USB to I2S/SPDIF - Edel USB Audio Class 2 transport card

would this option be good for the Lite 83 ?

Probably not since it needs to be installed in the DAC.

Thanks

Bill

Hi Guys

The Edel board has arrived and it is being installed in a DAC right now. It will be available for a comparison with my JK enabled DAC sometime very shortly - both DAC's will be the same except for the USB to I2S interface. I will be contacting KDOOT and NADA to see if they are interested in attending. If anyone else is interested drop me a note and it may be possible for them to attend as well. We will probably check out my Truth pre-amp as well.

Thanks

Bill

That's great news, Bill! When do you think this comparison can take place?

That's great news, Bill! When do you think this comparison can take place?

Can't give the exact day but it will be shortly.

Thanks

Bill

Hi Nada

The John Kenny landed was $350 - the Edel $500 (approx). But that includes about $180 shipping for the Edel using their courier TNT whereas John used a courier that cost much less - about $40.00 or so if I remember correctly - but it was probably a bit slower. That means only about a $10-20 base price difference. If further down the line someone wants to do a bulk order then not only do they give bulk discounts but the shipping per item will be considerably less and since getting here quickly will probably not be a real issue, shipping costs per item will be dramatically reduced. My gut tells me it may in fact be cheaper than a modfied Hiface for someone that wants to use them if they do a bulk order - but if not I am fairly certain even if not cheaper the price will not be the determining factor in product choice.

Thanks

Bill

Interesting to hear results of Edel vs JK

WRT shipping - $hit that's expensive! I get cartons of tubes etc shipped via fedex from

the states for less than that.

T

If anyone else is interested drop me a note and it may be possible for them to attend as well. We will probably check out my Truth pre-amp as well.

Fantastic news, and I am very interested in the outcome. Hmmm... I now have huge motivation to visit Redland Bay! I will be racking my brains today to think of a sensible reason that my work needs to send me northwards.... !

Fantastic news, and I am very interested in the outcome. Hmmm... I now have huge motivation to visit Redland Bay! I will be racking my brains today to think of a sensible reason that my work needs to send me northwards.... !

just ask Bill to drive the PDX down for you.......

just ask Bill to drive the PDX down for you.......

I wonder if anyone in driving range of Lenehan Audio has another USB to I2S device that would be a match for the Edel vs JKHiFace trial in the hunt for the best computer feed?

Im especially curious about the exaI2S device after reading "the exa is very neutral, and the more resolving the system, the better it can perform, with the very best recordings the air and realism around the performance is scary" http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/showthread.php/35975-Exadevices-exaU2I-USB-I2S-convertor-32-352.8?p=534073&viewfull=1#post534073

Does anyone have an exa or an Evo ?

I was just thinking about this USB-I2S device comparison and I think we need to realise that every PDX DAC is unique even if they have the same design as e.g. every tube is unique.

Ideally then the two trial DAC's need to be pre-tested eg through standard SPDIF to make sure they are near identical. Bill can you ask Mike about this?

Also does anyone know of a friendly owner of either an EVO or exa we can nab for a day?

I was just thinking about this USB-I2S device comparison and I think we need to realise that every PDX DAC is unique even if they have the same design as e.g. every tube is unique. Ideally then the two trial DAC's need to be pre-tested eg through standard SPDIF to make sure they are near identical. Bill can you ask Mike about this?

All the recent PDX's have only one input. What was done last time was the input was jury rigged so you could switch between the two but this probably wont be possible here since the JK is installed in my DAC and the EDEL is installed in a new DAC. The nature of the jury rig meant when the JK was permanently installed its performance jumped so jury rigging it and trying to use the same DAC has problems as well. Since a SPDIF input is not available I am not sure what there is to gain by getting hold of something else to check out.

Thanks

Bill

Bill I think that its invalid to assume that the two PDX are going to be identical in their sound quality. Any differences in the PDX's could interfere with the idea of finding the best transport

Although the PDX components will be the "same" every one will be different and every solder joint will be different as well.

I wonder if it would be possible to simply plug in and out the different USB-I2S transports from one DAC?

For example even the Edel fitted PDX could conceivably be used as a single test PDX?

The Edel isnt user friendly as it has a 24 pin connector rather then generic screw in cable connectors. Unfortunately the Edel doesnt seem to be packaged with the necessary Molex connector ribbon flex cable?

By buying the same connector with the flex cable other USB-I2S transports could be wired up mimicking the Edel and simply plugged in?

I think the swap over could happen in less then a minute by:

1. pull out the USB cable from the Edel and put it in the alternative USB component (which is already wired up with the Edel type 24 pin connector and wiring configuration)

2. switch off the PDX or have rubber gloves on and resus on standby

3. switch the Molex I2S cable from the Edel to the new device

4. power on or take the rubber gloves off....OK you can leave them on if you like

5. configure the computer player to the new device and listen

hmm, Nada I think the PDX production has come a long way during the past year, and there's not likely to be that much difference between two new units. Because of that settling down, I don't think your idea for a pre-wired Edel-compatible harness is going to fly. It'd need to be a custom PDX circuit board for that.

The biggest variation is probably going to be burn-in time on the output caps. Have to watch for that one.

hmm, Nada I think the PDX production has come a long way during the past year, and there's not likely to be that much difference between two new units. Because of that settling down, I don't think your idea for a pre-wired Edel-compatible harness is going to fly. It'd need to be a custom PDX circuit board for that.

The biggest variation is probably going to be burn-in time on the output caps. Have to watch for that one.

You seem to be assuming two items of the same design will sound the same. Wheres your proof?

In testing one piece of equipment doesnt it make sense to have the rest of the system constant?

We can make sense that changes occur with individual valves, caps, DA chips. soldering joints, trannies as every part is unique. But thats actually irrelevant. Its the validity of the design of the trial that matters.

I dont think its credible to make assumptions when trying to find a descent transport.

I dont get "need to be a custom PDX circuit board for that". My understanding is that the Edel is being fitted into a PDX. The Edel manual says it uses a Molex 24 flex cable. Why it would use a Molex it doesnt say but I assume its for rapid production line manufacturing and economies as its not a DIY friendly looking option. As long as that Molex cable can dock with another device via just a bit of ingenuity then theres a plug and play or rather push, wiggle, clamp, cross fingers, insert fingers in ears and turn on option. Part of the ingenuity involves turning the PDX on with fingers inserted in ears.

Im off to enjoy some music via my non I2S transport

Any differences in the PDX's could interfere with the idea of finding the best transport

Don't forget on what system

Don't forget on what system

its all happening on Mike's system so if it blows up it will be repaired by expert hands

nice of you to be worried about that Mario, maybe your reputation is unfounded?

The biggest variation is probably going to be burn-in time on the output caps. Have to watch for that one.

+1

I think the amount of work in doing anything but what is happening - namely the EDEL being installed in the same PDX as mine - will be a bit too prohibitive. With this approach not only can we do a direct comparison but I also can have the EDEL version in my system for a while to get more long term impressions.

Thanks

Bill

You seem to be assuming two items of the same design will sound the same. Wheres your proof?

Acknowledging that there are tiny variations between individual mass-produced electronic components, yes of course I expect two units made to the same design to sound pretty much identical. What's the point of having a "design" if the sound is going to vary all over the place?

In testing one piece of equipment doesnt it make sense to have the rest of the system constant?

Yes, it does.

We can make sense that changes occur with individual valves, caps, DA chips. soldering joints, trannies as every part is unique. But thats actually irrelevant. Its the validity of the design of the trial that matters.

I dont think its credible to make assumptions when trying to find a descent transport.

There are assumptions in everything we do, starting with the assumption that the laws of physics are constant from one moment to the next. Experience guides us in determining how safe a given assumption is.

I dont get "need to be a custom PDX circuit board for that". My understanding is that the Edel is being fitted into a PDX. The Edel manual says it uses a Molex 24 flex cable. Why it would use a Molex it doesnt say but I assume its for rapid production line manufacturing and economies as its not a DIY friendly looking option. As long as that Molex cable can dock with another device via just a bit of ingenuity then theres a plug and play or rather push, wiggle, clamp, cross fingers, insert fingers in ears and turn on option. Part of the ingenuity involves turning the PDX on with fingers inserted in ears.

The Molex connector in question is designed to be mounted on a PCB. This first Edel/PDX integration is going to involve the ribbon cable being cut and individual wires being soldered to the relevant points on the PDX board. The HiFace has no room for one of these connectors, so how would this soldered ribbon be switch to the HiFace?

The only way I could see it happening is for the PDX board to be re-done with a Molex connector, for the Edel to use an unmolested ribbon cable and for the HiFace to have a ribbon cable soldered to it instead.

+1

I think the amount of work in doing anything but what is happening - namely the EDEL being installed in the same PDX as mine - will be a bit too prohibitive. With this approach not only can we do a direct comparison but I also can have the EDEL version in my system for a while to get more long term impressions.

Thanks

Bill

Bill - all it will take is popping the lid off your PDX and pulling out the Molex from the Edel and plugging it into another I2S device. I dont get where the prohibition comes in? I was just joking about blowing Mikes system up. If anything blows it will be your PDX.

If I order the parts from RS and organise a comparator USB-I2S will you consider it? All of these better USB-I2S devices seems to cost nearly AUD500 landed and I dont have time or spare change to try a few myself but Im happy to spend five bucks on parts to try different USB-I2S devices.

The other thing we will have to do is pop the top off kdoots DAC and see if we can blow it up too.

I was going to ask kajak if he will post over his "Killer DAC" but Im worried with so much aggression embedded in it would self-destruct on the trip over and deprive me of the pleasure of smoking it.

Im very disappointed I cant offer up my own DAC but the REf7 has such a sophisticated jitter ameloriation design it will level the playing field to successfully to show up any differences.

I was going to ask kajak if he will post over his "Killer DAC" but Im worried with so much aggression embedded in it would self-destruct on the trip over and deprive me of the pleasure of smoking it.

Im very disappointed I cant offer up my own DAC but the REf7 has such a sophisticated jitter ameloriation design it will level the playing field to successfully to show up any differences.

Nada you still have so much to learn just like myself its easy being a keyboard warrior on a forum,your personal attacks carry no weight imho.Ref7 i had one at my house earlier in the year enough said

Bill - all it will take is popping the lid off your PDX and pulling out the Molex from the Edel and plugging it into another I2S device. I dont get where the prohibition comes in? I was just joking about blowing Mikes system up. If anything blows it will be your PDX.

Hi NADA

My understanding is it's not that simple. Everyone involved knows the preferred option is to use the same physical DAC and if it was an easy thing to do I am sure it would be done. I am more than happy to leave stuff like that up to the hardware guys like Clay.

Thanks

Bill

...My understanding is it's not that simple

Hi Bill - what else do you understand is required to connect a different USB-I2S device such as an exa board then what I have written above?

Clay will need to use a Molex flex cable for the Edel. That cable will be wired up to deliver I2S protocol to the DF1704 for the DAC to work. So all we have to do is take the other end of the Molex out of the Edel and put it into a free floating USB-I2S device running on battery power via the same model and pin configured Molex connector. Then the DF1704 gets I2S - just from a different source. Simple.

Dont let kdoot's complexities put you off - hes got hold of the completely wrong end of the concept that Ive put forward above.

If you dont compare transports how you will never know if your entire system is still compromised from source. Can you live with that?

Now this wont help if your JK device has been hard soldered in the second DAC but it still leaves options with the exa and evo versus the Edel.

Why dont you email Clay and see what can actually be done on the day?

Hi Bill - what else do you understand is required to connect a different USB-I2S device such as an exa board then what I have written above? Clay will need to use a Molex flex cable for the Edel. That cable will be wired up to deliver I2S protocol to the DF1704 for the DAC to work. So all we have to do is take the other end of the Molex out of the Edel and put it into a free floating USB-I2S device running on battery power via the same model and pin configured Molex connector. Then the DF1704 gets I2S - just from a different source. Simple.Dont let kdoot's complexities put you off - hes got hold of the completely wrong end of the concept that Ive put forward above. If you dont compare transports how you will never know if your entire system is still compromised from source. Can you live with that? Now this wont help if your JK device has been hard soldered in the second DAC but it still leaves options with the exa and evo versus the Edel. Why dont you email Clay and see what can actually be done on the day?

My understanding is, as Kdoot wrote, it needs to be soldered in. I would prefer to leave it up to Clay's professional judgement rather than have guys like me making comments from the peanut gallery. What I will do however is chat to Mike about it tomorrow as I need to see him about something else anyway.

Thanks

Bill

Clay will need to use a Molex flex cable for the Edel. That cable will be wired up to deliver I2S protocol to the DF1704 for the DAC to work. So all we have to do is take the other end of the Molex out of the Edel and put it into a free floating USB-I2S device running on battery power via the same model and pin configured Molex connector. Then the DF1704 gets I2S - just from a different source. Simple.

Dont let kdoot's complexities put you off - hes got hold of the completely wrong end of the concept that Ive put forward above.

The 0.50mm FFC Molex socket is, as far as I can tell, only available as a surface-mount component. At the very least, one would need to make a small PCB solely to host that socket and then run wires from there that would be soldered onto the HiFace board which does not itself have a socket for I2S output. More feasible than doing a custom PDX, yes, but worth the effort? I'm not convinced.

To a certain extent I agree with Nada's concerns but the problem is how to eliminate variability between different configurations - it's impossible, there will always be some.

Yes, you could solder in a Molex connector onto the Hiface to make changing over easier, but you then have the variablity of this molex connection being the same as the Edel's Molex connection (connectors are the most variable & notorious part of high-speed signalling). One has to make a judgement, at some point, as to what are the potential variable parameters & are they within the bounds of acceptability. This may vary between people as to what's acceptable. You will find that possible questions will also be raised about this Molex connector introducing a distortion compared to straight soldering

I think the only way to proceed & retain your sanity is to try to evaluate the units across a number of different PDX implementations & come to some consensus.