom designed it. They claim that between their custom wart, use of a good regulator and filtration they have a very quiet unit.  A good switching supply shouldn't be discounted offhand. I believe Linn uses custom switching supplies in all of their digital sources. At any rate, I've now gone off topic, but just thought I'd stick up for the iUSB.


----------



## Sanlitun

My AP2 was just delivered, and thankfully on a Friday so I will have a little time to play with it over the weekend. My unit has firmware 1.30.


----------



## Chodi

sanlitun said:


> My AP2 was just delivered, and thankfully on a Friday so I will have a little time to play with it over the weekend. My unit has firmware 1.30.


 
 Sorry no help with the driver but I am interested to know the improvement you find with your AP2. I just can't get over the concept of paying half the price of your dac for a new usb connection when there is already one built into the dac. I am really interested to know if you feel it was worth it?


----------



## Currawong

It's very YMMV. Just because a DAC uses the XMOS receiver doesn't mean that the implementation is good or bad. I've literally had multiple DACs that use the same receiver and some were excellent and some were shockingly bad.


----------



## project86

currawong said:


> It's very YMMV. Just because a DAC uses the XMOS receiver doesn't mean that the implementation is good or bad. I've literally had multiple DACs that use the same receiver and some were excellent and some were shockingly bad.


 
  
 This mirrors my experience exactly.


----------



## KmanChu

chodi said:


> Sorry no help with the driver but I am interested to know the improvement you find with your AP2. I just can't get over the concept of paying half the price of your dac for a new usb connection when there is already one built into the dac. I am really interested to know if you feel it was worth it?


 
  
 I use an M51 and so I can chime in on that. The M51 is a great DAC with a very unique feature set. It is not absolutely the best DAC for the price, but it is still a strong contender and its features make it very appealing. The USB implementation on the M51 is not very good. It is 2 years old and a lot of progress has been made on that front in terms of isolating the electrical noise coming over the interface from the computer. With a lot of (mostly newer) DACs there may not be much advantage, but with the NAD there is definitely an improvement. A good converter takes it to another level.


----------



## hpz

I have found the AP2 w PP to be quite YMMV as well.
  
 Back when I had the Wyred4Sound DAC2, the AP2 system was quite a step up in terms of performance over the regular usb input.  The bass tightened up and the highs smoothed out, reducing that 'digital glare.'  But however since I have ungraded to the Invicta dac, I have found that the AP2 system had very small improvements over the built in usb section.
  
 So I believe it will be very dac dependent regarding the performance of the AP system.
  
 Off topic a little, but I feel may be relevant while we talk about computer based audio.  I have recently had the chance to test a top flight front end vs my Macbook to BADA usb and invicta dac.  The top flight front end consisted of the flagship Luxman CD player (D-08) as a transport spdif linked to a Bricasti M1 dac. This was a speaker system using a audia flight pre and power amp, powering a pair of evolution acoustics Mini 2s
  
 After over 40 minutes of back and forth listening and testing, we concluded that the sounds from both systems were so similar we'll call it a draw.  The Bricasti system may have had just a tiny bit more air and sound staging than the invicta, but overall timbre and frequency response and bass impact was very similar.
  
 The next part was when things got a bit strange, the dealer asked me to try a very high end usb cable he has been wanting to test, but had no computer based system to try it on (since he only had cd players at the time).  The cable was of unknown brand to me, EnKlein TReK USB cable.  But after changing the cable from the macbook to bada usb (I was using a generic usb cable), we played the very same songs we were previously testing.  The changes were immediate.  Less high frequency glare, more definition in the bass everything was just clearer with a little more space around each instrument.  It was pretty much like upgrading a usb transport, I was quite dumbfound.  I believe the cable was a cool 3000 aud.
  
 While I will never spend this much on a usb cable, this test opened my eyes on usb cables or any cable upgrade in general.  There is no other way to describe how the usb cable improved the sound quality other than to listen to one, so really in the end YMMV.
  
 End of off topic


----------



## Sanlitun

chodi said:


> Sorry no help with the driver but I am interested to know the improvement you find with your AP2. I just can't get over the concept of paying half the price of your dac for a new usb connection when there is already one built into the dac. I am really interested to know if you feel it was worth it?


 
  
 I feel that with most of the available DACs the USB interfaces are somewhat of an afterthought, and are generally not up to the capabilities of the primary S/PDIF or other inputs most of the chips are built around. Even my beloved NAD M51 has a bolt on XMOS USB interface, and it's hard to believe the DAC was designed to deliver optimal sound through it. I think NAD wanted to build a component that could do pretty much anything as part of either a hi-fi or home theater setup to broaden its appeal. XMOS is pretty much state of the art for USB, but it is by no means the best solution as far as sound quality goes.
  
 After only 24 hours with the AP2 all I can say really is that it does indeed sound different than the USB input on my DAC. But that's not really a surprise as I would expect the S/PDIF input to have some sort of difference inherently. So whether or not I am hearing the AP2 or the different input on the DAC will be a bit difficult to determine. I'm going to try it out on a few other DACs as well and see if there is a common difference or improvement. I think you have to be pretty dry and careful with this sort of change, as it seems there is a basic human tendency to see change as an improvement.


----------



## Chodi

sanlitun said:


> I feel that with most of the available DACs the USB interfaces are somewhat of an afterthought, and are generally not up to the capabilities of the primary S/PDIF or other inputs most of the chips are built around. Even my beloved NAD M51 has a bolt on XMOS USB interface, and it's hard to believe the DAC was designed to deliver optimal sound through it. I think NAD wanted to build a component that could do pretty much anything as part of either a hi-fi or home theater setup to broaden its appeal. XMOS is pretty much state of the art for USB, but it is by no means the best solution as far as sound quality goes.
> 
> After only 24 hours with the AP2 all I can say really is that it does indeed sound different than the USB input on my DAC. But that's not really a surprise as I would expect the S/PDIF input to have some sort of difference inherently. So whether or not I am hearing the AP2 or the different input on the DAC will be a bit difficult to determine. I'm going to try it out on a few other DACs as well and see if there is a common difference or improvement. I think you have to be pretty dry and careful with this sort of change, as it seems there is a basic human tendency to see change as an improvement.


 
 I appreciate your objectivity. I can't imagine spending $1000 on a usb converter unless the difference is both obvious and very positive. I look forward to your further comments. Oh course some people spend $1000 on a single cable so go figure.


----------



## Sanlitun

After a few weeks now with the AP2 it's clear it is an impressive device and still a step up over most implementations of the XMOS USB connectivity that is common in most of the DACs available. 
  
 I've tried it out on two DACs that use XMOS, the NAD M51 and the X-Sabre, and as well on the Bifrost. I feel the real magic happens on the M51, as it seems to have capabilities that exceed what the XMOS can provide and the sound is notably improved.
  
 There is a change to the timing and tonality that is apparent, subtle on some tracks and jaw dropping on others. But most of all is the feeling of a complete absence of background noise. It's as if some sort of pressure is taken off of the presentation and the music is closer and more of a real performance. Interestingly enough although there is more detail via the AP2, I find it a smoother and more pleasant sound. Perhaps even more forgiving than without the AP2. 
  
 When you read though this thread there is a lot of talk about the various ways of connecting up the AP2 and the effects of using different power sources. Curiously enough I found the best results when I plugged through a powered hub. After doing so I found that the last bits of harshness were gone and the effect of the AP2 seems maximized. I don't have any particular explanation for this other than the thought that the AP2 is affected by certain common mode interference and the added isolation improves its performance. There is a very interesting video about the noise interference produced by things such as wall warts and how it can be detected in nearby components here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLZm4LbzQU
  
 As far as value goes I have friends who wouldn't be able to hear the difference and others who would pay $5K for this sort of an upgrade in sound quality. For me I feel pretty good about it, and it has been a positive step in my system.


----------



## Lappy27

sanlitun said:


> After a few weeks now with the AP2 it's clear it is an impressive device and still a step up over most implementations of the XMOS USB connectivity that is common in most of the DACs available.
> 
> I've tried it out on two DACs that use XMOS, the NAD M51 and the X-Sabre, and as well on the Bifrost. I feel the real magic happens on the M51, as it seems to have capabilities that exceed what the XMOS can provide and the sound is notably improved.
> 
> ...


 
 Nearly a year with AP2 + PP with a M51. I couldn't never go back to USB input. TREMENDOUS step up in sound quality. For me, the difference in SQ is like a significant component upgrade. So yes, 1000$ in this case is money well spent.


----------



## philo50

lappy27 said:


> Nearly a year with AP2 + PP with a M51. I couldn't never go back to USB input. TREMENDOUS step up in sound quality. For me, the difference in SQ is like a significant component upgrade. So yes, 1000$ in this case is money well spent.


 
 +1


----------



## Sanlitun

I had the opportunity to try the AP2 via the IFI IUSB power supply and well, wow. To say it doubles the effect of the AP2 would be realistic. The difference is almost shocking really, to the point I doubt I can go back to the regular AP2. Some real voodoo stuff, as I had figured there would be either no change or something very subtle as I had experience from other cable and power tweaks.
  
 My unit is the regular AP2 without Pure Power, which I chose not only to save the money but because I didn't think it would make a worthwhile difference. 
  
 So I gather I am going to have to send my unit back and go for the Pure Power, or get the IUSB. Has anyone compared them?


----------



## KmanChu

sanlitun said:


> I had the opportunity to try the AP2 via the IFI IUSB power supply and well, wow. To say it doubles the effect of the AP2 would be realistic. The difference is almost shocking really, to the point I doubt I can go back to the regular AP2. Some real voodoo stuff, as I had figured there would be either no change or something very subtle as I had experience from other cable and power tweaks.
> 
> My unit is the regular AP2 without Pure Power, which I chose not only to save the money but because I didn't think it would make a worthwhile difference.
> 
> So I gather I am going to have to send my unit back and go for the Pure Power, or get the IUSB. Has anyone compared them?


 
 I have not compared the two but I did have an AP2+PP for about a month. The PP apparently supplies power to the clocks and output section but the USB receiver chip still uses the bus power coming over the USB port. So, the AP2+PP should in theory do a little btter job of isolating the two sections than using the iUSB Power. That said, I have no idea if it actually works better. I use a different converter with the iFi and am very satisfied.


----------



## 3daudio

Has anyone of the distinguished user of the ap2 tried it with MQn?

Seems not to work. This is puzzling as the ap2 has been such a plug&play darling the whole time.


----------



## Lappy27

sanlitun said:


> I had the opportunity to try the AP2 via the IFI IUSB power supply and well, wow. To say it doubles the effect of the AP2 would be realistic. The difference is almost shocking really, to the point I doubt I can go back to the regular AP2. Some real voodoo stuff, as I had figured there would be either no change or something very subtle as I had experience from other cable and power tweaks.
> 
> My unit is the regular AP2 without Pure Power, which I chose not only to save the money but because I didn't think it would make a worthwhile difference.
> 
> So I gather I am going to have to send my unit back and go for the Pure Power, or get the IUSB. Has anyone compared them?


 
 I didn't had the chance to compare the PurePower to the ifi USB but I had the chance to compare plain AP2 to AP2 + PP and I can say the increase in performance was as significant with the PP as it was with Plain AP2 in comparison of NAD USB input. So story short, for me, in my system, the PurePower double the performance and listening pleasure. More accuracy and better bass are the most distinguishible improvments.


----------



## Capri87

Anyone can comment on whether it's worth getting AP2 for my Wyred4sound Dac2 DSD? Is the sound improvement significant?


----------



## drez

capri87 said:


> Anyone can comment on whether it's worth getting AP2 for my Wyred4sound Dac2 DSD? Is the sound improvement significant?




Does it have upgraded usb input like the SE? I would read up on that. SE usb input is meant to be pretty good.


----------



## Capri87

drez said:


> Does it have upgraded usb input like the SE? I would read up on that. SE usb input is meant to be pretty good.


 
 Mine is the DSD version without the SE. So you mean I can do without the audiobyte right?


----------



## drez

Not sure. Dont have the w4s but what I read tends to indicate the usb on the se upgrade is very good. I guess you could email w4s to ask about the usb module and goggle threads.on the se upgrade.


----------



## Capri87

drez said:


> Not sure. Dont have the w4s but what I read tends to indicate the usb on the se upgrade is very good. I guess you could email w4s to ask about the usb module and goggle threads.on the se upgrade.


 

 Alright thanks!


----------



## Sanlitun

I borrowed one of those cell phone external battery packs out of curiosity to see what the AP2 might sound like through it. It's a 9000 mAh Momax ipower and seems to be a pretty quality unit with an on/off switch for the USB ports. A battery this size could possibly power the AP2 for 30 hours or so, so it seems to be a cost effective upgrade if it works out.
  
 I have the power leg of a IFI Gemini cable hooked into the battery, and the data leg directly into my computer USB port. Prior to this I was either running both legs into different USB ports, or sometimes using a IFI iUSB power supply with only the power leg plugged into it.
  
 My first impressions using the battery is that it seems to be at a lower level and slightly thin sounding. It's certainly very very clean and extremely resolving, but I am not certain if it is preferable to the iUSB or even computer power.
  
 Has anyone else tried out one of these off the shelf USB power supplies?


----------



## pompon

I have AP1/PP + ifi iUSB + iFi Purifier
 I bought for a friend a AP2 + AqVox supply.
  
 AP1 / PP all the way big step up from all other below
 AP2 / iFi second best ... it's still far from AP/PP. More natural than AqVox and more resolving.
 AP2 AqVox third .. It's give more swing to AP alone. Is-it an upgrade ? Not sure ... probably a side move.
 AP2 alone
  
 All that require attention on the usb cable. It's make a major difference in the SQ.


----------



## nkbg

pompom, any impressions of AP1+PP with and without iFi USB?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison re AP + IFI vs. the AP + PP since there are internal mods Phil applies. The difference with the PP is substantial to my ears. If you can afford it, it's a very worthwhile update.


----------



## pompon

Ap1 and ap2 are supposed to sound similar.

Ap1 upgraded for pure power can't work without the battery pure power.

Buy pp before a ifi USB or better USB cable.
Buy a better USB cable before ifi USB.

With all that, software still have a big impact on the sound.

So the filtration, buffer, reclock and isolation are not perfect and the better the source, the better the output.

Enjoy the world of audio.


----------



## HumanMedia

Has anyone heard the standard AP1 compared to the AP1 384khz/DSD128 Special Edition?
 Just the same sound with higher data rate, or are there audible differences as well?


----------



## journey2nirvana

sanlitun said:


> After a few weeks now with the AP2 it's clear it is an impressive device and still a step up over most implementations of the XMOS USB connectivity that is common in most of the DACs available.
> 
> I've tried it out on two DACs that use XMOS, the NAD M51 and the X-Sabre, and as well on the Bifrost. I feel the real magic happens on the M51, as it seems to have capabilities that exceed what the XMOS can provide and the sound is notably improved.
> 
> ...


 
  
 We have some of the same gear and was wondering if you can help me out with some basic info if it would warrant the cost to buy a AP1 + PP
 My chain is basic = Laptop –> Matrix X Sabre –> Burson Soloist -> HeadPhone 
 Would adding a AP1 + PP in the chain after my laptop in your opinion be a good decision, as I have read that some DAC’s don’t benefit or actually sound worst with the AP1 + PP in the chain.
 Thanks in advance for your help
 Ryan


----------



## Sanlitun

journey2nirvana said:


> We have some of the same gear and was wondering if you can help me out with some basic info if it would warrant the cost to buy a AP1 + PP
> My chain is basic = Laptop –> Matrix X Sabre –> Burson Soloist -> HeadPhone
> Would adding a AP1 + PP in the chain after my laptop in your opinion be a good decision, as I have read that some DAC’s don’t benefit or actually sound worst with the AP1 + PP in the chain.
> Thanks in advance for your help
> Ryan


 
  
  
 I spent a lot of time playing with the AP and running it pretty much every way possible including batteries, the IFI iUSB power source and the IFI Gemini split cable. 
  
 What I eventually found out was that I could apply what I had learned in improving the sound of the AP directly to my DAC and achieve the same or better results. I ended up running the data leg only of the IFI Gemini cable into my NAD M51 and to my ears this sounds better than any of the configurations I tried with the Audiophilleo. In my case I guess the biggest benefit the AP was providing was noise isolation, and once I learned I could control that, I no longer needed the AP. I prefer the sound I have now as I am getting the same black background and detail, but without the hyper treble resolution the AP has.
  
 I did try the AP on the X-Sabre and I found it didn't really benefit that much and it was harder to detect the difference. I also tried it on the Schiit Bifrost and found I preferred the on board USB to the AP with that DAC. IMHO with the X-Sabre there probably isn't much value in spending the money on the AP, as opposed to selling the DAC and upgrading to something better. I know I am not alone in this opinion, check out the review at:http://digitalaudiodirections.blogspot.ca/2014/06/matrixx-sabre-dac-review-stunning-gem.html
  
 If I was still running the X-Sabre I would probably take steps to improve its power supply and use a USB cable that isolated the power and ground from the computer (the X-Sabre does not use the USB power from the computer so the connection is not needed).
  
 I think as a general comment there has been so much improvement in USB interfaces on DACs recently that the AP may not be an improvement and in fact you may just be adding another layer of signal conversion in using S/PDIF where it is not needed.


----------



## journey2nirvana

@Sanlitun,
  
Thanks for the advised! Will read everything i can find regarding the suggestion and find the necessary USB Cable.
  
Ryan


----------



## negura

sanlitun said:


>


 
  
 Very interesting findings. Either something in your system is restricting transparency or well the good old saying we all do not hear the same.


----------



## Sanlitun

negura said:


> Very interesting findings. Either something in your system is restricting transparency or well the good old saying we all do not hear the same.


 
  
 I think it's just a matter of preference and it's relative to the NAD M51, which is an excellent DAC with a very good XMOS implementation. For the most part I felt the sound was "just right" using the onboard USB as opposed to times when using the AP was fatiguing.
  
 Now I'm not saying the AP doesn't produce excellent sound, it does. And I had tinkered around with it to produce some great results. A couple of the things that worked for me:
  
 The best sound I got from the AP was with using a proper 75 ohm digital cable to do the connection to the DAC rather than using their adapter. With the adapter I felt there was a fatiguing unnatural aspect to the sound that seemed to put far too much emphasis on dynamic and high end details. But with a cable the detail and the benefits of the AP became more even and musical, and to me it was a night and day difference that was more profound than any of the power tweaks I tried out. There are a couple of threads over on the Australian forum where others have reported the same effect and I gather it may be relative to how your DAC does S/PDIF. I ended up with a 2 meter S/PDIF cable which seems to sound the best for me and I gather is long enough to not be subject to jitter from reflections etc.
  
 As far as using the X-Sabre with an AP, well if you are willing to spend $1k on the AP I feel you may as well just sell your X-Sabre and put the money towards a M51 or a PWD II which can be had for about $1500 these days.


----------



## negura

sanlitun said:


> The best sound I got from the AP was with using a proper 75 ohm digital cable to do the connection to the DAC rather than using their adapter.


 
  
 This I much agree with and I had similar findings. The supplied adapter was crap compared good cables. However as with any cables they will affect the sound signature.


----------



## GoldfishX

I just got my AP2/PP and holy crap, this thing actually works! For the past year, I've struggled to pinpoint the weakness in my system and after going various amps, headphones and DAC's and even speakers, I had finally traced it to my source. I had planned on picking up a laptop to use as a music server with AP2/PP, as opposed to my main desktop, but I popped the AP2 into the desktop's USB port and hooked it into my A8 DAC and tossed my HD600's into the A8's headphone jack. Bliss! Slightly dry (guessing this is moreso from the A8 amp/HD600 pairing), but zero harshness, extremely accurate imaging and just toe-tapping musical bliss.
  
 I still need to mess with the settings a slight bit (I'm using the single USB connection, instead of separate ones for the PP and AP2) and I will still likely end up going the cheap laptop route, but that kind of gave my setup the kick in the ass that it has desperately needed for more than a year. Nothing worse than an extremely accurate pair of headphones picking up wads of jitter in the source (I need to swap my HD800's in next).
  
 One small thing, the first hour or so, there was a slight bit of harshness in the chain and I got a slight headache, but the last 3 hours have been straight-up bliss.


----------



## pompon

You should try ifi usb power.
  
 laptop -> usb -> ifi usb-> USB 1 to purepower using the usb out (5volts only) and the USB2 port of the ifi to the audiophilleo.
  
  
 If you going 2 usb cable route, keep your best usb for the audiophilleo. If you don't know ... no need to connect the usb cable to the purepower unless you want to recharge it.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

pompon said:


> You should try ifi usb power.
> 
> laptop -> usb -> ifi usb-> USB 1 to purepower using the usb out (5volts only) and the USB2 port of the ifi to the audiophilleo.
> 
> ...


 
 What would be the benefit of the ifi since he's already using the AP2/PP combo?


----------



## GoldfishX

Tried a couple more sources (an iPad USB output, coax out with my DX50, optical out with a CD player) and there's really no comparison...Just running the USB out from the noisy desktop computer into the AP2/PP is the best, clearest and most musical source I have on me right now. I did switch to using both an iPod power brick and the computer to power the PP and I think it gives it that extra 5-10 percent refinement.
  
 This thing just shows how important getting a good source is to the rest of the chain. I have yet to find a combination of DAC's/amps/headphones that sound bad.


----------



## HumanMedia

Anyone else using a Squeezebox Touch as a source into the AP having problems with the latest 1.33 AP firmware?
 I can't get it to connect. Had to downgrade the AP to 1.27 firmware to get it work properly again.
  
 Anyone else having this issue or is it just my setup?


----------



## kerio

Hi,
 Anyone noticed a difference in sound between Windows generic driver and Audiophilleo custom driver?
 To me, it seems the latest produces a larger scene but a little bit softer sound, with fewer details.
 I tried on both speaker and headphone system and the differences are easy discernible.


----------



## RubyTiger

Ok, I have a question. Forgive me if it's been answered before. I'm using my Audiophilleo 2 w/pure power with my tower window's pc. I have a very good usb cable between the tower & pure power. Then from the pure power to audiophilleo I'm using the supplied short usb cable which I'm guessing is nickel.  Since my other usb cable is made from expensive alloy's (silver) wouldn't it make sense to 'upgrade' the shorter cable also? Has anyone tried this to see what effect a higher end cable on the short side could make? If your a non cable believer please don't add negative comments. Trust me when I say I've heard it all already. Personally I like to think there is a little magic here and there which is really finding something that compliments your system as they are all different.


----------



## drez

I think you can use a USB cable directly from the computer to the AP2 bypassing the PP, which I think would be best for the USB signal transmission.  If your cable can reach I would try this setup, and use separate cable for the PP to charge.


----------



## RubyTiger

drez said:


> I think you can use a USB cable directly from the computer to the AP2 bypassing the PP, which I think would be best for the USB signal transmission.  If your cable can reach I would try this setup, and use separate cable for the PP to charge.


 

 So your saying, (please forgive me if I am just repeating what u said) run my aftermarket usb cable from the pc to the Audiophilleo. Then run a store brand (walmart perhaps) cable from the a different usb port on the pc to the pure power for it's charge. The small wire running from the pp to audiophileo stay's as is. Is that correct? Sounds like it would work good to me if so.


----------



## drez

Yeah this is the way I ran my AP2/PP with just the power cord between the AP2 and PP, good cable between computer and AP2, and generic USB cable between computer (different USB port possible) and the PP.  I think AP2/PP instructions show this as the second option or something.


----------



## RubyTiger

drez said:


> Yeah this is the way I ran my AP2/PP with just the power cord between the AP2 and PP, good cable between computer and AP2, and generic USB cable between computer (different USB port possible) and the PP.  I think AP2/PP instructions show this as the second option or something.


 

 Thank you! This made my evening. Like the person further above I also felt something was not right after changing to all high end cables. Transparency was like looking out an open window but the music was not engaging at all. Way to analytical. The audiophilleo changed that and I've been pretty happy ever since. Maybe this will open that window without the analytical drawback.


----------



## drez

Yep some transports can sound analytical and lacking in musical information, other transport can sound too musical but not accurate.  I think it is possible to have both, and some transports can achieve this.  I seemed to recall liking the sound with "enable bit 28" firmware flash, and it's probably also worth playing around with computer software and buffer size, ASIO vs KS vs WASAPI etc. to give a little bit more fine tuning.  Be careful with firmware though as can brick the AP2...


----------



## daveyston23

drez said:


> Yeah this is the way I ran my AP2/PP with just the power cord between the AP2 and PP, good cable between computer and AP2, and generic USB cable between computer (different USB port possible) and the PP.  I think AP2/PP instructions show this as the second option or something.




Yep, this is how I set up my AP1, PP, and MacBook pro.


----------



## isquirrel

daveyston23 said:


> Yep, this is how I set up my AP1, PP, and MacBook pro.


 

 I ran mine same way, best sound this method, IMHO


----------



## isquirrel

goldfishx said:


> I just got my AP2/PP and holy crap, this thing actually works! For the past year, I've struggled to pinpoint the weakness in my system and after going various amps, headphones and DAC's and even speakers, I had finally traced it to my source. I had planned on picking up a laptop to use as a music server with AP2/PP, as opposed to my main desktop, but I popped the AP2 into the desktop's USB port and hooked it into my A8 DAC and tossed my HD600's into the A8's headphone jack. Bliss! Slightly dry (guessing this is moreso from the A8 amp/HD600 pairing), but zero harshness, extremely accurate imaging and just toe-tapping musical bliss.
> 
> I still need to mess with the settings a slight bit (I'm using the single USB connection, instead of separate ones for the PP and AP2) and I will still likely end up going the cheap laptop route, but that kind of gave my setup the kick in the ass that it has desperately needed for more than a year. Nothing worse than an extremely accurate pair of headphones picking up wads of jitter in the source (I need to swap my HD800's in next).
> 
> One small thing, the first hour or so, there was a slight bit of harshness in the chain and I got a slight headache, but the last 3 hours have been straight-up bliss.


 

 It sounds a lot better after 200+ hours, leave a track on 24/7 you can turn off your amp. Better if you can use a dedicated burn in track or Pink noise.


----------



## HumanMedia

FYI Mark 2 versions of both AP1 and AP2 hardware are now available.
  
 Also firmware updates for all models now available, plus a good firmware update to PurePower (recommended for all users)
 http://www.audiophilleo.com/support.aspx


----------



## Alou

This is a Brand i was not aware of untill i read this post .The price is a bit high if you take the competition into consideration and would like to get some honest opinios for its price ($949) range.


----------



## GoldfishX

isquirrel said:


> It sounds a lot better after 200+ hours, leave a track on 24/7 you can turn off your amp. Better if you can use a dedicated burn in track or Pink noise.


 
  
 I bought it used, so it was already well-used. I think the harshness is noise from the computer and the Audiophilleo can't totally clean it all out, not helped by a less-than optimal power set-up.
  
 I will probably either sell the AP2/PP or I will probably pick up an Auraliti unit and a decent power conditioner (most likely the latter, as I do like the AP2/PP and think it can help in the right set-up). More $$$, but I'm believing less and less in using a computer as a main audio source.


----------



## project86

alou said:


> This is a Brand i was not aware of untill i read this post .The price is a bit high if you take the competition into consideration and would like to get some honest opinios for its price ($949) range.


 
  
  
 Audiophilleo was one of the first to do an all-out, spare no expense DDC like this. They are the real deal. I compared to some newer competitors like the Off-Ramp and Bel Canto RefLink, and preferred the AP1 with PurePower.


----------



## drez

If you want to cut down noise from the computer something like the Schiit Wyrd might work, but yes there are some USB transports which are less forward than the AP2/PP.
  
 Yes computer audio is an uphill battle, but it's all in the journey right?


----------



## project86

drez said:


> If you want to cut down noise from the computer something like the Schiit Wyrd might work, but yes there are some USB transports which are less forward than the AP2/PP.
> 
> Yes computer audio is an uphill battle, but it's all in the journey right?


 
  
 Agreed, the Offramp 5 is smoother/more rolled off sounding which could be a better match depending on the system.


----------



## GoldfishX

drez said:


> If you want to cut down noise from the computer something like the Schiit Wyrd might work, but yes there are some USB transports which are less forward than the AP2/PP.
> 
> Yes computer audio is an uphill battle, but it's all in the journey right?


 

 At that point, you'd be using two units just to "calm down" the crap coming out of the computer. I wouldn't trust the source at all, by that point, no matter how well it is cleaned up. I threw together a CD-based rig by an outlet away from the computer and it sounds instantly cleaner than anything I've tried near my computer (my old Sony 300 CD carousel, Fostex A8 Dac, Magni and HD600).


----------



## RubyTiger

Would the AP2 with pure power benefit the newer dac's over $1500? It wont do dsd so let's leave that format out of the question (but not those dac's).


----------



## project86

rubytiger said:


> Would the AP2 with pure power benefit the newer dac's over $1500? It wont do dsd so let's leave that format out of the question (but not those dac's).


 
  
  
 Depends on the DAC, but in many cases it definitely does.
  
 It's pretty rare for most DACs to have a complete, balls-to-the-wall, state of the art USB section, when the DAC itself is built to a price. Even a relatively expensive DAC at $1500+ has to make some concessions for budget, not to mention space constraints inside their cases. Most of these DACs are using off the shelf implementations from XMOS, C-Media, etc, which can range from mediocre to excellent depending on the situation. 
  
 I'd say almost every DAC I've encountered (with a few expensive exceptions) benefits from the Audiophilleo setup. The question is how much. Paying that much for a 2% boost in SQ is not really worth it, but if it's more substantial then it can be a good buy. Unfortunately there's only one way to find out....


----------



## daerron

rubytiger said:


> Would the AP2 with pure power benefit the newer dac's over $1500? It wont do dsd so let's leave that format out of the question (but not those dac's).


 
  
 I definitely think it will, though a lot of DACs now sport very good USB implementations, but upgrading the transport is always worthwhile. I bought the AP2 on an impulse last year and It was an interesting surprise at how the AP2 improved a lot of DACs, like the Rega DAC, Emotiva XDA-2 and my Yamaha receiver's built-in PCM1796 DAC (granted they are all on the lower end of the scale and sport worthless USB interfaces). It was one of my more fun discoveries in the last year, seeing the audible improvements possible with high quality low jitter transports. Also did some experiments with the M2Tech Hiface, Concero and AP2 and was fun seeing the differences in how they sound and/or benefited from an external power supply.
  
 A lot of DACs in the $1500 range also sound inconsistent using different inputs (PS Audio NuWave for example) and adding a good transport can negate some of these performance variations or allow you to optimise your transport to provide the best quality signal to the best interface. Improving the overall jitter performance is a worthwhile pursuit in any digital system.


----------



## GoldfishX

Hopefully in the near future, I'm going to be able to audition an Auralic Aries, with the femtoclocks. I'll plan on trying it both with and without the AP2/PP. My original plan was to try an Auraliti, but the premium Aries has the femtos and the linear power supply for about $200 more than the PK90 w/ optional linear power supply.


----------



## RubyTiger

I just preordered a 2Qute dac. I will be trying my AP2 with pure power on it. For now I will be using it with my Burson Conductor if I can bypass it's internal dac. My other amp's not due until May or June.


----------



## HumanMedia

rubytiger said:


> I just preordered a 2Qute dac. I will be trying my AP2 with pure power on it. For now I will be using it with my Burson Conductor if I can bypass it's internal dac. My other amp's not due until May or June.


 

 I have my 2Qute on order as well. Have you got yours yet? and if so, how much improvement does the AP2 offer to the 2Qute?


----------



## Currawong

According to Rob Watts, the new 2Qutes have galvanically isolated USB, so the APs might not make any significant difference. I know that when I run my Hugo using a Schiit Wyrd USB isolator, I get the same results as with the AP1/PP.


----------



## RubyTiger

I just read on the 2Qute thread there's an unconfirmed two week delay now. The 2Qute has already been launched as the first production was sold out in March.
  
 There may be some units from the March release still at the retailers. The next was said to be released at the end of April.
  
 We are at the mercy of the system as usual.
  
 edit:  Rob Watts has spoken on the 2Qute thread and say's there's a couple of batches; one to go out this week (sold out) and one next week (sold out).  But,
         the unit is still heavily back ordered.


----------



## RubyTiger

currawong said:


> According to Rob Watts, the new 2Qutes have galvanically isolated USB, so the APs might not make any significant difference. I know that when I run my Hugo using a Schiit Wyrd USB isolator, I get the same results as with the AP1/PP.


 

 Hi Currawong, Rob Watts also say's he would like to hear a usb cable make a difference as well. I found the AP2 and Audioquest Diamond to be a match made in heaven. Have you noted differences between cables with AP as well?


----------



## Currawong

rubytiger said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > According to Rob Watts, the new 2Qutes have galvanically isolated USB, so the APs might not make any significant difference. I know that when I run my Hugo using a Schiit Wyrd USB isolator, I get the same results as with the AP1/PP.
> ...


 

 Once I upgraded to the Pure Power, the USB issues stopped, as the noise wasn't passing through to the S/PDIF.


----------



## joespride

Have to bring this thread some new life, Recently purchased a used Ap1 with Pp  to use with my Metrum Octave, it worked great for about a week when the Pp began to click and say charging after about 1/2 hour it died and would not do anything
  
 I contacted Phillip and we had a short email discussion at which time he suggested I send him the unit, as I am perpetually broke I had to ask about the cost of him going through the units. His replay was it is still under warranty so there will be no cost to you 
  
 I have to give Phillip Kudos for being a superb builder seller, standing behind his products even when purchased used, Very hard to find that kind of service today
  
 He contacted me yesterday to say he found  an issue that he fixed and was burning it in, He asked if I mind him keeping it in shop till end of week so he could be sure it was up to par,  
  
 IMHO Phillip is a great Guy


----------



## joespride

Received my Ap1 back from Phillip, though I bought it used he took care of the unit under warrant and did not even ask me to cover shipping, We exchanged 25 emails discussing the AP1 and its setup, and My system sounds better than ever b-4. Below is a direct quote from Phillip
  
"Hi Joseph, that is great news.  You are most welcome.  To me all my customers and all audiophiles are really part of a community that I'm happy to be part of "
  
How can you go wrong dealing with someone like this....................I am a customer for life


----------



## Sanlitun

humanmedia said:


> FYI Mark 2 versions of both AP1 and AP2 hardware are now available.
> 
> Also firmware updates for all models now available, plus a good firmware update to PurePower (recommended for all users)
> http://www.audiophilleo.com/support.aspx


 
  
 Has anyone found that their AP2 will not power itself off after firmware 1.35?
  
 Mine gets stuck with the rear light on and needs to be disconnected and reconnected to work again.


----------



## joespride

No issues with my ap1, I would call / contact Phillip, He will know more about it than anyone


----------



## daerron

My Audiophilleo 2 died last week. Looks like a wire broke off the BNC socket as the glue came unstuck that was supposed to prevent the connector from from twisting in the chassis. Not impressed that it doesn't feature any strain relief on the wires coming from the connector. As I bought mine second hand I guess I'm SOL..


----------



## joespride

contact phillip if it is a design flaw I am sure he will take care of it


----------



## NoNameNPC

Is Audiophilleo 2 support ASIO?


----------



## upstateguy

NoNameNPC said:


> Is Audiophilleo 2 support ASIO?


The Audiophilleo site says:

"No driver is required for the OS X, Linux and Windows XP operating systems for 192 kHz, 24 bit performance. Windows Vista and 7 require our custom driver for 176/192 kHz operation; a signed 32 and 64 bit versions are available.

Note that the Audiophilleo1 Special Edition support up to 384Khz under Windows Vista/7/8/8.1/10, OSX, and Linux.

Under Windows, both the standard and custom drivers are compatible with WASAPI and *ASIO4ALL* as well as DS. When using *ASIO4ALL*, the kernel buffers should be set to 4. Note that under XP, for maximum reliability, we recommend using *ASIO4ALL* instead of kernel streaming."


----------



## mulveling (Apr 28, 2022)

I've had an AP2 w/ PP for years, but now I want the AP1's digital volume control & L/R channel balance features. I tried to buy one this week but Phillip refunded my payment saying he's out of stock, and supply chain issues don't make the outlook good for new units anytime soon


----------



## lator

Bought a second hand Audiophilleo 1 and can't find the newest firmware (1.36) anywhere. Can't download from the site because this unit serial# has already been registered to another unknown e-mail address. Previous owner also had bought it second hand. Anybody have a download link to share? I tried their support e-mail but been waiting for a week without reply.


----------



## ibdrew

Help for a newby. I want to go from winamp to ?? I have an external HD with toms of flac music. I am going out through my USB on my HP laptop into my Peachtree NOVA 300 integrated which has a USB input and goes through Peachtree's on board DAC. The sound is OK but not anything near my CD sound. 
Questions:
Should I change the software (bypassing windows) I am using Winamp and I also have Aimp installed. I have the settings as WASAPI Exclusive. My pc volume controls are not being bypassed. 
Is there some external piece of Hardware that will make a huge improvement and get me closer to CD sound?  (Audiophilleo 1?) 
Is there some type of hardware that I can plug my external into that will allow me to completely bypass the PC? 

I am looking for my next step and need some of you smart Computer Audiophile's help.

Thanks,  Drew


----------



## Brandfuchs

Have anyone tried both Ap1/2 and int204 yet? Could you share your thoughts on them? 
I found it really hard to make a choice between these two while unfortunately there's no dealer provides AP for demo...


----------

