Doubts about Topping's I2S pinout and whether an HDMI 1.4 cable is suitable.

[LETRA]

Hello. I have a question about the Topping I2S pinout and whether it will match, or modifications will have to be made, with that of the DDC Audio-GD DI24HE. Audio-GD uses the standard HDMI pinout, but I can't find information on what Topping does (in this case it would be the I2S of a DX9).

I would also like to know if a Kimber Kable HDMI HD29 V1.4 0.75m will work for I2S. I have found a new one on sale for 59€, but it is version 1.4, it doesn't have Ethernet, and I don't know if it's too long since the IIS specifications varied from recommending an extension between 10cm and 50 cm to nowadays that cables of more than two meters are manufactured. I don't know if HDMI 2.0 can support that long extension, but in the 1.4 version 0'75m would be too long.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated. I'm a newbie and what is said on this forum is a very important guide.

 

[BDWoody]

First of all, welcome!

Always great to see new members make their way to us. I hope you settle in and make yourself comfortable.

First question I have is why you are going through the contortions to use I2S in a way it was never intended to be used? Are you open to be convinced that there is zero benefit to any of this, including that audio GD box?

There are a lot of good storytellers out there, but at the end of the day every other kind of connection is more convenient and gives up nothing in terms of sound quality or anything else.

If you really don't care about whether it improves anything but just want to do it as an expensive exercise, that is of course fine, but expect a few 'why are you doing this?!' kinds of responses to precede an actual answer to your technical question.

 

[Vincent Kars]

since the IIS specifications varied from recommending an extension between 10cm and 50 cm

It is very simple, I2S as developed by Philips is a protocol to be used on a PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Hence there is no standard for cable, cable length or a pin layout as it is intended for PCB use only.

Study: Is I²S interface better for DACs than S/PDIF or USB?

This is an analysis of I²S interface to see if it is superior to S/PDIF or USB interconnects for audio DACs. From what I recall, it was PS Audio that popularized I²S for external DAC connections. Phillips (now NXP) had invented I²S years early as an internal protocol to route audio. It was...

www.audiosciencereview.com

One moment, please...

 

[LETRA]

First of all, welcome!

Always great to see new members make their way to us. I hope you settle in and make yourself comfortable.

First question I have is why you are going through the contortions to use I2S in a way it was never intended to be used? Are you open to be convinced that there is zero benefit to any of this, including that audio GD box?

There are a lot of good storytellers out there, but at the end of the day every other kind of connection is more convenient and gives up nothing in terms of sound quality or anything else.

If you really don't care about whether it improves anything but just want to do it as an expensive exercise, that is of course fine, but expect a few 'why are you doing this?!' kinds of responses to precede an actual answer to your technical question.

Thank you @BDWoody for the welcome. It is a pleasure to be here and to learn from all of you. People who have knowledge and also share it are the best.

To your question about why I go into the hassle of using ISS instead of coax or AES/EBU there is an explanation. The Audio-GD DI24HE has given me problems connected via coax to a Japanese Satri/Bakoon DAC. Apparently the Audio-GD has a problem with some SPDIF receiver chips and I prevent the possibility of that occurring with the DX9. It has taken some firmware changes and reinstallations on the Audio-GD to almost stop the noise and beep problems.

AES/EBU I would prefer not to use it between the Audio-GD and the DX9 to leave that connection free for CD transport. And optical and USB are not an option because Audio-GD does not have those outputs.

I know there are many people on the forum who see no sound quality difference between I2S and coax or AES, but as you can see I have a couple of good reasons. Plus it's fun to test and compare for yourself. If the I2S connection between devices does not require technical engineering I would like to have that option which also, in my case, would be the most suitable.

 

[Sokel]

It's easy to find out if you know Audio GD configuration.
There's the DX9's ones:

 

[LETRA]

It is very simple, I2S as developed by Philips is a protocol to be used on a PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Hence there is no standard for cable, cable length or a pin layout as it is intended for PCB use only.

Study: Is I²S interface better for DACs than S/PDIF or USB?

This is an analysis of I²S interface to see if it is superior to S/PDIF or USB interconnects for audio DACs. From what I recall, it was PS Audio that popularized I²S for external DAC connections. Phillips (now NXP) had invented I²S years early as an internal protocol to route audio. It was...

www.audiosciencereview.com

One moment, please...

Thank you vey much Vincent Kars. Amir's test is devastating, albeit from 2019, and there are also plenty of testimonials from users who notice improvements when they have connected devices other than those tested. In any case, as I explained to @BDWoody, the Audio-GD has no optical or usb outputs, the Audio-GD's coaxial has problems with certain SPDIF chipsets and I would like to leave the AES/EBU free for a CD transport. In other words, I'm not a prisoner of audiophile esotericism I would simply like to take advantage of the connection possibilities of the DX9 and the options of the Audio-GD.

 

[LETRA]

It's easy to find out if you know Audio GD configuration.
There's the DX9's ones:

View attachment 396880

Thank you very much @Sokel. The information I have about the Audio-GD pinout is that it is ‘standard’ (although it doesn't seem to exist) and that any conventional HDMI cable is valid. But one question: In your picture, which of the two diagrams is valid for DX9? DSD FLAG 15 or DSD FLAG 14? Many thanks for your help.

 

[LETRA]

These are the four I2S pinout schemes that can be configured in the Audio-GD DI24HE http://www.audio-gd.com/R2R/DI24HE/DI24HEEN_Use.htm My question would be, can the pins on the Topping DX9 be individually configured to match any of the Audio-GD schemes?

Thank you for your help.

 

[sernikus]

These are the four I2S pinout schemes that can be configured in the Audio-GD DI24HE http://www.audio-gd.com/R2R/DI24HE/DI24HEEN_Use.htm My question would be, can the pins on the Topping DX9 be individually configured to match any of the Audio-GD schemes?


View attachment 396907

View attachment 396908

View attachment 396909

View attachment 396910

Thank you for your help.

Download user manual for Topping DX9. Page 9 .read . Use. Enjoy. Cheap HDMI cable is enough (but copper of course)
All audio gear with i2s via hdmi sends/receives i2s signal using LVDS sender/receiver so -2 or 3 or5 m cable cable is allowed...

 

[Roland68]

Hello. I have a question about the Topping I2S pinout and whether it will match, or modifications will have to be made, with that of the DDC Audio-GD DI24HE. Audio-GD uses the standard HDMI pinout, but I can't find information on what Topping does (in this case it would be the I2S of a DX9).

I would also like to know if a Kimber Kable HDMI HD29 V1.4 0.75m will work for I2S. I have found a new one on sale for 59€, but it is version 1.4, it doesn't have Ethernet, and I don't know if it's too long since the IIS specifications varied from recommending an extension between 10cm and 50 cm to nowadays that cables of more than two meters are manufactured. I don't know if HDMI 2.0 can support that long extension, but in the 1.4 version 0'75m would be too long.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated. I'm a newbie and what is said on this forum is a very important guide.

2 comments on this.
Please don't throw your money down the toilet for overpriced HDMI cables.
Lindy has been delivering proven brand quality for decades.
Lindy 2m Ultra High Speed 10K HDMI cable, Gold Line with 25-year guarantee approx. €36.93.
Lindy 2m Ultra High Speed HDMI 10K cable, Anthra Line with 10-year guarantee approx. €21.78.
But you can also take the cheaper HDMI cable from Lindy for around €10, it is still completely oversized for I2S over LVDS.

The development of USB DACs has continued in recent years and it could be that the DX9 with its own USB input is as good or better than your Audio-GD DI24HE DDC. Just try it out.

 

[LETRA]

Download user manual for Topping DX9. Page 9 .read . Use. Enjoy. Cheap HDMI cable is enough (but copper of course)
All audio gear with i2s via hdmi sends/receives i2s signal using LVDS sender/receiver so -2 or 3 or5 m cable cable is allowed...

I found the information in the manual, as you mentioned, and although it is not as configurable as I had hoped, I hope it will be useful. Thank you very much.

 

[LETRA]

2 comments on this.
Please don't throw your money down the toilet for overpriced HDMI cables.
Lindy has been delivering proven brand quality for decades.
Lindy 2m Ultra High Speed 10K HDMI cable, Gold Line with 25-year guarantee approx. €36.93.
Lindy 2m Ultra High Speed HDMI 10K cable, Anthra Line with 10-year guarantee approx. €21.78.
But you can also take the cheaper HDMI cable from Lindy for around €10, it is still completely oversized for I2S over LVDS.

The development of USB DACs has continued in recent years and it could be that the DX9 with its own USB input is as good or better than your Audio-GD DI24HE DDC. Just try it out.

Thanks for the Lindy recommendation, I just looked at that Kimber offerin audio shop for the 100% copper and plate quality guarantee without the high price. I will also try connecting directly via USB on DX9, although my computer is an i9 and produces a lot of noise and jitter.

 

[LETRA]

I did a lot of tests and I am writing it here in case anyone is looking for information on Google. It is not possible to connect correctly all I2S pins between an Audio-GD and a Topping DX9 as well as other Chinese manufacturers like Matrix. Audio-GD departs from most manufacturers and offers only four options that change the order resulting in a mismatched GND pin and Mute pin. I wonder if these exclusions affect the sound quality at all. It is also not possible to play DSD music. Audio-GD is only looking for full compatibility with other devices from the same manufacturer, so it will be impossible in my experience to do a full pinout and have DSD with other brands. It is important that if someone is looking for information about IIS port and Audio-GD to keep this in mind. Best regards.

 

[Roland68]

Thanks for the Lindy recommendation, I just looked at that Kimber offerin audio shop for the 100% copper and plate quality guarantee without the high price. I will also try connecting directly via USB on DX9, although my computer is an i9 and produces a lot of noise and jitter.

The whole thing about different copper qualities has long been nothing but eyewash. Almost all cables are so-called OCC and OFC anyway, as this makes further processing much easier.
If you spend more money on this without the manufacturer being able to provide laboratory proof, then it's your own fault. Because every reputable manufacturer that guarantees a certain specification of copper or other metals has this laboratory proof.

 

[JSmith]

Audio-GD DI24HE has given me problems

Why are you even using this? Seems a rather pointless device.


JSmith

 

[LETRA]

Why are you even using this? Seems a rather pointless device.


JSmith

Well, I'm not going to get into debates if you don't come to my house to listen to it, but the difference of using DDC in my case is outstanding.

 

[JSmith]

come to my house to listen to it

Sure... so you'll be flying me to Madrid?

but the difference of using DDC in my case is outstanding

Please provide further detail on these claims, as this is ASR.

The product is a power regen/filter and an external clock... your DAC already rectifies AC to DC and filters it. An external clock is unnecessary and may well increase jitter (but still inaudible levels);

Cybershaft Platinum Review (External Clock & PS)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Cybershaft Platinum (Palladium) OP16 clock with its optional Ultra Pure Power Supply. It is on kind loan from a member. The clock costs US $1,457 and power supply, US $347. While "DIY" in nature, I still like the look of these cases...

www.audiosciencereview.com

As I suspected, performance gets worse, not better! We now have new jitter components we did not have before. Zooming into them we can see better:

How can this happen? Well, I don't care how good your clock is. When it has to travel over a cable and get extracted inside the DAC, it is liable to be worse than the one inside the DAC sitting close to where it is needed.

So quite interested to ascertain what this major difference is due to... factually speaking.


JSmith

 

[LETRA]

Sure... so you'll be flying me to Madrid?

Please provide further detail on these claims, as this is ASR.

The product is a power regen/filter and an external clock... your DAC already rectifies AC to DC and filters it. An external clock is unnecessary and may well increase jitter (but still inaudible levels);

Cybershaft Platinum Review (External Clock & PS)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Cybershaft Platinum (Palladium) OP16 clock with its optional Ultra Pure Power Supply. It is on kind loan from a member. The clock costs US $1,457 and power supply, US $347. While "DIY" in nature, I still like the look of these cases...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So quite interested to ascertain what this major difference is due to... factually speaking.


JSmith

Don't try to push a novice. I'm not a measurement expert. It would be more appropriate for you to consult e.g. the author of Golden Sound. Here are the measurements of the previous model: https://goldensound.audio/2021/07/22/audio-gd-di20he-measurements/

Anyway keep in mind that twenty or fifty years ago it was not possible to make measurements with the reliability and the number of parameters that today are handled in ASR. And that in twenty years and fifty years ASR measurements will be even better and will include more parameters that today are considered inaudible. That is the progress of science, which is not a static thing. Science is trying to grasp reality, but it goes little by little. We have to use technological tools with humility.

But I am sure you have already read this argument more than once and it has not convinced you. I'm not convinced by listening to music without DDC either

Best regards.

 

[Shorty]

Don't try to push a novice. I'm not a measurement expert. It would be more appropriate for you to consult e.g. the author of Golden Sound. Here are the measurements of the previous model: https://goldensound.audio/2021/07/22/audio-gd-di20he-measurements/

Anyway keep in mind that twenty or fifty years ago it was not possible to make measurements with the reliability and the number of parameters that today are handled in ASR. And that in twenty years and fifty years ASR measurements will be even better and will include more parameters that today are considered inaudible. That is the progress of science, which is not a static thing. Science is trying to grasp reality, but it goes little by little. We have to use technological tools with humility.

But I am sure you have already read this argument more than once and it has not convinced you. I'm not convinced by listening to music without DDC either

Best regards.

The author of Golden Sound is a charlatan whose claims have been debunked over and over again (e.g. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pparently-abx-test-for-dacs-not-really.54079/)
Really… don’t believe anything you see on YT, and always remember: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”.

 

[LETRA]

The author of Golden Sound is a charlatan whose claims have been debunked over and over again (e.g. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pparently-abx-test-for-dacs-not-really.54079/)
Really… don’t believe anything you see on YT, and always remember: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”.

I don't watch audiophile videos (let alone esoteric ones) on YouTube and that it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled is a general idea that can be applied to all kinds of certainties, even those less likely to seem so. In any case, the scientific theories of twenty years ago that we now see superseded by the advance of science were not theories that tried to deceive people, they simply did not know enough and were not prudent. The same is true of technology. We can only say that we are being fooled by those who argued twenty years ago that you couldn't go beyond the Pentium III and that was an accurate representation of reality.