On 01/04/10 00:14, JohnSwenson wrote: > > Wow, this is the third time today I've responded to this question, there > must be a run on AES/EBU!
:) > I don't have time to type it all in again, but in a nutshell the XLR > jacks used in AES/EBU are terrible RF connectors. A true 75 ohm BNC is > much better. RCAs are terrible at RF as well. > > AES/EBU uses high voltages (3-5V) which means the driver needs to > supply 30-45mA while S/PDIF uses 0.5 which only needs 6mA. The much > higher current will cause significantly larger power and ground bounce > issues on the board and inside the driver chips. This is almost > guaranteed to increase jitter. > > The balanced topology of AES/EBU is a good thing (the only good thing > going for it) but the other problems can far outweigh that. > > So IF the alternatives are RCA S/PDIF or AES/EBU, the AES/EBU could > very well sound better. BUT a proper implementation of S/PDIF with real > 75ohm BNCs on all jacks and cables will have a high probability of out > performing AES/EBU. > > So if your DAC has a 75ohm BNC jack, AND you get a cable with 75ohm > plugs on it (not so easy, for some reason most 75ohm cables with BNC > plugs use 50 ohm connectors) it will probably outperform an AES/EBU > connection. I am familiar with the reasons for "proper" 75 ohm S/PDIF being better than AES/EBU - I wasn't suggesting it isn't. I was rather suggesting that surely it is only better in certain adverse conditions. Goretex makes a better waterproof coat than paper, but both will keep you dry if it's not raining :) In my case, I am using a DEQ2496 in the effects loop of the Transporter; the DEQ2496 has AES/EBU on XLR connectors, and S/PDIF on toslink. I didn't have two toslink connectors, so I used a couple of balanced mic leads. Seems to work OK. :) R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
