Theta dac and TLC (re clocking anti jitter device) question

[icehockeyboy]

I have two options regarding connecting my Squeezebox to my Theta dac.

Straight into the dac via toslink lead, and then select coax/opti input, or,

Into the TLC device, again with toslink, which then feeds the dac itself with a coax lead, and this time I select the coax/opti input on the TLC itself.

So, the question, does it make any difference the fact that im going in with an optical lead, and out with a coax one?

The answer I bet is no, but im not 100% sure, as it is I cant detect any difference......

[meninblack]

There is an interesting review here of four of these devices, including the TLC.

The TLC was found to be pretty effective through it's optical input, but hopeless through its coax.

There was no comment on audibility, results were measurements of jitter before and after.

[icehockeyboy]

Thanks MIB, incidentally the code for the Monarchy distributor is wrong, it should read 0115, and then stick a 9 in before the 284
It looks like someone just re did the old code (0602)
Thats assuming they are still in Wollaton, I didnt realize they were so close to me (3 miles)

[Sastusbulbas]

I have mentioned this before, the TLC requires some modding to it's co-ax phono sockets as they share common ground, easy to fix by fitting two separate phono sockets such as WBT next Gen, and very beneficial to jitter reduction. With this mod it's performance is far better than the review states and it outperforms the toslink measurements.

As you can see from the above link this common ground is mentioned, and as stock it has good jitter suppression via Toslink due to this breaking of common ground.

I am sure in a couple of past reviews that the TLC worked very well as a toslink to SPDIF converter giving an increased performance over the toslink only connection? My own did such duties with my optic only Technics SL-PA10 transport.

It was stated that daisy chaining TLC's was even more beneficial, and that the TLC benefits were suitable even for some of the more exotic systems of those days. Even so, my own findings were that the benefits were subtle, and the better the transport and DAC the less apparent this became, of course amp and speaker ancillaries had to be capable of showing the slight performance increase.

[icehockeyboy]

Steve, I wouldnt trust myself to mod mine in all honesty!

[julian2002]

i'll relate my experiences with reclocking devices...

one of the notorious problems with the original squeezebox 1 was it's very jittery output of wav files - mp3's were fine but due to the internal architecture there was no natural 44.1 time signal so one had to be (badly) synthesized. my dac at the time had 2 methods of locking onto an incoming signal - one for low jitter and one for crap ones - status of this was shown on the front panel via a light. so i effectively had a way of objectively measuring the performance of any reclocking device.
i initially tried a monarchy audio dip and found it to make no difference - either to the lock status or to my ears.
i then tried a bheringer - again no difference to either the status light or my ears.
tests using dedicated transports showed that the lock status and my ears could both tell the difference.
i was on the lookout for a genesis digital lens which is the mother of all reclockers involving a ram buffer and all kinds of voodoo. when the squeezebox 2 was released whcih had a totally different architecture and jitter performance which 3 seconds after i fired it up produced the little glowing light indicating a 'quality' lock. the difference was also immediadely noticable to my ears too - although if you said it was psycosomatic thanks to the little light i'd not argue - but it sure sounded better to me.
to my mind they are foo and not worth the hassle.

[Elberoth]

Tried them all - TLC is so so, Monarchy is a bit better, and Genesis Digital Lens eats them all for breakfast.

[icehockeyboy]

Erm.....so far, no one has actually addressed my original question.........?

[Elberoth]

Answering your question - it should sound better through TLC.

[icehockeyboy]

Elberoth wrote:

Answering your question - it should sound better through TLC.

Even going into it via optical, and out via coax?

[Elberoth]

Absolutely.

[meninblack]

Read the review - if you go in through optical it DOES reduce jitter, if you go in through coax it does FECK ALL.

So if you believe that reducing jitter will improve the sound - and there is little evidence for this - then go for it.

OTOH, if you believe that introducing an optical conversion will degrade the sound - and there's not muchevidence for this either - then don't bother.

We're firmly in the realms of foo here; your results may well depend which fairy tale you take more seriously.

[julian2002]

it should make no difference as the conversion will be done mostly in the digital domain - it may be that the optical signal needs to be put through an extra buffer and then reclocked again which is improving the jitter performance.
at the end of the day - if you want to use optical, use a quality glass, not plastic, cable and if you can;t hear the difference use whatever's most convienient. trust your ears.

[Sastusbulbas]

meninblack wrote:

Read the review - if you go in through optical it DOES reduce jitter, if you go in through coax it does FECK ALL.

So if you believe that reducing jitter will improve the sound - and there is little evidence for this - then go for it.

OTOH, if you believe that introducing an optical conversion will degrade the sound - and there's not muchevidence for this either - then don't bother.

We're firmly in the realms of foo here; your results may well depend which fairy tale you take more seriously.

On the first point, the Theta TLC did receive favourable reviews, and it's jitter suppression after breaking common ground was measured as better than via Toslink and reviewed as better sounding.

Most magazines found that in most cases reducing broadband jitter produced beneficial results with music, reduction of narrowband jitter (Monarchy DIP, TLC and such) was also reported as making a difference in most tests. It is the bandwidth of addressed jitter which is usually not addressed hence variable reports on success, two of the most successful jitter reduction products are the Meridian 518 and Genesis Digital Lense, both companies proved there was more to jitter, and better ways of tackling it I feel.
To this day it is still addressed by many companies during digital component manufacture, and probably less of an issue due to companies like the above bringing better understanding of inherent problems forward.

I am sure there is evidence of further conversions and poorly implemented optic conversion affecting digital data (hence the introduction of domed polished optic ends as poorly implemented optic ends were found to be detrimental) , one of the reasons why early players sounded better via Co-ax was due to the extra convertion into optics and back into an electrical signal apparently degrading data. Cheap poorly implemented circuits can cause various problems which there have been papers written on such. It is why design parameters are usually adhered to by the better manufacturers.

Not anything to do with Foo, but measured differences. Results are nothing to do with fairy tales but ancillaries, hearing acuity and such if deemed important. Otherwise all anyone would need if they believed the 0's and 1's doctrine is any old player at any old price as they would all sound the same.

[meninblack]

Sastusbulbas wrote:

On the first point, the Theta TLC did receive favourable reviews

Oh well, say no more. How could we doubt its brilliance.

Most magazines found that in most cases reducing broadband jitter produced beneficial results with music, reduction of narrowband jitter (Monarchy DIP, TLC and such) was also reported as making a difference in most tests.

Case proven then. No better authority than "most magazines."

They would never mislead or exaggerate.

IIRC some very highly rated CD players were found to have huge amounts of jitter, but the mags spunked over them anyway.

Have you heard evidence of audible improvements from jitter reduction, or just read it in magazines?

Your points about fibre ends and polishing are relevant to multi-mode fibres carry huge amounts of high bandwidth data, eg undersea telephone cables. The big chunky monomode things used in audio don't have the same issues.

If your DAC sounds different with optical - it's shit!

[Elberoth]

meninblack wrote:

Have you heard evidence of audible improvements from jitter reduction, or just read it in magazines?

I have heard improvements after inserting TLC, DIP and GDL. With GDL, the differences were not subtle.

My question is - did you have a chance to evaluate any of the jitter reducers mentioned ? If so, pls tell us on what equipment.

[meninblack]

Elberoth wrote:

meninblack wrote:

Have you heard evidence of audible improvements from jitter reduction, or just read it in magazines?

I have heard improvements after inserting TLC, DIP and GDL. With GDL, the differences were not subtle.

My question is - did you have a chance to evaluate any of the jitter reducers mentioned ? If so, pls tell us on what equipment.

Measurements are in the review posted earlier. Some positive, some not. Audibility was my question. I'm happy to accept that jitter is reduced - I've read the account of the measurements.

It's not a concern for me - my transport and DAC are clock-synched, as all good ones should be.

[Sastusbulbas]

meninblack wrote:

Sastusbulbas wrote:

On the first point, the Theta TLC did receive favourable reviews

Oh well, say no more. How could we doubt its brilliance.

Most magazines found that in most cases reducing broadband jitter produced beneficial results with music, reduction of narrowband jitter (Monarchy DIP, TLC and such) was also reported as making a difference in most tests.

Case proven then. No better authority than "most magazines."

They would never mislead or exaggerate.

IIRC some very highly rated CD players were found to have huge amounts of jitter, but the mags spunked over them anyway.

Have you heard evidence of audible improvements from jitter reduction, or just read it in magazines?

Your points about fibre ends and polishing are relevant to multi-mode fibres carry huge amounts of high bandwidth data, eg undersea telephone cables. The big chunky monomode things used in audio don't have the same issues.

If your DAC sounds different with optical - it's shit!

Hi MIB,

I guess if they ain't a non foo Wigwammer then their opinion is shit then eh, imagine the arrogance of thinking hearing a difference beneficial to performance due to a measurable reduction in jitter could be in any way correct or related.
Personally I believe items such as the TLC and Other Jitter devices did prove beneficial to people who bought them back when they were released.

I guess all jitter was the same after all?

Not sure of it's brilliance, but it can be handy in some old systems and other situations. I found my Theta TLC usefull in the past.

Yes I guess it is the magazines and manufacturers with some huge conspiracy, what else can we conclude after all.

As for highly rated CD players having high jitter, maybe it was because of Hi Fi reviewers spunking over the optics?
Though I can see your point regarding reviews if on one hand they say players with high jitter are good and on the other these jitter reducing devices are good.

Then again maybe it is simply something to do with some things in some systems doing well and some not. IE not all players with high jitter were reported as "sounding" better, just as not all low jitter CD players were reported as superb, just as not all add on extras were band aids for all system combinations?

I have used various CD transports, digital sources, jitter devices, and DACs, not all fancy and high end though, and had my fair share of demo's and such. I am pretty confident that some of what I heard were differences. I did think there was more to enjoying music than believing magazines or strange forum hype. In fact I have listened to kit without reading about it in some magazine or internet forum too!

What about yourself? Have you tried many digital items, cables jitter devices and such? Or is all this doubt due to peer pressure or other or not reading magazines LOL?

I am not sure how relevant optic fibre construction is in audio, I do think there is probably too much reading into manufacturers ideals. But that said, buying a well constructed digital cable with a decent fibre and polished has never as far as I am aware been costly or proven to be hype? Then again, my old cheap thin Technics optic cable lasted longer than my Van Den Hul Opticoupler which seems to have broken?
I do think a well constructed optic cable with well implemented optic tranciever and recievers is preferable and better performing than cheap optics and circuits. Maybe tight fitting ends and modal dispersion is not all that relevant in audio? Then again, quite clearly manufacturers were spending the time polishing optic ends and producing different types of optic cable due to having noting else to do but come up with new ways of making money I guess.

Just about every DAC is shit then? Personally some sounding the same with any old source and connection could very well be due to them being so coloured in the first place. I personally don't see superiour processing making it all sound the same in as any better than a dac being able to allow you to hear differences in the quality of ancillaries as better, just a different approach.

Funny how technical measurements were able to show transports and cables (and DAC's) as having measurable traits, and that some DAC's showing audible benefits from the better designed items were well recieved, then it comes down to them all being shit because some DAC's have so much processing they can make shit sound like sugar.

I guess modern DAC's are like modern pop music, no talent required as it can be processed and manufactured to sound as required LOL.

I myself cannot comment much, I have borrowed and demo'd some kit in past years, but still enjoy my old stuff which is still in superb working order. I prefer old 16 bit to upsampling and oversampling, and see no need in keeping up with the neighbors by buying the latest bling. For now I think it better to use a well engineered item which performs well techncally than rely on some processing to plaster over the cracks. That may change later when I hear an item that justifies it's cost or an item needs replacing I guess.

I have not used my own TLC for some time, I used it for connecting optic items to Coax only stuff, and don't see it as some brilliant performance enhancing must have, it's always been about subtle improvements in less than perfect situations, such as the Technics SL-PA10 optic only transport, or with various cheap players.

Most of these jitter items to my ears have decreased performance gains as ancillaries improve, and many only provide narrow jitter suppresion on specific frequency bands of jitter anyway.

My own Genesis Digital Lense is I find superb, but less beneficial with my Theta Data III and Pro Basic IIIa than it is between my EAD Theatervision P and Technics SU-MA10. I have never bothered trying it with my TEAC Transport and DAC.

I myself only use optic cables with some cheaper secondary components, my main system is usually all AES and XLR, Chord ProDac and Ixos 105 digital sits everywhere else.

[meninblack]

I've played around with all sorts for digital replay, and I've been involved with fibre optic signal transmission through work. Cutting and polishing is a big issue with the very thin long-distance fibres that use white light (not red) to transmit many frequencies simltaneously over long distances.

With the big fat ones used in toslink you can actually pull the connector out a short way without losing lock or degrading quality - try it and see. The detector is simply detecting ON or OFF, no need for subtlety and definitely no contribution from inter-modal interference - it's red light, not white light: one frequency transmitted over a short distance.

My transport and DAC can be linked via XLR, BNC, RAC and optical all at once, and you can flip between them using the remote. They all sound the same, because they are all properly implemented according to the standard. Jitter isn't an issue because they are clock synched.

Cheaper DACs may cut corners on the optical - I've never had one so no experience.

As for magazines, I find that as soon as untrained journalists get into technical areas they start to writegibberish. They are just concerned with making it easy to understand, even if it is inaccurate! Because they don't really have any technical understanding themselves, communication is flawed.

You can value their opinions on how things sound as you like. I've read too many rave reviews of bad-sounding tat to be impressed.

[Sastusbulbas]

MIB I agree with your last words to some extent, I think my use of old unfashionable stuff says a little of my own actual opinion of magazines and yearly new releases of kit.

The old Theta Data III/Genesis Digital Lense/Theta Pro Basic IIIa I usually use are pretty much sneered at by today' users and sellers of DCS and such, regardless of my enjoying it.

I may bump my gums, but it is not all that serious or rigorously believed or cared about, to be honest I think I am liking more of what guys like yourself and James say more than I should care to admit.

As for this thread, the OP answered itself pretty much when it was stated quote,

The answer I bet is no, but I'm not 100% sure, as it is I cant detect any difference......

If you cannot hear a difference why bother?