Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion HiFi & HT Chat Converting coax digital ouputs to AES/EBU outputs?

Here's a good tech document on interfacing;
RaneNote INTERFACING AES3 & S/PDIF.pdf

I have used a 518 and a CO3, both are 'bit perfect' in use, I also used a Behringer DEQ2496 to convert optical to AES, it was also bit perfect after making sure everything was switched to the right settings.

518 has limits, but does interface with other Meridian equipment very well.
The 618 will also do what you want, but are quite rare.

All the best,

Steve.

The problem with the 518 is that I would need three of them for a 5.1 setup.

As for the M-Audio C03, I don't find it in their product line.

Anyway there are other products out there that provide the same conversion, so that's good.

flea

Oh and thanks for the Rane document, very informative.

M Audio CO3 here

http://www.core-sound.com/co3/1.php

Hope that helps, Happy Xmas all Chris

Carl is spot on. Some DACs will reject the signal. I ran into BIG problems using a transformer to convert unbalanced to balanced. The modded Benchmark DAC I had been using handled it with no problem BUT the NuForce DAC 9 turned out to be much more sensitive to input.

In the end I made up a converter to change the RJ45 balanced SpeakerLink digital out from the MS600 to an AES/EBU balanced digital link so there were no transformers involved.

John

Reading all the posts here will make the wrong impression that using a transformer is a bad decision. Its not, as every other technical device the transformer have to full fill the technical requirements.The transformer works since decades without problems in the recording industry and M use MULTIPLE transformer on the input and output.So simple speaking that a transformer degrade the sound is technicall incorrect.
Of coarse the transformer as a passive device have losses (there are no 100% effenciency) BUT as long the signal specs INCLUDING the tolerances are fullfilled,no problems or disadvantages appear.
That is correct for well designed equipment that take care of that.
If the equipment is designed/manufactured incorrect,then disadvantages CAN appear but that can happen with "active" devices too.
The active devices are basic not simple amplifiers-still there also exist on the market- the activedevices CAN remove/edit the copy bit what a tranformer of coarse could not make.
Also an active device is not dependend on the "strenghts" of the signal source(here the SPDIF source) and therefore can do a better job as a transformer in THAT case.And when the designer implement jitter lowering devices in his box,you have an advantage with THAT solution.
The summary:
As long your source device is technicla correct in therms of signal "quality" means electrical paraeter like level and wave resistance(impedance) and the receiver is technical orrect to,
you have no disadvantages with a passive device.
That is proved in the real audio industry since a long time.
An active device can do more like "remove" some failures from an incorrect source or an incorrect receiver.When the active device include more functions as like an dejitter circuit it can improve the audio quality, but also can degrade the sound when its incorrect designed.
And jsut for your information,nearly all ofthe active devices uses transformer to get a potential free signal.
So please dont simplify to transformer is bad and active is good.

Robert

Devil,

How did you make an SL converter? I would be interested in doing that.

Thanks,

flea

Use a Neutrik SPDIF To AES/EBU xformer its easier.

Search before asking

Google Search for "SpeakerLink AES" and read the threads.

Regards,
Carl

You're absolutely right Carl, sometimes I get ahead of myself and ask questions instead of doing my own research.

Genelec is also recommending the passive converter that Roger posted.

Thanks everyone for the help, I learned a lot and I have a better idea of what I'm doing now.

I really appreciate it,

flea

I think it may be discontinued, but there is stock hanging around in some places.

You need to make sure that whatever converter you choose doesn't add jitter; the CO3's has in-built jitter management (which I assume is a phase-locked loop like in the 518). It wouldn't be quite so critical if your Genelecs have jitter management themselves on their inputs, but Meridian has demonstrated time and again that digital stream jitter is the enemy to audio fidelity.

Genelec say that their DSP monitors have "very sophisticated jitter management."

I think I'll go with Genelecs recommendation and use the passive impedance converter.

flea

SpeakerLink is 110 ohm balanced like AES/EBU.

So if you use a SpeakerLink G61/G68 then you can make a simple wiring adaptor from SpeakerLink RJ45 out to XLR AES/EBU input on the Genelec, no impedence matching would be necessary.

As you specified G61/G68 I presume you haven't bought one yet, so thought I would suggest a SpeakerLink one as a better solution.

Cheers,
Rick