Interesting. Halide Design Bridge Review | Computer Audiophile

Thoughts?

I thought it was going to be about some cool new suspension bridge in germany or something

Looks cool, more than i would be willing to spend for what it does, but probably a good product. There are details on the implementation which could make or break it's jitter performance, but what is known of it seems good.

Ok, but what about its use as a suspension bridge in or around Europe?

Whoa, it might be the first sub-$1000 converter that makes use of the Wavelength asynchronous USB implementation. I still question the need of such devices though if your DAC already has a jitter rejection mechanism. Your thoughts, anyone?

Jitter reduction, not rejection -- without buffering and reclocking, one can only reduce jitter, not eliminate it. Async done well could easily better that.

Under the assumption that you can hear jitter, etc., blah blah blah.

Interesting. Halide Design Bridge Review | Computer Audiophile

Thoughts?

Whoa, it might be the first sub-$1000 converter that makes use of the Wavelength asynchronous USB implementation. I still question the need of such devices though if your DAC already has a jitter rejection mechanism. Your thoughts, anyone?

The only other sub $1k async "plug n play~driver/software-less" USB converter product that I'm aware of is Gordons $900 Proton that's going for ~$700 now on agon. Unable to find info on the release of the Wavelink I will probably give the Bridge a try here soon(obviously Gordon has chosen to sell Streamlength to others before developing his own lower priced stuff.) The Musiland 02US that uses software makes a noticable improvement all around, to me, especially in the lower freqs, if somewhat buggy at times when switching between foobar and an online streamer like Grooveshark or Last.fm.

Not really sure about the reclock stuff Dusty. I guess it would depend somewhat if your dac has a good clock etc. to begin with. I agree totally with the implementation being key to good sound. I think sorta along the same lines as Gordon in that the computer is the "source of the source/dac" if you will. In my limited dabblings and experiments I've found that async makes an improvement for me, even though the Musiland has worse timing error readings on the digital lens than a cheap Marantz DV6500 CD player(and it sounds better even without the lens reclocking the signal.)

Not really sure about the reclock stuff Dusty. I guess it would depend somewhat if your dac has a good clock etc. to begin with. I agree totally with the implementation being key to good sound. I think sorta along the same lines as Gordon in that the computer is the "source of the source/dac" if you will. In my limited dabblings and experiments I've found that async makes an improvement for me, even though the Musiland has worse timing error readings on the digital lens than a cheap Marantz DV6500 CD player(and it sounds better even without the lens reclocking the signal.)

Re: bolded portion -- yeah, I misspoke if I said anything to the contrary -- I totally agree with that.

But the clock in the DAC -- unless ASYNC, or buffered and reclocked somehow -- is usually just a PLL on the clock on the input signal, so the statement should go something like "...it would depend somewhat if your transport has a good clock etc. to begin with..." -- that's my stance, anyway.

The whole premise of going async is to circumvent this limitation.

Theres something that always bugs me about non-commodity protocol converters. Especially when its less flawed -> somewhat flawed ..

Still waiting for j4cbo's open source FPGA implementation, then we can all go home.

I can think of a new buffered async protocol with built in error correction and retransmit device that came out recently, supports 24/96 s/pdif as toslink that measures well as a transport, for much less ,and has a color touch screen. But where's he fun in discussing something cheaper, that works?

Re: bolded portion -- yeah, I misspoke if I said anything to the contrary -- I totally agree with that.

But the clock in the DAC -- unless ASYNC, or buffered and reclocked somehow -- is usually just a PLL on the clock on the input signal, so the statement should go something like "...it would depend somewhat if your transport has a good clock etc. to begin with..." -- that's my stance, anyway.

The whole premise of going async is to circumvent this limitation.

Exactly. Ideally you would want one clock for evreything. I wonder if that's how it's done in the QB-9, keeping everygthing in one box.

Theres something that always bugs me about non-commodity protocol converters. Especially when its less flawed -> somewhat flawed ..

Still waiting for j4cbo's open source FPGA implementation, then we can all go home.

That's gonna be a hoot ain't it.

I can think of a new buffered async protocol with built in error correction and retransmit device that came out recently, supports 24/96 s/pdif as toslink that measures well as a transport, for much less ,and has a color touch screen. But where's he fun in discussing something cheaper, that works?

I think this is the color lcd thing you're talking about.

I was considering the one without the lcd for a time.

forgot, devilsound is sending me a Halide Bridge to listen to and take to canjam. Should I end up purchasing it Iwill make it available to anyone wnatin to give it a try.

I think this is the color lcd thing you're talking about.

more like Computer Audio Asylum - Squeezebox Touch announced - John Swenson - September 03, 2009 at 23:52:12

Hard facts supporting the quality of Touch digital out. - Squeezebox : Community : Forums

Jitter reduction, not rejection -- without buffering and reclocking, one can only reduce jitter, not eliminate it. Async done well could easily better that.

Under the assumption that you can hear jitter, etc., blah blah blah.

So are you saying that asynchronous protocol in the transport is more important than a similar jitter reduction mechanism in the DAC? I'm specifically referring to ASRC re-clocker present in some DACs.

On your second statement, I surely cannot differentiate the sound between various input options in my γ2 so ignorance is bliss I guess?

forgot, devilsound is sending me a Halide Bridge to listen to and take to canjam. Should I end up purchasing I will make it available to anyone wnatin to give it a try.

Looking forward to that, digger945. I really like their elegant implementation.

So are you saying that asynchronous protocol in the transport is more important than a similar jitter reduction mechanism in the DAC? I'm specifically referring to ASRC re-clocker present in some DACs.

Well, that's why I qualified it as done well. If you have very little jitter to begin with, then a PLL is really not that bad. It is possible to have low jitter in a cheap device, and there is an entire school of thought that most of the levels of jitter that we are talking about in audio fall well within that range.

On your second statement, I surely cannot differentiate the sound between various input options in my γ2 so ignorance is bliss I guess?

Yes. Yes it is. I'm not being sarcastic or sardonic or derisive or anything. If you can't hear jitter, then yes, you are much better off, and can sit back and call "bits is bits" and enjoy the music, at least as far as your source is concerned.

If you have very little jitter to begin with, then a PLL is really not that bad.

Some PLLs are fine even with huge amounts of jitter, while others have very high intrinsic jitter. Bad PLL is bad, and all that.

Edited May 17, 201016 yr by Dusty Chalk

Wouldn't it (it==any PLL) phase-lock to the jitter-ridden signal?

Yes, it is phase locked, but follows the input clock much more slowly, so that only the overall frequency match, but it isnt a clone of that clock but rather a completely new clock with the exact same frequency. Here is a good page describing the design of a good secondary PLL for DAC clock regeneration.

I'd like some comparisons. Like the Halide vs. M2Tech hiFace. Winner takes on Emprical Audio Offramp. All pointing to same dac at 24/96 (gotta keep the test controlled somehow...)

What makes you think the offramp isn't going to finish last in that pack?

What makes you think the offramp isn't going to finish last in that pack?

probably the same reason that causes you to think it's worth not assuming that it isn't

Test it any way you want. But triple blind is a dumb idea. I still think it would win.

Just got my stuff set back up and am listening to it now. Sounds ok after 2 hours, if a little weird. Definitely different.

Just got my stuff set back up and am listening to it now. Sounds ok after 2 hours, if a little weird. Definitely different.

"weird"?

Looking forward to your further impressions, digger945.

Looking forward to your further impressions, digger945.

2-fer.

Different than........? Than it sounded before, or different than something else...?

The plot thickens.