Monarchy 24/96 DIP - Jitter Box

rskarvan

Just thought I'd share some enlightenment with you all.

I have an older (but, nice) JVC cd player with an optical output.
I had purchased an ADCOM GDA700 DAC with AES/EBU input (as well as Toslink and SPDIF).

Anyway... the Dac improved the sound of the JVC cd player - no surprise there.

I've been looking for cd transports and have been disappointed that there are few good values out there.

So, just for a test, I purchased a used and broken Monarchy DIP 24/96 from a guy in Canada. Purchase price was $45.

I immediately sent it to San Francisco for repair at Monarchy. Cost of repair was $50. I think they replaced the chip/processor in it.

Anyway... I got it back from Monarchy and put it into my system.
Here is the signal path.
JVC CD player > Monarchy DIP > Adcom GDA700 DAC > Krell KAV250P preamp > Krell KAV250A amp > Thiel 3.6 Speakers. (All balanced interconnects)

The addition of the Monarchy DIP was every bit as substantial as any other upgrade that I have performed. The sound is just better. Crisper. Fuller. Clearer. Tighter.

Conclusion: Digital Jitter is real. Digital Jitter correction is effective.

Alternate Conclusion: The ADCOM DAC works much better with AES/EBU input vs. TOSLINK.

Maybe its a bit of both. But, in any event, a higher degree of Audio Nirvana has been reached. The addition of the Monarchy 24/96 Jitter-box resulted in a substantial improvement.

One last thing: buying used and broken on E-bay can result in a good deal. Another Monarchy 24/96 in working condition just sold for $205. Mine cost approximately $100.

zombie boy 2000

And this is/was going to be the next purchase... they don't last long on the 'gon at anything close to Bluebook.
Thanks for the write-up.

zombie boy 2000

Isn't it recommended that a digital coax is used from transport to jitter box than optical from box to DAC? I've never understood why Monarchy claims this to be a superior set-up...

heiney9

That Monarchy piece is worth the price. I have been meaning to get one for a long time but it’s always on the back burner. I've heard my system with and w/o it and jitter is a real phenomenon and when controlled/eliminated it really makes a marked difference in sound. I've done a lot of research on jitter both clock induced jitter as well as jitter produced by the transport. Clock induced jitter is the most prevalent and the DIP really works if you are into that kind of critical listening like I am.

Also FWIW, I recently started using and Adcom GDA600 in place of the GDA700. The HDCD is very nice and both units are excellent regardless of what they cost used. But I’ve recently been corresponding with an old Adcom tech and found out the GDA600 was partially designed by none other than Nelson Pass. And many at Adcom (at the time) and others feel the GDA600 has the edge over the GDA700 in presentation and soundstage depth (a little smoother and more open). Those Burr Brown PCM-63K Dac’s are to this day still phenomenal.

rskarvan

In general, dig. coax is better than optical.
My old JVC CD player only has optical out.

Though, a write-up that was sent to me by Monarchy lists the total Jitter on the coax at 685 pico-seconds. Whereas, the total jitter on the optical channel is 602 pico-seconds (better). So, your results may vary.
(Results from write-up by Paul Miller - Hi Fi News May 1996).

Early B.

rskarvan wrote:

Here is the signal path.
JVC CD player > Monarchy DIP > Krell KAV250P preamp > Krell KAV250A amp > Thiel 3.6 Speakers.

Rskarvan -- how are you connecting the DIP directly to a preamp? I thought the DIP only had a digital input and output (based on the pic on the audioadvisor website).

Early B.

heiney9 wrote:

That Monarchy piece is worth the price....I've heard my system with and w/o it and jitter is a real phenomenon and when controlled/eliminated it really makes a marked difference in sound.

That's been my experience, as well.

steveinaz

Early B. wrote:

Rskarvan -- how are you connecting the DIP directly to a preamp? I thought the DIP only had a digital input and output (based on the pic on the audioadvisor website).

..that's what I was thinking, I think he left out the DAC?

zombie boy 2000

Huh? Didn't catch that myself... does that particular preamp have a DAC?

Rivrrat

rskarvan wrote:

In general, dig. coax is better than optical.
My old JVC CD player only has optical out.

Though, a write-up that was sent to me by Monarchy lists the total Jitter on the coax at 685 pico-seconds. Whereas, the total jitter on the optical channel is 602 pico-seconds (better). So, your results may vary.
(Results from write-up by Paul Miller - Hi Fi News May 1996).

Your loss (jitter) is going to correlate directly to the quality of your optical cable, and the cleanliness and tightness of your connections (along with how well the clocks time to each other). Playing in the electrical/optical digital telcom world, I have a hard time believing that given equal quality cables, with proper cleaning, that the optical won't out preform the electrical signal. With a digital electrical, you'll still have the same timing issues, except now you introduce voltage drop, which really kills a digital signal.

There's more, like laser/LED intensity, but for the distances we're running I doubt thats an issue.

As with anything JMHO.

rskarvan

I forgot the DAC (following the DIP). Correction made.

Systems

Although it may be hard to find ,another very good unit for jitter reduction is the GW Labs DSP .It uses the Crystal CS8420 sample rate converter chip which is highly effective at attenuating jitter.

Early B.

Aside from modding one's CDP to upgrade the clock, are there any other products designed to reduce jitter that don't require a DAC to use them?

Systems

No not without redesigning the unit.Also jitter is more of an issue when using a separate transport/ DAC setup than with an all in one CD player.The problem is in the SPDIF or the way the digital signal is sent through the coax to the DAC.

Shizelbs

Besides this Monarchy product, are there any others that perform the same function?

Systems

The GW Labs unit mentioned in post #12,

Perpetual Technologies PA1,

Parts Connexions D2D-1

Im not sure if any of these are still being produced.

Edit: it looks like the GW unit is still available http://www.centasound.com/products/gwdsp.html

heiney9

GV#27 wrote:

No not without redesigning the unit.Also jitter is more of an issue when using a separate transport/ DAC setup than with an all in one CD player.The problem is in the SPDIF or the way the digital signal is sent through the coax to the DAC.

I'm going to have to disagree (somewhat). Because seperate Dac's tend to be much higher quality than a typical all-in-one type unit most times drastic steps have been taken to reduce clock induced jitter. Also it's not so much in how the data is sent thru the cable as in the way the info is re-clocked. Most high end Dac's have excellent crystal clocks and circutry to support. Any Dac worth it's salt has greatly reduced jitter over the typical all-in-one unit. Of course as always there are exceptions.

zombie boy 2000

Shizelbs wrote:

Besides this Monarchy product, are there any others that perform the same function?

I believe Audio Alchemy has produced several versions of a (anti)jitter box...

rskarvan

You should be careful when choosing a jitter-trap. Some of the lesser jitter busters will actually add jitter to a decent transport. The Monarchy 24/96 was found to reduce jitter by 50% on COAX and near 90% on TOSLINK. I figured my old JVC was probably a jitter-monster that needed taming. My ears tell me it was a worthy investment.

Systems

heiney9 wrote:

I'm going to have to disagree (somewhat). Because seperate Dac's tend to be much higher quality than a typical all-in-one type unit most times drastic steps have been taken to reduce clock induced jitter. Also it's not so much in how the data is sent thru the cable as in the way the info is re-clocked. Most high end Dac's have excellent crystal clocks and circutry to support. Any Dac worth it's salt has greatly reduced jitter over the typical all-in-one unit. Of course as always there are exceptions.

Sorry but I will respectfully disagree.:)
Many of the newer CD/DVD players use the very same dac chips as those used in separate units.For instance my inexpensive Pioneer DVD player uses the very good BurrBrown DSD1791 chip for the main channels.
I will agree that the better outboard DAC's have low levels of jitter but they still have to recieve the combined signal (clocks and data ) via a coax through a SPDIF transmitter from the output of the transport.Then a SPDIF reciever chip at the DAC end must decode and divide the clocks from the data etc.This transmitter/reciever interface is were jitter can rear its ugly head unless it uses a Sample Rate Converter/receiver like the Crystal CS8420 for the input.
But if you are using the analog outputs of a CD player (ie not as a transport)the digital data is not put through this extra interface, therefore a big potential source of jitter is eliminated.

Systems

zombie boy 2000 wrote:

I believe Audio Alchemy has produced several versions of a (anti)jitter box...

I would avoid these dated designs.

heiney9

GV#27 wrote:

For instance my inexpensive Pioneer DVD player uses the very good BurrBrown DSD1791 chip for the main channels.

Inexpensive and good can't be used in the same sentence. Burr Brown has made a lot of great chipsets. A good chipset doesn't make for good digital to analog conversion.

I have an inexpensive Pioneer DVDp and it sounds horrible. The chipset is but one small part of the larger equation. And clock induced jitter is still the most prevalent. I posted about this exact issue about a year ago and I don't feel like getting all my resources together. So anyone who might be interested furthur please do a search.

GV#27 you and I are really on the same page we just disagree in the minutae. There is certainly truth to what you say but that again is one small part of the larger equation that is digital to analog conversion (at least how it pertains to audio). I don't pretend to know everything but I have done a lot of research and as always YMMV

rskarvan

I too have done quite a bit of research on this matter and I agree with Heiney9.

Systems

heiney9 wrote:

Inexpensive and good can't be used in the same sentence. Burr Brown has made a lot of great chipsets. A good chipset doesn't make for good digital to analog conversion.

I have an inexpensive Pioneer DVDp and it sounds horrible. The chipset is but one small part of the larger equation. And clock induced jitter is still the most prevalent.

Hi heiney9, Im of the belief that better analog stages following the DAC chips and power supplies are of far greater importance than reducing jitter.
Many inexpensive units have quite good digital sections but to keep costs down manufacturers cut corners in the analog stages and power supplies,chassis etc.

Like I mentioned my Pioneer DV563's digital section is well executed and uses a very good dac chip but they crippled it with a VERY nasty opamp output stage at the output of the dac , with poorly implemented voltage regulators and cheap electrolytic coupling caps.

I completely modified everything after the dac chip with higher performance opamps and voltage regulators etc. and can say that the sound was transformed.The excellence of the Burr Brown DSD 1791 DAC was now apparent and no atempt was made at jitter reduction.

heiney9

GV#27 wrote:

Hi heiney9, Im of the belief that better analog stages following the DAC chips and power supplies are of far greater importance than reducing jitter.
Many inexpensive units have quite good digital sections but to keep costs down manufacturers cut corners in the analog stages and power supplies,chassis etc.

Like I mentioned my Pioneer DV563's digital section is well executed and uses a very good dac chip but they crippled it with a VERY nasty opamp output stage at the output of the dac , with poorly implemented voltage regulators and cheap electrolytic coupling caps.

I completely modified everything after the dac chip with higher performance opamps and voltage regulators etc. and can say that the sound was transformed.The excellence of the Burr Brown DSD 1791 DAC was now apparent and no atempt was made at jitter reduction.

I absolutely agree and clock induced jitter reduction is the next step to take things even farther. We really are on the same thought, I just feel jitter is a nasty byproduct and can always be reduced/eliminated.

Every stage of the D to A process has to be very well designed in order to get the best results.

Systems

heiney9 wrote:

Every stage of the D to A process has to be very well designed in order to get the best results.

Agreed.:)