Question to Paul about Digital Link III

[6h30]

Dear Paul,
I used to the ML 30 back in 1992. In 1993, my friend brought his PS Audio Ultralink for AB comparison, and the result is shocking! The Ultralink is very very close to the performance of the #30, this is incredible!! So I bought the Ultralink for my second system!!

Does the upcoming Digital Link III build in consideration as the standard of the legendary Ultralink in the 90s'? Or you will have a better DAC coming up in the future which is better than the digital link III maybe called Ultralink MK II or III?

What is the output impedance for both unbalanced and balanced output of your digital link III DAC?

Thank you!

[oddeofile]

6h30 - the Ultralink was an awesome performer. Then came the U/L II and then the U/L II w/HDCD. I owned all three and believe me until now, I have never heard another DAC that really stood up to the UL II w/HDCD. It is still my main DAC since 1995, worked 24/365 since then with never a problem, ever. Superb DAC. The #30 was FAR more expensive but when opened the only real difference is it used two Ultra DAC's to the U/L's single DAC. Everythign else about them was very similar. Sonically, the U/L II stood neck and neck with the #30 back in those days. Yeah, there have been great DAC's since then, but for the $$, nothing comes even close.

Someday, I may save a buck and spring for the new D/L III unless, as you say, they go for broke with a hotrodded killer super duper version.

Until then, the Ultralink II still reigns king in my book. I was just listening last evening and the image size, sweetness, low level detail, room reverb boundries, etc. everything were superb and so analog-like. Using the Genesis Digital Lens in series between the transport and U/L made the combo simply lovely to listen to but able to rock (steady, for all us BadCO fans) like crazy when called to do so.

I keep on smiling each and every time. Enjoy. I am sure the D/L III will kick like all others have and I am afraid to hear it because, well, you know - I may just have to give up my all time favorite component. Gnaw, I'd just buy a D/L III and keep the Ultralink. Doubt I could ever part with it.

[paul]

Honestly? In direct AB with our Ultralink, the DLIII kicks it's you know what. The DLIII uses a chip set we would have died for back in the day. The DLIII also uses a discrete IV converter and output stage that would have been what I used on the Ultralink had I been a part of the company when it was built.

Remember, when the Ultralink was built, I was off playing Arnie at Genesis making loudspeakers.

As good as the Ultralink was, I would never have used an op amp for the IV stage and yet another op amp for the output stage. I just wouldn't have done that. In the DLIII, I didn't.

[6h30]

Dear Paul,
I'm going to contact your distributor and see when the DLIII available!!

Also, when will the DL2 available that you mention in the newsletter last summer???

Thanks!
Regards,
WF [:praise:] [:p]

[paul]

The DL2 is still in the works.

[6h30]

Hi Paul!
I still having the digital lens from Genesis. In what area, the DL2 over the DL from Genesis? How can the new DL2 get rid of the jitter problem create by the digital cable between the out put of the unit to the DAC which hooking up to?

Will it be having a LED indicator on the DL2's front panel just as the Genesis DL?

Thank you!

[Paul Louw]

Paul, being ignorant this might be a stupid question:-

Is there no way the DL and DAC can be combined into a single box?

[erik]

Another stupid question:
Maybe I have missed something but what is the DL II?

[paul]

The big difference between the new and the old Digital Lens will be the formats: the old DL wouldn't support anything but CD. The new one will support everything.

Haven't yet figured out the FP interface.

[paul]

Well, sure there is Paul. However, one would have to have finished designing the Digital Link before adding the two together...and we haven't done that and people are hungry for the DAC.

It's a good idea - but for now, we'll probably keep it as two separate boxes. If the market is big enough to want a single box, then that might be a third product.

[paul]

Well, here's where our sales people got really mad at me. Probably for good reason too.

The letters DL stand for two separate products and will no doubt raise confusion throughout the planet. The DLII is the Digital Lens II and the DLIII is the Digital Link III. So, you have the Lens and the Link.

The Lens reduces jitter, the Link converts digital to analog.

[dsp]

Paul, given your description of how the DLIII does not add any jitter to the problem of converting USB to I2S (7-24-06 at 8:37:05 AM post in the Upcoming Products, Digital Link III Question (USB) thread), if a DLII were placed between a USB digital source and a DLIII:

(1) Could the positive aspects of what the DLII is designed to do interface without modification (e.g., inputs, internals) to the DLIII; and

(2) Excluding formats other than CDs or computer file representation of CDs (e.g., WAV, FLAC, MP3, etc.), what would the DLII be doing to the digital input signal that the DLIII is not already capable of doing?

Or, said from the perspective of someone who has already ordered a DLIII, how future proof is my yet-to-be-shipped purchase?

[oddeofile]

Paul in your comments on the Ultralink vs DLIII are you talking about the original Ultralink or Ultralink II?

The photo you have on your website is of the original Ultralink and there was a BIG difference between the original and Ultralink II. I owned the original UL, Super Link and Digital Link prior to that and can safely say the difference when the Ultralink II came out was HUGE compared with the original Ultralink and predecessors. I loved the original Ultralink but when I A/B'd it against the U/L II was floored at the improvement and it has been my mainstay for 11.5 years.

Ahhhh the Digital Lens removes jitter, not reduces it - at least, from the marketing and review data provided from about 8 years ago. At least to less than 4 pico seconds, that is, which is basically jitter free. Using two in series is quite amazing what it does for digital reproduced music. Just phenomenal. I would never live without them, ahem, that is until the new DL II eventually sees life, if ever. I recall the earlier survey results were not very favorable. Alas, too bad. But if one can find a Lens in good condition (try Audiogon) then get one. You will LOVE what this does for redbook CD's.

Paul, BTW if one were to obtain the new DL III would it hurt to use the Lens in between the transport and the DL III? Seems to me it would reduce the amount of work the clock in thew DL III needs to do to correct any timing errors internally if one were used.

[paul]

The Ultralink II. The photo on the website was just something I found around to show what the UL looked like.

As for the DL, yes it would help the DLIII. How much remains to be seen but we're on it!

[dsp]

Paul-

Am I correct in taking away from your prior post that (i) the D/Lens will be designed to interface with the existing D/Link, and (ii) the D/Lens, even for CD media output via USB, will provide benefits beyond those the D/Link is capable of producing on a stand-alone basis?

If so, will the D/Lens (in active-, as opposed to either passive- or pass-through- mode) be able to interface with the D/Link without having to modify either how the D-Link accepts the digital stream (USB, coax, Toslink) or internally processes the digital stream?

Thanks

[dsp]

Hmmmm. As I've tried twice to ask the same general questions, I can only assume that my posts are somehow not being seen by anyone but me (unlikely), are being seen by all but being interpreted as negative posts intended to pick a fight or make a point (not even close), of no value to anyone (so no response is necessary) or incomprehensible as written (likely the Ockham's Razor award winner).

So, I'll try it again differently. I've already purchased (okay, pre-purchased) the Digital Link III. It appears to fulfill all of my current objectives (USB input, design, balanced outputs, price, build quality, part quality, etc.). I am, however, very interested in continuing to improve my systems (compute and audio) over time and, as such, interested to understand how the product fits into PS Audio?s component architecture.

While I suspect that PS Audio will do everything in its power to ensure they do not strand various products, I would not be too happy if a Digital Lens product released in the next year or so somehow obviated my current purchase. So, as a customer with a vested interest in obtaining the most value from my purchase, I'm curious as to how a product like the Digital Lens would integrate with the Digital Link III. My questions are basic:

1. Assuming I could interface my CD transport device (a computer) with the Digital Lens (via USB, 802.11g, Ethernet, S/PDIF, Firewire 800, etc.) and assuming that the Digital Lens performed miracles in removing jitter, then how would the Digital Lens interface to the Digital Link III? Would it output a purely digital signal over one of the three input types the Digital Link III is now capable of receiving or would it need some other type of input?

2. Assuming that the Digital Lens could pass a digital signal to the Digital Link III via means by which the Digital Link III can now handle, how would the Digital Link III process such data? It seems to me that one would want the Digital Link III to route the clean Digital Lens-processed data directly to the DAC (i.e., bypassing all of the mechanisms the Digital Link III must now employ to convert and clean-up a digital signal taken directly from the source) so as to avoid potentially adding jitter to the near jitterless signal provided courtesy of the Digital Lens. From a simple perspective, my fear is that my Digital Link III will either then (in the not too distant future) be destined for eBay or need to be returned to PS Audio for extensive modification of the inputs and/or internals.

That's it. Just two questions. No fight intended. No accusations being made. I'm just curious as to how this is all going to work together.

[paul]

Sorry, I've been intensly preoccupied with leaqrning a NLE program for video and being somewhat slow witted and determined (all at the same time) it's been a challenge to keep up with my normal activities. I was going to try and answer some of these posts earlier. Please accept my apologies:

1. Assuming I could interface my CD transport device (a computer) with the Digital Lens (via USB, 802.11g, Ethernet, S/PDIF, Firewire 800, etc.) and assuming that the Digital Lens performed miracles in removing jitter, then how would the Digital Lens interface to the Digital Link III? Would it output a purely digital signal over one of the three input types the Digital Link III is now capable of receiving or would it need some other type of input?

Yes indeed. The Lens will output AESEBU, SPDIF and TOSLINK and you place it in series with your digital source. It will pass through any data given it. I see where you're going with this and I'll explain more later. However, the basic concept is not to eliminate the internal receiver in the DLIII or any other DAC. Problem with that approach is it isn't practical.

The Lens will work perfectly with the DLIII.

2. Assuming that the Digital Lens could pass a digital signal to the Digital Link III via means by which the Digital Link III can now handle, how would the Digital Link III process such data? It seems to me that one would want the Digital Link III to route the clean Digital Lens-processed data directly to the DAC (i.e., bypassing all of the mechanisms the Digital Link III must now employ to convert and clean-up a digital signal taken directly from the source) so as to avoid potentially adding jitter to the near jitterless signal provided courtesy of the Digital Lens. From a simple perspective, my fear is that my Digital Link III will either then (in the not too distant future) be destined for eBay or need to be returned to PS Audio for extensive modification of the inputs and/or internals.

Neither will happen. What you are proposing makes sense but only sort of and certainly not in a commercial sense.

Let's look at what the Lens is supposed to do. Basically, it turns your transport or computer into a perfect source. The DAC remains a standalone product. Does that make sense?

Picture this: the world's best CD transport which outputs perfect digital data. Now, feed that into your DAC and life's good. That's the Lens.

Would it be better if we bypassed the DAC's internal circuitry and connected directly to the Lens? Sure it'd be better, but it's also not a commercially viable product.

So, you're fine. Everyone with a DAC is fine.

The Lens makes any source perfect. How? By our unique Symbolic Logic Receiver. I think I covered this elsewhere, but let me know if I should repeat it.

[dsp]

Paul, thanks for responding in such a precise way. Your answers were happily unexpected. I Googled and found a link to the July 2005 newsletter (http://www.psaudio.com/newsletters/7-05.asp) where you describe the Symbolic Logic Receiver (SLR). In turn, this led me to another page (http://www.psaudio.com/account/digital_lens_survey.asp) that describes SLR and the Digital Lens in further detail. Very helpful information. After reading all of the various information alongside your prior post, it would appear PS Audio has the makings of yet another useful component that would fit nicely into PS Audio?s overall system architecture, as well as my humble system.

In reading the material on the Digital Link (albeit it is one year old and by no means purported as final), the proposed features appear to lack the one element that allows me to use my computer as a transport device without introducing the deleterious consequences of employing a soundcard in the signal path (i.e., USB). Is this still PS Audio's thinking or should I consider the inclusion of USB in the Digital Link III a sign of change?

From a slightly different perspective, I'd also like to get your thoughts on integrating computers with audio equipment. While the pairing is a match made in heaven from the computer's ability to replace expensive, single-purpose transport equipment and radically improve accessibility to one's music content, the pairing also acts like oil and vinegar when it comes to introducing computers into listening environments (e.g., acoustical noise, digital noise, heat).

To counter this, some have taken the approach of building dedicated audio content servers with parts (e.g., PSUs, GPUs, CPUs, HDDs, enclosures) that reduce noise and heat (but oftentimes severely restricts the deeper, richer set of computer capabilities), while others have attempted to physically separate the two environments by using wired or wireless means.

From my perspective, long running cables are generally not the answer. In short, too many of us live in environments where it is neither practical nor aesthetically acceptable (i.e., way-too-low on the Wife Acceptability Index) to run cable from what always seemingly turns out to be the furthest-most extremes of the abode. Accordingly, wireless seems to be the way to go. Unfortunately, while there are plenty of wireless audio devices (e.g., AirPort Express, Squeezebox, ZonePlayer, SoundBridge) that offer some terrific features and sometimes good sound, they are not of the same ilk as upper echelon audio gear when all of the relevant aspects are considered (resultant sound, design, looks, parts, build quality, etc.) - oh, I can hear the flames building in the distance.

So... for those of us that don't want to introduce a low-end piece of plastic-encased wireless audio gear between our (i) all aluminum computer enclosures containing components hand selected/assembled to achieve very specific needs (e.g., processing, storage, video, power) and (ii) audio gear equally stressed over and chosen with laborious research, listening and fit/finish detecting techniques, what are we to do?

Yes, wireless USB is supposed to be coming... possibly really soon. But no one really seems to know if it will provide the QoS-like features that would enable something like a DAC (which appears to require a reasonably constant digital stream) to be utilized.

I'm certainly not an audio or computer systems engineer, but it seems to me that what we're missing here in hi-fi land is a buffer. I understand that a buffer introduces latency, but drop-outs in 2006 seem too much like having to hold on to a television's rabbit ears and contort one's tinfoil-wrapped body to find a reasonably clear picture - basically unacceptable. I may be all wet, but can't buffers be set to initially push data quickly and then use the excess speed of the link (for example, 802.11g) vs. the data rate necessary to feed a DAC, to build up a sufficient amount of data in reserve in case the wife decides to simultaneously download a new batch of porn videos (uhhh, make that recipe preparation videos)?

Sorry for the long-winded missive, but I'm hoping you will take it as a plea to help develop an audiophile-grade solution to a problem that more and more people will soon identify. Maybe a selectable feature on the Digital Lens?

Thanks in advance.

[paul]

Interesting questions. First, I hadn't considered adding a USB interface to the Lens but it might make sense. I'll discuss with engineers. In the end, we want the Lens to work like its name suggests: a lens or method of focusing everything input to it into one fine point. Shouldn't matter if it's a computer, or a transport.

As to your long winded question about computers and music. It's a thorny question but one near and dear to my heart. As I get older, I pine to own things with more user friendly interfaces, features - yet also find myself unwilling after all these years to give up one drop of quality. Hard combo.

When I look at my rack of equipment and see the myriad of power cables, interconnects, boxes etc. that seem to be required to hook everything up, I just shake my head and ask why? Why in this age of super techno whiz bang stuff should that be?

Sometimes I feel like as a group we're sort of like the Amish people. We live in a sophisticated world yet cling to our old ways - which is fine because there's nothing better out there - but my mind wanders to the possibilities.

Yes, wireless is the way to go - and yes, a buffer helps in exactly the way you suggest. The problems are mixing video and audio - if you can buffer both then life's good. Otherwise they get out of synch.

The original Lens could buffer the audio for up to 1 second. It was kind of cool: I used to pul the input cable to the Lens and watch people's facial expressions change when the music kept playing!

I would love a high-end TIVO like system - one that could record my favorite NPR shows - which I always miss - Podcasts, whatever I want. One that when I slip in a new CD it will play it and record it so I never have to screw with it again.

And then I want all this available throughout the house with zero compromises and with zero wires.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

[dsp]

Thanks again Paul. I appreciate the time you must have to devote to answer what must seem like an avalanche of questions from your buying public.

Whether or not you find a way to implement a buffering mechanism in the Digital Lens for all content or just that content so specified by the user, I'm happy to hear that PS Audio is interested in supporting the computer to audio movement at audiophile levels. Heck, just getting a USB input on the Digital Lens would be a major step in that direction.

As for missed NPR shows, maybe I can help out a little by advising you to shift your thinking from owning the content (ala a Tivo model) to obtaining the content on demand. Try accessing http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/r ... ve_hub.php (http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/rundown_archive_hub.php) selecting the date and show you want and then selecting Listen to the entire show.

[oddeofile]

Paul is the man, as usual. Eloquent response and to the point. The Lens is a wonderful device, no doubt exceedingly improved when the Lens II is eventually released, which, hopefully, WILL happen (the survey results were not giving me too much hope). In the meantime, the original Lens is a marvelous example of great engineering and forward thinking. It serves it's purpose exceedingly well in my system. I have grown very accustomed to the massive improvements the two I own have made to redbook CD reproduction in my abode. I can not bear the thought of digital reproduction without one. Each movie I watch makes me wish upon a star that it could handle multichannel hi-rez data. Movies would be immensely improved upon and enjoyable.

In the meantime, the Lens is the only ticket to ride the CD rollercoaster, in my opinion. Any DAC, no matter what it is - ML, Dodson (sp?), Ultralinks, or DL III, can not perform their best without one. Adding the second one (two in series) made a smaller, but still noticeable improvement over just one, regardless of transport I used. It further removed the individual transport sound if you will, from each transport used and brought them closer to being a non-issue.

If you can find one - BUY IT and buy it now! They usually go from around $350-$500 or so used on Audiogon, etc., in good condition. But make sure it has a later serial number as there were software updates made to the dither modes and improvements in the balanced digital interface from the earlier models. A long out of print article available on the net - http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourc ... ndex5.html (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/824/index5.html) will advise you of the serial number of the newer units built with the improved interface. The higher the S/N you can get, the better - the later models, that have the last generation dither software.

Bottom line is - once you hear what a lens can do, you will never want to hear your system again without it. :)

[paul]

Good thought and good link. Yes, I know of that - but here's my lazy man's dillema; when I come home after a long day, I am tired and don't want to screw with anything. I may want some intellectual input and would then like to just switch on Fresh Air - but I don't want to screw with it. I don't want to look at a computer again. If I want a good laugh, the Car Guys, entertainment, Garrison Keeler. But I want it at the push of a button - not a thing where I have to work at it.

[6h30]

Hi Paul!
Will you offer black colour faceplate for the Digital Link III DAC?

Thanks!

[paul]

No, unfortunately due to the low number of units we are producing we can only offer one color, our standard silver.

[6h30]

Dear Paul,
This is out of the topic. Which power cord is the best from yours?

Which products is the replacement of the high current ultimate outlet?

Thanks!

[paul]

Just saw your questions:

Which power cord is the best from yours?

Which products is the replacement of the high current ultimate outlet?

Thanks!

The power cord that's the best? xStream Premier

The High Current UO was replaced quite some time ago by the UPC-200.

[6h30]

Therefore what're the differences between UPC 200 and UPC-200HB?

Also, will the new digital lens come with I2S input?

Thanks!

[paul]

The UPC has two Ultimate Outlets inside - giving you two zones for power. The UPC 200HB has one Ultimate Outlet inside and one Humbuster. This gives you one zone, but the ability to reduce transformer hum in connected equipment.

Paul