DAC burn-in/break-in? My Gustard X16 measurements

[Blumlein 88]

Thank you very much!

Regarding the top track which is perfect, you created that using audacity first? Then playback that track to the DAC, am I correct?

Yes, that is correct. And you actually would get that perfect result if you doing a loopback in a recording interface or if you are using a DAC and ADC with the clocks locked together. That is because in such cases the same clock is being used for both devices.

The track does not have to be created in Audacity, any 12 khz tone will do. For instance using REW to generate and play a 12 khz tone will work if you have some software recording the result from the ADC. I normally use a -3 db tone for it. You would use 11,025 hz for 44.1 testing. You can then open the recorded tone wav file in Audacity to determine the ppm clock difference.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Yes, that is correct. And you actually would get that perfect result if you doing a loopback in a recording interface or if you are using a DAC and ADC with the clocks locked together. That is because in such cases the same clock is being used for both devices.

The track does not have to be created in Audacity, any 12 khz tone will do. For instance using REW to generate and play a 12 khz tone will work if you have some software recording the result from the ADC. I normally use a -3 db tone for it. You would use 11,025 hz for 44.1 testing. You can then open the recorded tone wav file in Audacity to determine the ppm clock difference.

I see.
X16 left channel and Solo seems to sync fine. I used REW to output at 12Khz for left channel -> X16 -> Solo -> laptop -> Reaper to capture the DAC left RCA output at 96Khz. The Audacity screen show no clock issue, it would seem.

Thanks again for the cool advise!

Edit: I checked x16 right channel and it looks fine too.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I see.
X16 left channel and Solo seems to sync fine. I used REW to output at 12Khz for left channel -> X16 -> Solo -> laptop -> Reaper to capture the DAC left RCA output at 96Khz. The Audacity screen show no clock issue, it would seem.

Thanks again for the cool advise!

View attachment 115780

You made a mistake. You ran this at 96 khz. For 96 khz you need to use 96 divided by 4 or 24 khz for the tone. Try it with that. A quarter sample rate tone.

In Audacity dark blue represents the local peak level and light blue the local rms level. Sine waves have a peak to rms difference of 3 db.

 

[Pdxwayne]

You made a mistake. You ran this at 96 khz. For 96 khz you need to use 96 divided by 4 or 24 khz for the tone. Try it with that. A quarter sample rate tone.

In Audacity dark blue represents the local peak level and light blue the local rms level. Sine waves have a peak to rms difference of 3 db.

Ah, now I see that X16 clock is faster than Solo. I am outputting at 11,025 and capture at 44100.

May I know where to set to option to connect the dots when zoom in instead of seeing straight lines up?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ah, now I see that X16 clock is faster than Solo. I am outputting at 11,025 and capture at 44100.

May I know where to set to option to connect the dots when zoom in instead of seeing straight lines up?

View attachment 115783

Under Edit go to Preferences.

Under Preferences go to Tracks.

Under Tracks one of the choices is Display samples.

Your choices are Stem Plot and Connect the Dots. You want to change it to Connect the Dots.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Under Edit go to Preferences.

Under Preferences go to Tracks.

Under Tracks one of the choices is Display samples.

Your choices are Stem Plot and Connect the Dots. You want to change it to Connect the Dots.

Thanks!

Hmm, when zoom out, E30 looks like your example. X16 looks different. But still ok, right?

Top is E30. Bottom is x16.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Under Edit go to Preferences.

Under Preferences go to Tracks.

Under Tracks one of the choices is Display samples.

Your choices are Stem Plot and Connect the Dots. You want to change it to Connect the Dots.

And E30 is slower than Solo....interesting.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Zoomed in together, E30 top, X16 bottom. Does this show anything audible at all? Thanks!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks!

Hmm, when zoom out, E30 looks like your example. X16 looks different. But still ok, right?

Top is E30. Bottom is x16.
View attachment 115785

So the X16 is very close to the Solo in clock rate. You need to record a longer portion than what you are showing to determine what the difference is.
The E30 differs by a larger amount. Like I've show if you will select between two dips in the waveform displayed and look at how many samples that is you can put a number on it. In the case of the X16 you need more time to show at least two dips.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Zoomed in together, E30 top, X16 bottom. Does this show anything audible at all? Thanks!

View attachment 115787

You will probably never, and should never find two devices with clocks far enough different to change the sound you hear. It can be interesting to check if clock rates shift a bit as the device warms up or if it slowly drifts over time. Typically shifts warming up are small. Like a couple ppm or less. Shifts or drifting over time of days after a short warm up is nearly nothing.

What I have seen are devices that are a bit off more than usual will show a poor jitter test result when it actually is mostly due to being 10 ro 20 ppm different in clock speed. The base of the main jitter tone will be wider if the clocks are far apart. And if far enough apart will look like an assymetrical shape at the base.

 

[Pdxwayne]

So the X16 is very close to the Solo in clock rate. You need to record a longer portion than what you are showing to determine what the difference is.
The E30 differs by a larger amount. Like I've show if you will select between two dips in the waveform displayed and look at how many samples that is you can put a number on it. In the case of the X16 you need more time to show at least two dips.

Oh, I see.

Here is the one for E30, hope I get it correct.

 

[Pdxwayne]

You will probably never, and should never find two devices with clocks far enough different to change the sound you hear. It can be interesting to check if clock rates shift a bit as the device warms up or if it slowly drifts over time. Typically shifts warming up are small. Like a couple ppm or less. Shifts or drifting over time of days after a short warm up is nearly nothing.

What I have seen are devices that are a bit off more than usual will show a poor jitter test result when it actually is mostly due to being 10 ro 20 ppm different in clock speed. The base of the main jitter tone will be wider if the clocks are far apart. And if far enough apart will look like an assymetrical shape at the base.

Like you said, it would seem X16 sync with Solo much better than E30, am I correct?

In this case, how would you interpret the different between E30 and X16? Thanks!

I hope I get the x16 right this time:

 

[Blumlein 88]

Oh, I see.

Here is the one for E30, hope I get it correct.

View attachment 115789

You did get it correct. You could have placed the left side closer to the middle of the lowest level.

So easy conversion, 1 divided by 114,536 samples times 1 million you end up with an answer of 8.73 ppm. It actually will be a little less than this if you move the left hand cursor.

Your X16 just giving a relative eyeball estimation must be less than 1 ppm. If you can show 10 seconds of it you can figure it out easily enough I think.

Just use 1/length of sample selection x 1 million for the PPM result.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Like you said, it would seem X16 sync with Solo much better than E30, am I correct?

In this case, how would you interpret the different between E30 and X16? Thanks!

I hope I get the x16 right this time:
View attachment 115792

In this case the right hand position could have been placed a little closer to the middle of the lowest level. But using your numbers.
1/2,538,287 x 1,000,000= .39 ppm which is very, very close for two clock sources.

 

[Pdxwayne]

In this case the right hand position could have been placed a little closer to the middle of the lowest level. But using your numbers.
1/2,538,287 x 1,000,000= .39 ppm which is very, very close for two clock sources.

Thank you very much for the tutorials! It is very interesting!

Now it is time for me to go to bed. : )

Have a great rest of day!

 

[Pdxwayne]

All, since this thread is getting too long, I think I will start a brand new thread to track my next steps of discovery process: the listening test.

As mentioned, I have been resisting doing listening tests to preserve my family's sanity and harmony. My previous blind tests just completed January 1st. I was determined to learn if there are any measurements I could do first before I annoy my family yet again with repeated loud music.

Also, I know that people will still ask for measurements once I said I hear a difference with blind tests. Might as well learn about doing measurements that are more acceptable to ASR.

Next step is to check if I can easily observe sound stage shift when doing sighted RCA quick switch test between DAC, with my living room stereo system, where I first sensed the highs difference between DAC.

With the measurements I got so far, I am starting to get an idea of why I thought there is burning/break-in process. It is likely that in the beginning, when I first switch to x16, I sat the same way as when I listen with E30.
Thus, I sensed an imbalance of 0.2db lower output on the right. As a result, I thought E30 highs are better with a particular song with lots of echo trial on the right. Then over the weeks, I adjusted my sitting position more to the right to get more balanced sound, and thus I got the impression that x16 highs improved over time.

I wish to thank many people here for being very patient with me. I really learned a lot!

@solderdude and @Blumlein 88 deserve special mention. Of cause there are others who offered help, like @lizhuoyin willingness to measure his own x16 and present his findings.

Thanks again all who offered tips and knowledge!

 

[Jimbob54]

All, since this thread is getting too long, I think I will start a brand new thread to track my next steps of discovery process: the listening test.

As mentioned, I have been resisting doing listening tests to preserve my family's sanity and harmony. My previous blind tests just completed January 1st. I was determined to learn if there are any measurements I could do first before I annoy my family yet again with repeated loud music.

Also, I know that people will still ask for measurements once I said I hear a difference with blind tests. Might as well learn about doing measurements that are more acceptable to ASR.

Next step is to check if I can easily observe sound stage shift when doing sighted RCA quick switch test between DAC, with my living room stereo system, where I first sensed the highs difference between DAC.

With the measurements I got so far, I am starting to get an idea of why I thought there is burning/break-in process. It is likely that in the beginning, when I first switch to x16, I sat the same way as when I listen with E30.
Thus, I sensed an imbalance of 0.2db lower output on the right. As a result, I thought E30 highs are better with a particular song with lots of echo trial on the right. Then over the weeks, I adjusted my sitting position more to the right to get more balanced sound, and thus I got the impression that x16 highs improved over time.

I wish to thank many people here for being very patient with me. I really learned a lot!

@solderdude and @Blumlein 88 deserve special mention. Of cause there are others who offered help, like @lizhuoyin willingness to measure his own x16 and present his findings.

Thanks again all who offered tips and knowledge!

I would keep your exploration of the x16 in this one thread. If you detect differences in sighted a/B switching, I wouldn't report that here as folks will say it has no evidential value. Move straight to blind testing.

 

[Pdxwayne]

I would keep your exploration of the x16 in this one thread. If you detect differences in sighted a/B switching, I wouldn't report that here as folks will say it has no evidential value. Move straight to blind testing.

My point was, if with sighted and I can't hear a difference, no point going blind. : )

If I could with sighted test, then blind is next with family help.........

 

[Jimbob54]

My point was, if with sighted and I can't hear a difference, no point going blind. : )

If I could with sighted test, then blind is next with family help.........

Would be my logic too. I couldnt tell sighted, definitely wouldn't tell blind.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Would be my logic too. I couldnt tell sighted, definitely wouldn't tell blind.

I would like to thank you for showing continue interest!