Balanced Lampi Dac - Joe you are famous now

Those that like the Regen with Lampi (Eurodriver, wisnon) are using it with the Corning Optical cable. This cable adds a few ohms of the resistance on the ground, which is what Regen makers believe improves the sound of Regen.

(Coring, even though it is an optical wire, still has a very thin electrical wires built in to carry +5V and Ground; since cables are very thin and long, they add a considerable resistance; Regen Amber design simply adds an extra series resistor on its ground connection with a computer, to emulate what Corning cable is doing).
 
You may be right Adam.

Plus, as you said your Server is so cutting edge…(I think it blows away most any commercial Server in terms of sheer spec) that its a tall order to improve the SI going into the Dc's USB receiver. To me the Regen is a similar concept to what the digi-lampizator circuit did for Spdif:
CD Transport Digi-Lampizator
 
For the record - I like the regen on my Trinity DAC a lot. I use the same server, the same filtered TotalDAC D1 USB cable, and the improvement is there with no downside.

It may be that the Lampi's Amanero USB board and Amber Green do not gel together.
 
If your packets ain't dirty to start with the regen does little; if they are a mess it does a great deal to clean up the situation before they pollutes the pdn in the dac. If you don't hear a difference it doesn't mean the regen isn't a great product, it may just mean you got some clean packets from the start.

If Lucasz ever gets the i2s connection figured out all of this will be moot.
 
That would not explain how it works better with the Trinity, since both packets are from the same source!! Same front end,.

In any case, its not JUST about being dirty, as it is about low SI. You can SEE the SI quality via oscilloscope from the digi-lampi link I sent before.

The pre-processors are working too hard to square up the incoming digital signal and that creates internal noise in the PHY…that is the working hypothesis, but NO ONE has the full picture.
 
The Regen improves both the Lampi and Trinity DAC. The problem is, with Lampi, there is also a downside.
 
Elberoth said:
The Regen improves both the Lampi and Trinity DAC. The problem is, with Lampi, there is also a downside.
Click to expand...
You also run balanced, no?

When will you get the Amber? Mine is at Swiss customs, so next Monday/tuesday I expect.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
If Lucasz ever gets the i2s connection figured out all of this will be moot.
Click to expand...

I thought someone (was that you?) sent Lukasz a Rendu to so that he can do some R&D for I2S input. I believe having a I2S input would be a very good addition on Lampi dac.
 
wisnon said:
That would not explain how it works better with the Trinity, since both packets are from the same source!! Same front end,.
Click to expand...


Could be the difference in the grounds of each respective dac??


wisnon said:
In any case, its not JUST about being dirty, as it is about low SI. You can SEE the SI quality via oscilloscope from the digi-lampi link I sent before.


The pre-processors are working too hard to square up the incoming digital signal and that creates internal noise in the PHY…that is the working hypothesis, but NO ONE has the full picture.
Click to expand...


I am sorry Norman but I was not distinguishing between a "dirty" incoming signal integrity and what you refer to as "low SI" in my terminology. Rather I (just as John Swenson does) was referring to noise elimination (be it in the ground plane, power supply or on top of the digital signal) as the mechanism for improving the final SI the dac sees. Eliminating this noise avoids modulation of the usb FYI at the 8khz packet rate and wideband which was John's purpose as opposed to Lukasz's focus which was using a buffer in a traditional sense to get all of the obvious benefits of reduced output impedance. Not the same IMO.
 
Radiohead said:
I thought someone (was that you?) sent Lukasz a Rendu to so that he can do some R&D for I2S input. I believe having a I2S input would be a very good addition on Lampi dac.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was me but I put the process on hold to focus on my analog front end after spending a day at AXPONA with the GG and B7 (and to wait for things to stabilize on this front at Lampi and the marketplace generally).
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Could be the difference in the grounds of each respective dac??[/QUOTE]



Yes, you could be right about that...though it may be the grounding of the USB module, as opposed to the Dac or overal Dac impedance which JS said should be as low as possible.


[QUOTE]
I am sorry Norman but I was not distinguishing between a "dirty" incoming signal integrity and what you refer to as "low SI" in my terminology. Rather I (just as John Swenson does) was referring to noise elimination (be it in the ground plane, power supply or on top of the digital signal) as the mechanism for improving the final SI the dac sees. Eliminating this noise avoids modulation of the usb FYI at the 8khz packet rate and wideband which was John's purpose as opposed to Lukasz's focus which was using a buffer in a traditional sense to get all of the obvious benefits of reduced output impedance. Not the same IMO.[/QUOTE]


Maybe, but I dont think Lukasz implemented the Digi-lampi just as a buffer. indeed, he only has theories as to WHY the digital signal is squared up. No certain explanation.

Again, JS is clear that he is NOT eliminating upstream noise per se, that is NOT his prime intention....he is rather regenerating the signal (at Dac USB entry location) to have high signal integrity and low noise/low jitter/proper grounding/impedance matching, etc are just necessary but by themselves not sufficient conditions. All this is to prevent the PHY from stressing out and generating its OWN noise in the USB receiver that is passed up the chain to the Dac chip and other sensitive components. Upstream noise is NOT passed via PHY, but rather the PHY creates new noise in the face of low SI. MAC noise is NOT dealt with and exists untouched.

We might indeed be saying the same thing with different terminology, however.
Click to expand...
 
wisnon said:
FlexibleAudio said:
Could be the difference in the grounds of each respective dac??[/QUOTE]



Yes, you could be right about that...though it may be the grounding of the USB module, as opposed to the Dac or overal Dac impedance which JS said should be as low as possible.


[QUOTE]
I am sorry Norman but I was not distinguishing between a "dirty" incoming signal integrity and what you refer to as "low SI" in my terminology. Rather I (just as John Swenson does) was referring to noise elimination (be it in the ground plane, power supply or on top of the digital signal) as the mechanism for improving the final SI the dac sees. Eliminating this noise avoids modulation of the usb FYI at the 8khz packet rate and wideband which was John's purpose as opposed to Lukasz's focus which was using a buffer in a traditional sense to get all of the obvious benefits of reduced output impedance. Not the same IMO.[/QUOTE]


Maybe, but I dont think Lukasz implemented the Digi-lampi just as a buffer. indeed, he only has theories as to WHY the digital signal is squared up. No certain explanation.

Again, JS is clear that he is NOT eliminating upstream noise per se, that is NOT his prime intention....he is rather regenerating the signal (at Dac USB entry location) to have high signal integrity and low noise/low jitter/proper grounding/impedance matching, etc are just necessary but by themselves not sufficient conditions. All this is to prevent the PHY from stressing out and generating its OWN noise in the USB receiver that is passed up the chain to the Dac chip and other sensitive components. Upstream noise is NOT passed via PHY, but rather the PHY creates new noise in the face of low SI. MAC noise is NOT dealt with and exists untouched.

We might indeed be saying the same thing with different terminology, however.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we are saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top