R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.  (Read 12362 times)

DigiEm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« on: April 21, 2007, 10:23:44 PM »

It is well known that Benchmark’s converters use SRC for jitter suppression.
For some reason I assumed that Benchmark’s solution was patented and that was the reason why I never heard of other manufacturers approaching the problem the same way.
But now it was finally admitted that Dan Lavry also used SRC to deal with jitter in  DA-10 instead of his CrystalLock (despite initially claiming quite the opposite) I’m wandering what are the pros and cons of SRC in DAC/ADCs?
It appears to be very effective way to suppress jitter.
Why it didn’t become more common?
Is it expensive to implement?
Is it reasonable to expect SRC to be implemented in cheap audio interfaces and Home Theater stuff?
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2007, 11:55:29 AM »

I assume if Benchmark does what you describe, the DA converter has it's own delicate internal clocking, but what trouble does the SRC module cause when you come in with a signal full of jitter. Jitter will modulate the internal filters in the SRC chip. In this case with an internal clock for the DA itself, a synchronic SRC seems to be not possible, since the SRC chip is not locked to it's input signal but to the clock of the DA converter.

Very good sample rate converters like Weiss and Lavry are expensive, what will the additional cost be for implementing this in a DA converter?

SRC has never convinced me. For CD I still record 44.1K 24bit, to avoid any SRC in the mastering.

Erik Sikkema
Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2007, 03:53:27 AM »

SRC is liable to encode jitter (phase modulation) into the audio so it's indeed wise to be careful about using it throughout in the production chain. Use a house sync to keep all devices locked, and if you need different sample rates, use a synchronous SRC boxes like the Weiss SFC2 or software solutions like Weiss Saracon or Barbabatch (audioease).

But that wasn't the question I suppose.

The Benchmark is not the only DAC to use an ASRC for a front end. Cranesong HEDD is another one, and I've seen them pop up in consumer products too. Benchmark is the only DAC that I know of that makes their use of an SRC their unique selling proposition. That's a bit of a pity since their real USP is that the product is just perfectly engineered throughout, with all details taken care of in an effective, elegant and economical way. I suppose just doin' a good job is not something you can put on a sales leaflet, even if that's what it is truly about.

There are three main processes in an ASRC.
*Ratio estimation: measure the ratio of the output frequency to the input frequency.
*Upsampling and decimation.
*Interpolation. Most ASRC's use some form of polynomial (spline) interpolation. This doesn't work very well on straight samples, but precision increases dramatically after upsampling. A 5th order interpolator will make absolute maximum errors below -120dBfs when supplemented by an 8 times upsampling filter. Decimation is optional, but improves precision further.

The current breed of ASRC chips have interpolation algorithms that are accurate beyond the 24-bit level. The quality of the interpolation is no longer an issue. This leaves the ratio estimation and the up/down sampling chain as the dominant factors.

For reasons of latency, the filters' pass band performance is usually specified somewhere around 0.01dB. The audibility of the "end stops" (pre and post echos) of such filters is subject of a minor controversy (minor in that most people don't think it is audible) but it should be mentioned if only to point out that "-140dB THD+N" does not imply that the output signal tracks the input to within 1 lsb.

The ratio estimator is another can o'worms. It compares the input vs output clock rate and phase and low-pass filters the result in order to get an accurate measure. Both the input and output frequencies are analogue quantities (time=analogue) so the ratio estimator entails an implicit analogue-to-digital converion. ASRC's are not purely digital, even though you can write them entirely in DSP code.
Any instabilities in the ratio signal will get encoded as phase modulation into the output. Such instabilities may stem from jitter. The whole jitter attenuation capability of an ASRC hinges on the low-pass filter. The jitter attenuation characteristic equals the frequency response of the ratio estimator's post filter. This filter fulfils the same function as the loop filter in an analogue clock recovery PLL. The advantage of the ASRC is then that you need only one crystal oscillator to cover all sampling rates.
Of course the ratio estimator, being an implicit ADC, suffers from quantisation. The phase between the two clocks is quantised to a time span equal to 1 period of the highest frequency clock in the chip (sometimes a multiple of the output rate, sometimes a separate master clock signal). This error is added to the input jitter before being attenuated by the lowpass filter. Whether this effect is detectable at all depends on the spectral distribution of the quantisation error which in turn depends on the ratio of the input and output clocks. index.php/fa/4931/0/
If you're using an ASRC in a production chain, you're not free to choose these things, but if you're using an ASRC as a DAC front end, use an odd ball output frequency to minimise the odds of this happening.

If you take care to use such an odd output frequency, and if you can live with the inband ripple issue, ASRC's are a practical alternative to analogue PLL's, especially when multiple input sampling rates should be supported.
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Yannick Willox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2007, 06:50:58 AM »

Bruno Putzeys wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 09:53

if you're using an ASRC as a DAC front end, use an odd ball output frequency to minimise the odds of this happening.

If you take care to use such an odd output frequency, and if you can live with the inband ripple issue, ASRC's are a practical alternative to analogue PLL's, especially when multiple input sampling rates should be supported.


Multiple DAC1s have matched phase response up to 110 KHz samplerates. Would this indicate they choose such an oddball frequency ? I seem to remember that they upsample to something below 192KHz (their first versions only accepted input f<=96KHz)
Logged
Yannick Willox
Acoustic Recording Service

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2007, 07:08:12 AM »

In a post on head-fi, 110kHz is indeed the quoted figure. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2850453&pos tcount=276
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Rivendell61

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2007, 02:11:56 PM »

Some more info is provided about the Benchmark use of 110 kHz (and why not 192, etc) in this post by John Siau on AudioAsylum from 2004:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=9457 5

And (IIRC) some more general info (2006) here:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=1224 78

Thanks for the long post above Bruno.

Mark
Logged

DigiEm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2007, 12:27:04 AM »

THANK YOU of gigantic proportions.

I’m about to purchase either m902 or DA-10 or DAC1 (probably the one with USB input).

Looks like it’s gonna be DAC1.

"the product is just perfectly engineered throughout, with all details taken care of in an effective, elegant and economical way"


Mmmmmmmmm
I want THAT!!!
Logged

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2007, 03:29:28 AM »

I didn't want to take sides there. I rather respect Dan Lavry's work as well (he might believe otherwise on account of a personal tiff but that has no bearing on what I think of the products he makes).
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Yannick Willox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2007, 06:07:05 AM »

I own two DAC1. I heard a m902 twice. I wouldn't diss it. I was pretty impressed, it just has no balanced outputs.
Logged
Yannick Willox
Acoustic Recording Service

DigiEm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2007, 01:36:27 AM »

Grace m902 was the unit I was going to buy in the first place. And I would’ve get it a while ago if I didn’t read Stereophile Magazine review where they say that m902 doesn’t perform very well when connected through USB.

USB connection is not really important to me it’s just that I realized there is some stuff I don’t know about and don’t understand.



A bit off topic:

*There is obviously some interest in high performance DAC/Headphone amps with USB.

*There are USB audio interfaces with S/PDIF output sold for the price of a USB cable and which can run with native drivers on Windows and MacOS (according to Benchmark native USB drivers are "bit-transparent".

*Elias Gwinn Electrical Engineer Benchmark Media Systems, Inc said in another forum that although ASIO drivers may drop some bits to achieve lower latency the distortions are probably not audible.

*Quite a few DAC1 owners use it to listen to 44.1/16 audio.

Some quotes for Benchmark’s website:

"I actually heard musical detail (i.e.. actual notes!) that I had not heard before on CD's which I have played hundreds of times as part of my speaker designing."
Mike Kontor - NotePerfect Loudspeakers

"made my CDs sound like the original 24-bit masters - rich detail, wide stable stereo imaging and a clear high end."
Barry Rudolph - Recording Engineer/Mixer for Pat Benatar, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Hall and Oates, and Rod Stewart.

See? People use it to listen to CDs!


It’s a bit strange really that Grace decided to implement USB interface on m902 where it can’t perform well.
But jitter-imune DA-10 and original DAC1 where USB supporting 44.1/16bit audio could’ve been implemented almost at no cost and perform very well decided to go without it.



And finally something really peculiar I found.
I don’t take it too seriously but here it is anyway.

Amazon customer review of $29.99 Behringer U-CONTROL UCA202 USB-Audio Interface.
"I used this to go from my computer, via USB, and feed a high end Grace m902 headphone amp. The Grace takes all types of inputs, but really sings via toslink."


WOW!!!????????????????????????

Thanks again, everybody!

Logged

Quince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2007, 08:17:17 PM »

Bruno Putzeys wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 00:53


For reasons of latency, the filters' pass band performance is usually specified somewhere around 0.01dB. The audibility of the "end stops" (pre and post echos) of such filters is subject of a minor controversy (minor in that most people don't think it is audible) but it should be mentioned if only to point out that "-140dB THD+N" does not imply that the output signal tracks the input to within 1 lsb.

Is the pass band specification in a DAC datasheet about its digital filter the same thing?  For example, in the PCM1794 datasheet it has a sharp or slow rolloff mode, with pass band ripple, stop band, delay, etc. specified.  Which one would correspond to the 'echos' you mention?  Is it stop band or delay?  It seems to me the sharp rolloff would be better, but then why is slow offered, if there isn't some use for it?

[Edit:] I can see the tradeoff is in passband ripple vs group delay, (
Logged
Chat with us live at #diyaudio on irc.rizon.net !

"One of the surest signs of Conrad's genius is that women dislike his books." --George Orwell

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2007, 02:39:55 AM »

These filters normally have equal pass and stop band specs. More precisely, pass band ripple is 20*log(1+10^(SBR/20)). The pre-echo is indeed linked to pass band ripple (but as a result to stop band rejection as well).

Slow-rolloff filters are a way of making the impulse response shorter, reducing latency and alleviating psychological issues some people have with pre and post ringing. However, for a slow-rolloff filter to make sense, it shouldn't be designed to compromise the stop-band.

I mean, if you've got a fs=96kHz signal coming in it makes sense to use a filter with a passband to 0.25fs and a stopband from 0.5fs upward. Instead you see them use a halfband (symmetrical response) filter from 0.3fs to 0.7fs. Any filter that has a stop band starting later than 0.5fs is a violation of the Nyquist criterion. Halfband filters, by definition have fstop=fs-fpass. This is the vast majority of filters.

In blind listening tests between half-band filters, I invariably pick the sharpest as the clear winner. Slow-rolloff halfband filters are little short of pandering to audiophile hysteria while in the meantime making things worse. But that's what always happens when we go out of our way for unproven concepts, isn't it?
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Quince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2007, 04:04:57 AM »

If the filter is done in software instead, is it possible to perhaps achieve better results, since one has floating point capability and can use very large FIR filters?  USB2.0 has sufficient bandwidth to send upsampled data.
Logged
Chat with us live at #diyaudio on irc.rizon.net !

"One of the surest signs of Conrad's genius is that women dislike his books." --George Orwell

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2007, 04:23:49 AM »

That's more or less what I do while developing upsampling filters that later go into DSP or FPGA chips. Any modern PC can run several channels of 8x upsampling with fantastically long filters in real time. Toying with your own upsampling/decimation filters is very instructive.
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Quince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The pros and cons of SRC for jitter reduction.
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2007, 09:51:33 AM »

But besides being instructive, is there a performance benefit?  And I don't just mean measurement-wise, but also plausibly audible one?  I've not heard much about comparison of custom solutions with the fixed digital filters into the most recent generation of filter chips or ones integrated into DAC chips.
Logged
Chat with us live at #diyaudio on irc.rizon.net !

"One of the surest signs of Conrad's genius is that women dislike his books." --George Orwell
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 20 queries.