Matrix X-SPDIF 2

Well for truly optimal performance you should remove everything in your system that isn’t being used at the moment :slight_smile:

Leaving unused units in the system but removing cables which are redundant, e.g. from the same source to the same destination seems like a reasonable compromise.

This is true for every component in your system not just the DS…

BUT it’s most often not a noticeable problem at all. I just bring it up when people are saying that one cable or interconnect scheme is better than another. They really should only have one connected at a time to do those experiments, especially if they are recommending things to others based on them.

2 Likes

Those in search of truly optimal performance on a budget, PLEASE DO NOT read this Wall Street Journal article or watch the brief embedded video!

2 Likes

You had mentioned this early in this thread before I bought my Matrix. I heeded that advise when I did my testing between I2S and AES/EBU. Wire World Starlight 7’s (Boot’s red cables) on both cables as well. I prefer the AES/EBU in my humble system. Being balanced all the way through the chain may have something to do with that.

1 Like

And here is the money quote,
“It’s completely beyond my understanding,” says his wife, Reiko, 57. “But if I take it away from him, he will lose the motivation to live.”

6 Likes

Something I find to be of great interest. Paul McGowan Several days ago in another thread proclaimed USB to be the best connection! Do you think he would know a little bit about this? Of course we all know that Paul and Ted listen very differently, with different goals in mind. Paul, mainly for enjoyment I gather. Much like most of us? You can hook up a bunch of boxes, or you can enjoy the music, says I. My rather simple USB chain has any DAC currently made at a brick wall per it’s input abilities. This includes that of the Matrix.

I too feel USB is better if it is a very clean signal being fed in the first place. Which both of mine are. If one adheres to this, USB shall reign superior IMO. All the issues arise not do to USB itself but rather “garbage” sources. Your home PC is not a music server! One protocol does not inherently sound better than another. It is what is being “fed through the pipe”. I could demonstrate I2S sounding terrible as well. Am I going to trust this under $400 box over $40,000+ boxes? Which do you think has a cleaner signal? Justin case, it is being “managed” outboard nonetheless. Yes indeed, I too have some little boxes. In my USB chain.As mentioned in my above posts.

I am really not trying to argue the point. I am just throwing a point out here. Everyone is welcome to do as they please. If one feels the Matrix is the greatest thing since sliced bread, then so be it. I am just pointing out there is more than one ways to an end and that could even be revisited. Albeit most likely at considerably greater cost(USB). So therein perhaps lay’s the Matrix’ true attraction. Cost effectiveness at achieving the same goal. Perhaps.

I personally still prefer to do it “my way” (USB). Although I am certainly not telling anyone that they should not obtain their input signal any way they wish! If they build it, they shall come. First it was cleaning up USB, then Galvanically isolating it, then Ethernet, now this…What will be next? I personally do not buy into(or hear) all of this. I certainly hear Windom for instance however. I am speaking of in my own highly revealing system(s). A lot is in fact system dependent too. I just made that point.

I am primarily of the belief that one should keep the signal chain as simple as possible. The less conversion going on, the better IMO. Personally, I am not converting any formats here. If you are feeding a trash signal via USB, no doubt this will be leaps and bounds better. I, however am not. My USB noise floor is inaudible to mice perhaps. I have not asked them. Certainly to myself and other Humans that have heard it.

All I am saying is I may be the odd man out here. In my case there was really no sonic improvement to be had here. I am going to trade it for some LP’s or something. Please do not ask, I do not feel like selling it. As I can obtain full value in trade. I am not going to be “that guy” and just return it. However, in my case which granted may be unusual I do feel it would be warranted. I shall refrain from doing so however. It is certainly not their fault. Since in most instances, as applied USB usually does garner horrible sound quality. That is usually a given. Hence the advent of the myriad of these “boxes” to hit the market. Just not in my case perhaps. Actually, most certainly, without a doubt.

1 Like

I would certainly hope that a 40k box with USB would crush the 400 buck matrix. I think the point is that it is a very cost effective solution. I doubt many would sincerely argue that it is even close to the best overall solution.

I guess I don’t see your point really. If you have spent 40k on the dac and have a primo Setup upstream from the dac etc - and adding the matrix adds no sonic improvement - then thank you for verifying it doesn’t degrade the sound either.

It’s not about how much money you have or how much you spend.

The USB input of the DirectStream is certainly not better than the I2S input. I suppose it might be as good IF you can get a clean input signal. I2S is where all the other inputs end up…so why not just feed the DAC that?

I don’t really have much faith in your opinions on sound quality based on what I have read from you on these forums. Your solution seems to be buy the most expensive box you can because it must sound the best.

I’d agree I2S is light years better than USB on the DS - no contest. That’s why it’s there. Seems Paul agrees also: Check out this video around 7:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fycJhwZlWV8

2 Likes

To be fair, if you have spent $$$ and have a noise free clean usb input into the DS then the matrix won’t offer much if anything. But, if you have a lesser (relatively) system then the matrix + psu goes a long way to help reduce noise.

chris5, that is exactly what I was attempting to say in far less words. thank you
You know there are many other “boxes” too. something even better is bound to come along…
Plus, I would not say that there are not “choices” out there as of right now. I would not be so quick to jump ship on USB. As you say speed-racer, it is ultimately converted to I2S in the DSD anyhow.
To each their own though. Whatever suits you best is best for you.

I thought the same originally. I’m using an Aurender server. Used it with a curious usb. it was good. Tried toslink w/converter on Ted’s suggestion - much better. Gave I2S a shot and got the Matrix on Boot’s recommendation. I2S with Matrix took the DS to another level entirely. I don’t think there is any sure thing as far as “noise free clean USB” goes. If you tried I2S in your system and compared it to USB and you prefer USB that’s one thing. If you haven’t you have no idea - you just have “your way” - which is fine but not better…

1 Like

+1

The issue as I see it is USB>I2S conversion. Which device handles the conversion better: The DS internally or the Matrix externally? It is no knock on the outstanding-sounding DS to say that pretty much everybody who has tried the Matrix (except @2chan4ever) has concluded that the Matrix sounds better converting USB to I2S.

No, I A/B’d it. I could not really tell any difference. Maybe just me then. You remember, First USB over LAN was the be all, end all. I prefer to just listen to the music personally.

1 Like

If you prefer USB>DS to USB>Matrix>I2S>DS that is fine, of course. But suggesting that the reason USB>DS sounds better to you in your system is because your USB source is superior to essentially everybody else’s USB sources appears to ignore the critical issue of USB>I2S conversion.

4 Likes

Other people have what I have. I am not being a snob. They would not be in business if they did not sell plenty of them. I have a modified W20SE and a high end PC Media server dedicated to stereo. Of course those, including power supplies and galvanic isolation is better than a PC someone surfs the internet with. That is no secret.

You do not have to be so hard on me. I am just pointing out given the right conditions they can be nearly equal. Rare? Indeed. Simply because of how people (mis)use the protocol and then expect it to perform for an audio only application.

Plus Bootsy, I was not “the only one”. There were but a few in this thread that did not care for it. I did not even say I did not care for it. It is just fine. All I stated was that in a system with super clean USB one may realize little to no difference. As was the case with myself.

I also wanted to point out this is not the only one single option either. There now exist a myriad of things one can do with USB going into a DAC. I personally would start with a noise free source. That is where everyone’s trouble with this begins.

As you see, plenty of others are messing with the Gigafoil now as well. So I am just pointing out there is not simply “one” option" as to rectifying this situation. However, I am in full agreement that for most people USB is indeed a “situation”. I am speaking solely of when it comes to transfer of audio data to a DAC from a host of course. It works well for other purposes.

You are positing a theory that the better-sounding one’s USB source, the less improvement one is likely to hear converting USB to I2S ahead of the DS. That theory seems reasonable to me and I accept it as a given for purposes of this discussion. Where we part company is the notion that converting USB to I2S via the Matrix can make the DS sound way worse than running USB direct to the DS. A few posts up, you wrote:

When I challenged your characterization as essentially an outlier, you modified your description of what you heard when you added the Matrix to your playback chain:

So if the $379 Matrix sending USB>I2S to the DS can sound as good as a modified Aurender W20SE ($22,000+) sounds sending USB to the DS directly, I guess those Matrix owners among us with lesser USB sources can rest easy at night (as I would venture to guess that most of us do not have $180,000 to spend on a power cable).

4 Likes

Yes, Bootzilla. I misspoke the first time… The Matrix was no worse at all. No different in fact! Indeed, it is one way to spend $379 and perhaps save tens of thousands. I guess you are correct that it is in fact a breakthrough product after all. Now one can use an off the shelf computer they use everyday to play music with Jriver or Foobar. Otherwise your other option to get the same quality sound from USB directly is to spend a fortune. We are in full agreement after all!

I will admit I have more money than brains! That power cable I absolutely got ripped off on. 'Ya think?

2 Likes

I am sending you a message as you appear to be a sane voice.

Over 2300 messages concerning the Matrix DDC. Listening to music is supposed to be fun. Buying equipment is supposed to be fun.

And yet by the tone of some users you would think that owing one is a life-or-death decision. People being abusive over 5, 7 or 9 volts to power the piece. Rudeness in arguing over whether it is a re-clocker (or not). These are all First World problems.

I own the Matrix and feed it USB from various streamers, using silver USB and HDMI cables. The signal then goes to the Matrix Sabre MQA DAC vis I2S. I2S sounds great, 5 volt input instead of 9 volt sounds great, via IFi power bricks but at the end of the day I am focused on the music, not the hardware.

Please ask everybody to take a deep breath.

FirstCircle

I’d say this. I think u read too much into the conversation. The fact that we have 2300 responses in this thread just means people are excited by the results. You throw the audiophilia into the mix and people want to give info - not just to prove themselves right - but to help others get the best out of the product based on their findings. If they get a positive response - it helps with the audiophilia nervosa. :slight_smile:

5 Likes