Unitiserve vs Mac Mini

Posted by: MontyMusic on 11 January 2012

Hi

Has anyone tested the above and can confirm if the Unitiserve is a good upgrade for a macMini I'm currently using. If be using with an M2Tech Young with upgraded power supply.

Am I better off saving for an NDX? I don't mind re ripping......
Posted on: 14 January 2012 by Noogle

Data from CDs, S/PDIF or USB links is a serial bitstream (i.e. a pipe 1-bit wide).  A serial to parallel converter (barrel shifter) converts this into 16-bit (or 24-bit) words which are clocked into the DAC.  Volume control normally takes place in the pre-amp in the analogue domain. I agree that a digital equaliser (e.g. in a PC) would modify the data, but most people go to a lot of effort to set their PCs up for bit-perfect operation.

Posted on: 14 January 2012 by MontyMusic

Hi

I'm already using a MacMini (older one with CD drive) with the Young. I was just wondering if I can expect better playback performance with a U Serve hooked up to the Young. My mac is connected via USB but the US would need to be digital Coax or optical

Posted on: 14 January 2012 by Noogle

You should trust your own ears, but from a technical perspective the async Mac Mini/USB solution is better.

Posted on: 14 January 2012 by Guido Fawkes
Originally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:

       

       
Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes:
Maze would you say US into Naim DAC is as good as or better than CDX2? Thanks, Guy.

Hi Guy, I'm not Maze but amazed at the superiority of my UServe+DAC over my CDS2/XPS. No contest. The CDS2/XPS is, I believe, generally considered musically superior to a bare CDX2, but different from a CDX2/XPS2. Hope that helps Jan (no news yet from Naim HQ)



Thanks Jan.
Posted on: 15 January 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
Originally Posted by aysil:

"Naim HQ" don't usually answer such questions about Naim hierarchy on this forum. However, Phil Harris had explained once in one of the threads, why it is technically likely to find differences btw dig-outs of various Naim devices.

Hi Aysil,

 

I've searched but not found the thread you're referring to. Could you point me to it ?

 

Thanks

 

Jan

Posted on: 15 January 2012 by Simon-in-Suffolk
YanC, picking up on your earlier posts of why digital is variable in analogue quality. Well here goes, and the more you research it the more amazed digital sounds as good as it does... If you search some of my earlier posts last year, you will see more descriptions of why this is so and why USB can be bad for RFI creation.

sPDIF and USB used streamed data. This data contains protocol data as well as payload data. Therefore it is not a case of simply converting a 'bit stream' to a stream of sample words, the serial stream needs decoding and the payload unpacking. It is this payload that is then carefully clocked to the DSP/DAC.
Now if you delve into the world of DSP, you see that 'bit perfect' really ihas lonly partial  significance to sample data at the point of conversion or encoding. It is eactually the TIMING of the samples are as just as important as to what the samples are. Therefore the clocking of the earlier recovered payload into the DSP/DAC is of paramount importance.
Now in the real world that earlier payload recovering and any RF interference coupled into the Powerlines cam cause  perturbations in this critical DAC/DSP clock.(the better the DAC, thevsmaller these become).This has the effect of adding distortion frequencies into the stream rate of sampled data. The net effect is when thiese samples are converted into a continuous analogue signal by the DAC's transfer function, there will be distortion to the analogue waveform,

In other words you could have a 'bit perfect' serial stream and still have a distorted analogue waveform because of disturbances in the clock.
Also this clock is SEPERATE from the transport clock used for USB or SPDIF. SPDIF transport jitter has nothing to do with sample jitter, unless through implementation decoding the jitter cause perturbations in the master DAC sample clock.

In the world of analogue to digital and digital to analogue  conversion there are many variables that can 'pollute and colour the sound', and the process itself can never be exact. All digital does is allows a method of retaining integrity of the digital signal through transporting it. The penalty however is at the conversion ends of the process. There is no such thing as a free lunch :-)

Simon
Posted on: 16 January 2012 by YanC

thanks for the post Simon. makes things a little clearer...

Posted on: 17 January 2012 by Eloise
Guido... Again you say the new V-Link (I assume you mean the 192 version) has no galvanic isolation but this is incorrect according to Musical Fidelity's website.

Eloise
Posted on: 17 January 2012 by Guido Fawkes

Yes, Eloise, the 192 version is the one I was referring to.

OK, if it says it on the MF web site then who am I to argue.

How does it achieve this? (Have a read of the HFW Review)

I'm sure it does offer what it says on the web site. 


All the best, Guy

Posted on: 18 January 2012 by Eloise
Galvanic isolation can be accomplished by using a transformer...
Posted on: 18 January 2012 by Guido Fawkes
Originally Posted by Eloise:
Galvanic isolation can be accomplished by using a transformer...

True, but how is this done in the MF192 V-Link? 

Posted on: 18 January 2012 by Eloise
Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes:

       

         class="quotedText">
       
Originally Posted by Eloise:
Galvanic isolation can be accomplished by using a transformer...

True, but how is this done in the MF192 V-Link? 



Okay I've read the HiFi News review and they do question if transformer coupled counts as isolated (though I believe it's a term generally used) so I see your point.

Eloise
Posted on: 18 January 2012 by Guido Fawkes

Hi Eloise

 

Do you think that 192 KHz offers anything useful over the more common 96 KHz or is it just a numbers game? I have heard nothing to convince me, but I definitely like 24 bit over 16 bit; I was surprised how good the new 24 bit Elvis Costello release sounded (i mean the SQ, Elvis songs nearly always sound great to me). 

 

All the best, Guy

Posted on: 18 January 2012 by maze
I struggle to hear any difference between 192khz and 96khz too.
Posted on: 18 January 2012 by pcstockton
Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes:

Hi Eloise

 

Do you think that 192 KHz offers anything useful over the more common 96 KHz or is it just a numbers game? I have heard nothing to convince me, but I definitely like 24 bit over 16 bit; I was surprised how good the new 24 bit Elvis Costello release sounded (i mean the SQ, Elvis songs nearly always sound great to me). 

 

All the best, Guy

I have played with 24/192 for a few years.  I have never been able to definitively differentiate between the two.  24/96 seems fine to me.

 

Maybe in some years when studio masters will be recorded to that freq rate, it might make a difference.

 

-p