Jump to content
IGNORED

Lavry Engineering Paper on Hi-Res


Recommended Posts

I can't say I disagree with Mr Lavry's vision as expressed here, and luckily I never said so. That this is different from the reconstruction means he (and who not) adheres, is something else and not for this post.

 

But

 

Maybe I do not agree with the general assumption that the more (sampling) speed, the less accuracy occurs. This is all to the specs of the components used/selected, and "over speced" means just that. It means that you won't gain on slower rates than the linearity of things promise, and it just as well can be utilized.

*THAT* assumed of course.

 

But now comes the real thing : select the parts which can do what you want. This *is* about capacitors, the size of them, the combination of the sizes of them, and what they must do.

This *is* about the speed of analogue parts.

It even is about the perceived speed of analogue behind the converter. Speakers for instance.

 

Coincidentally -and well known by now- I don't "need" HiRes at all. So, I am for 100% sure not advocating HiRes to be Walhalla. I never even play it (ok, also for the reasons that 95% of it is flawed to begin with).

Still I use a 768KHz converter, or let's say 705.6Khz while playing 16/44.1. And really, it is magnitudes better than when used at 352.8KHz. Should be impossible, right ?

 

Well, it already isn't for the components selected (nothing is in there by accident or price or anything), but which doesn't prevent the D/A chips used (1704) to be as they are without further options once R2R in chip form. So, for 100% sure they will be less accurate at the higher speeds used. Still that doesn't show. The contrary. How ?

 

Well, because there's somewhat more than a tunnel vision hence one aim. So, the aim could well be that the slower speed works for the better (accuracy), but what about the consistent whole of the remainder ? what when I didn't use the filtering means which should be provenly so good ? what if I use filtering means which is 100% based on that sample speed ?

 

Then each higher speed would work out for the better for that reason, and the remainder must be looked at as a tradeoff between those accuracy implications from speed and accuracy implications because of the filtering. What is more important ?

 

Never mind the answer because this post is not about that.

What it is about, is that no single element within the complex is allowed to be a justification for all.

 

Peter

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

When the filtering is applied as it normally is anyway, it would not be in my mind to have a post titled "Accuracy of AUDIO conversion". There is no such thing as accuracy in sight anywhere. So, before you think that accuracy of e.g. linearity plays even the slightest role, I'd examine how analysers work first. They nicely anticipate on the same "flaws" the filtering apply, and *thus* will show you a 0.0018% THD+N which is good enough.

But now play music.

 

First of all I really can't see how anything which rings from here to eternity can be called accurate. It is not, and it does not sound so. It's vague.

It is the "proven" way to do it in the mean time.

Oh ? By means of those analysers you mean ?

 

So now we have something that does not ring at all. Again that 0.0018% shows.

What it does though, is violating all good rules of the proven theory.

And, does someone care ?

 

Well, we should all, because the analyser tells the same in either situation. This, while all specs and such are based on these analysers.

 

Ringing is a given fact. Sure, the less the better. No pre-ringing ? also better. Well, until someone can express the phase anomalies in "numbers" against the now better attack.

 

No ringing at all ? ah ! now we have something.

Yea ? well, no, because now where are the "numbers" of now *real* THD figures (which are worse - and way worse depending on the frequency) against the unreal ?

 

We can't compare this. Not by numbers.

But one things remains : there is NO way ringing implies accuracy.

Harmonic distortion also does not. But 100% sure it is less devistating. And worse : the no-ringing + higher THD sounds totally accurate to me.

 

But now the fun :

Who is able to play with these things ? Measure the one against the other ?

Listen to either ?

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Very good post Rudi.

 

I am not sure whether this post can stay (is allowed to), but I will try anyway. I think it is important.

 

Talking about Professor Johnson ...

 

We all know about his products, which go from the legendary Pasific Microsonics (Model Two), HDCD to his recordings via the same "machinery" which will still be going on. For that matter, also by others through that equipment.

 

Not doubting the recording capabilities of it, I - and let's say personally - seriously doubt the playback of it.

It already was so that one customer replaced the PMII with something I adhere more, and by now a first next one followed, plus by now I could compare the two myself.

There is no chance for the PMII. And trust me, this is not because it is legacy or something. It was way ahead of its time, contains superb technology (and hardware), plus, it is just still used all over.

 

But what does it say ?

 

Like with listening tests ...

People, no matter how experienced they are, listen through equipment which doesn't fulfill the job well. So yes, this looks dangerous me saying it, but therefore it should be read so that other customers claim this, which they clearly do. It is only the conclusion which I propose, and I think it should be allowed to do so.

 

So, when a recording engineer has that judgement, no matter it goes in the direction of HiRes being better or the other way around (which latter it never is of course), this judgement goes through equipment which does not allow this judgement. This hardly can be explained in words alone, and therefore listening can tell only. So, imagine that random recording, and it sounding really way bad compared to that other equipment through which not is listened;

How can judgement take place through that "bad sounding" equipment ?

 

"Bad sounding" is between quotes because all is relative, but still it must be so that at some stage things become absolute when it were about listening to the mic feed etc., as Barry so often poses.

 

Barry is always the most careful when expressing about these things, or at least way more careful than I am. So, I too should (always) say "through my gear, in my ears, and for my brain".

Yes I should. But I don't. And so it is quite easy to make Barry sad when I say something against his ideas, because I tend to bring it forward more harshly - more in the absolute realm. And of course with the doubt of subjectiveness for the reader. Well, it can't be, because too many customers judge the same as I do.

 

A major problem in this post is that there's only Barry expressing what he always does (hence no Johnson's etc.), and I thus can not speak generally when disagreeing with what he finds. And besides, how could I, not being able to hear what he hears. But then I have his recordings ...

 

So Barry, I will try to put it the nicest way I can (hard for me anyway, especially not in my native language), but ...

 

I prefer your Led Zeppelin transfers and your Bob Marley remasters a 100 times over those recordings you finally (as you tend to put it) hear the same through the mic feed as you heard it live. This undoubtedly is related to the bands recorded as well, but something must be going on here.

And please, Led Zeppelin as well as Bob Marley are 16/44.1;

Your recordings are 24/192.

 

So let me say it after all; through my equipment, my ears, my moods etc. etc. True. And indeed, I will like Led Zeppelin better than those other bands. Maybe that Rock was exceptionally well (equipped) in the first place. Maybe things are still different with original analogue recordings. Maybe a transfer to digital is more easy for you to do very (!) well than anything else, and maybe it even went unconsiously.

 

But please don't be angry with me. It isn't even about you, nor is it about Keith Johnson. It *is* though, about through what we all listen, and there is the difference. It must be, regarding my little story about Johnson's products.

 

Important part of my whole point is obviously, that this is not only about how 192 is recorded or through what it is listened through. I mean, without notice it also is about how 44.1 emerged and what is used for listening to *that*.

And so and again, how can we all judge these things to their real merits when I am able to show you with 5 seconds of a track only how a PMII fails over something else. And it really doesn't change much when 192 goes through it.

 

The real problem I have is that Barry says what he says, and should be trusted for it. Yes, by me too.

But it doesn't fit the comparison I talked about.

Barry, if you are able to assume I am right (and please keep in mind, I'm listening through a somewhat different system), what could be your own explanation ?

But also remember this : Besides what I said about it in this post, the Led Zeppelin transfers are just the best I know of. And as you will remember, I said this before knowing you did them, so I'm not talking BS to suit your mood or anything. And additionally, exactly where you stopped, SQ went bad.

Marley the same; I told you about him as the only one having a decent studio on Jamaica - which was audible, and next you told me you did those remasters. So, no BS anywhere here, just truths. And to your of course !!

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

They read 24/192 in the advertisement or on the box and just believe it, despite Lavry's paper saying the two together are currently impossible. Sample as deep as you like and as fast as you like, but don't necessarily believe the values you get.

 

Mark, it doesn't take much for you to get into that negative spiral eh ?

 

Do you really think this is a useful contribution to the thread ?

 

Ok, I'm no moderator here. But it is so obvious ...

 

Listening is what counts.

 

That's a better one, IMHO.

:-)

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

... but it depends on your own *real* judgement about the below ...

 

Moving on to a Berkeley Alpha DAC Series 1 a few years back, I discovered how good 44.1/16 could sound. Hearing the Weiss DAC202 was another veil lifted.

 

There is no single way I would describe it like this. The "veil" would be quite alright, but personally I wouldn't be able to describe it like that. The Weiss has tonnes more of high frequency output, which goes way beyond "another veil lifted". So ... can I be right ?

 

When not, there you have another answer, and it is right in the middle of your own possible causes-of.

I mean, once this is only "another veil lifted", something must be ready for improvement somewhere. And then I mean, *first* before the comparison ever can be made.

 

Besides this, I would also not be able to describe this one-liner about the two products. Of course, you wanted to be brief, but the point is, IMHO the one is not in favor over the other. I too would prefer the Weiss over the Alpha, but I could not live with it.

 

I don't think I am entitled to proceed on this, but it is not about that either. What is, is that it is the most easy again to see why one wouldn't be able to live with it, while you clearly can.

And so the moral : these things are so much more difficult than we can imagine, which is ... why your post actually is so good. It just raises exactly those questions, while I think few realize that those questions need to be answered first, before being able to proceed (with merits of papers etc. etc.).

 

Ok, 2c only.

Peter

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

There are CDs that I vastly prefer to certain 192/24 material.

 

(please keep in mind - I am a Hires hater :-)

 

Rudi, this is dangerous. Just think about it;

You have the Alpha and you have the Weiss. My suggestion :

It is very easy for the Alpha to prefer CDs over HiRes. Why ? well, because the output of it hardly can't be harsh.

And why was that ? who cares. But what's important it that the Weiss can easily be so (harsh).

 

I leave this open on purpose, so it may give something to think about. About what's really going on.

 

However, might you say that this counts more for the Weiss than the Alpha (prefer CDs a lot), then you are more on the track of HiRes not being so "valuable".

 

Your choice.

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Rudi, in the same realm of your post :

 

I think I have said it somewhere else already, but the other day I found myself in a discussion with a Turtle Records recording engineer; Turtle Records recordings are amongst the best in my view, already because of the very high dynamics burried in them. The highest.

 

I listened to some of it in their own system, and judged it as poor sounding. Asked the guy "how come", but he didn't recognize a thing of what I said. Instead I received a sort of counter attacks about me not knowing that basses can't be recorded like I wanted to, and more sh*t which I couldn't understand.

 

The point :

 

This recording engineer, capable of producing the best recordings in my view, could never listen to them really.

Why ?

Because here, with me they sound superb.

 

Think about this ...

 

-----------------------------------

 

But now in the context of my earlier post towards Barry (please, no qualitative judgements here, but it really *did* make me wonder) :

 

Not the same Turtle Records engineer, but his boss, later told this story :

 

"Yeah, we always listen right away to what we recorded; we won't rest before it sounds the same through loudspeakers, and when not we do it all over. However, the other day, when we for sure were finished, we went out for a coffee and when we came back we thought to give it another listen;

No way we were satisfied with it."

 

I'll be damned if this is not the truth, and some CA readers will know the story, because they were there too.

What was suggested (by the same person) is that not only a lot of placeboing is going on, but also that one won't be able to perceive differences because what you hear in the one situation, you will be hearing in the other too. It needs a break in between the two situations.

 

Btw, this is exactly why I think no AB(X) is allowed. At least I know I can't. Only when things clearly annoy in either it will ne noticeable. But when it were about details ... when the more detailed comes first, you *will* hear it in the second. So only when it goes the other way around it works. For one time only.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Thanks for a nice response Barry. Appreciated, really.

 

Besides, you have both the 24/192 and 16/44 versions of the Soundkeeper Recordings. Perhaps you just prefer the sound of the 16/44 versions.

 

No, this is not in question here. This is (for me, but I'm afraid it is a general thing) :

 

If it is the sonics you are referring to, I still would not argue with what brings another listening pleasure. But I would not compare the two in terms of fidelity to what occurred in the presence of the microphones.

 

Let's first say that you were not there in front of the Plants and the Marleys (but please correct me when I'm wrong). So, this leaves us with the present only, and there we can only say that you will be correct in anything you observe. No matter whether it is through your ears etc.;

 

In between :

 

not everyone wants (or likes) a sound with less coloration.

 

True, and each for what he likes best. But, I certainly am not in that leage ... which of course is doubtful to you, logically. But for me this is easy : as soon as two tracks sound similar (let alone two albums), some coloring will be going on. It is the topmost rule of what I do : something is wrong when that happens.

For objectivity, here's a current example of this : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1971.msg20262#msg20262 (here I publically post about some tweak, which should be wrong because things start to sound similar. Still subjective of course, but at least it testifies that I use it as a measure).

 

So ... this is not about listening pleasure. It is about being better in the absolute sense. But again, listened through my system. However, that system is the same when listening to modern well done HiRes recording, like yours. The system is also electrically 100% the same, whether it is HiRes or Redbook. This is because my DAC doesn't operate differently. Only the software side of things is different, where 16/44.1 material needs filtering (and your 24/192 needs not).

 

The differences should not be sought in our ears. They may be in the recording technique (like mixing a 100 mics afterwards vs direct with 2), they may be in digital vs analogue.

I am not the one to chose, although from empirical findings eventually I might (with a sufficient amount of examples).

 

Additionally I might add that when vinyl is digitized, it just sounds 100% analogue (and the very same) afterwards (well, recorded with the PMII that is, and played back through that other DAC). So it hardly can be about "digital" itself.

 

Lastly, as long as we keep referring to our ears and moods etc. (not pointing at anyone in particular), no progess will be seen.

 

Just seeking reasons !

Peter

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Then listen to http://www.sky.fm/. Specifically, there is something the SKY.fm nature sounds channel has that makes it very satisfying on my DAC and it is not resolution.

 

Yes, go figure. I noticed exactly the same from radio channels via SAT - 10 years or so back.

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

I don't think it is negative at all. It is just true. Of course, that is assuming Lavry is right (which he may not be)

 

Well, that was my point of course. It is the whole subject, so to next bring it forward as truth, seems a little strange. And with that assuming the worst, is ... negative ? But never mind, it's just a bit teasing.

 

You tell us whether he is right or wrong.

 

I tried to put it into some context here : Ratio and stuff

 

Does that help ? or isn't that what you meant ?

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

It possibly won't say a single thing (at least I myself must think about the merits), but when my 1704's are fed with 16/44.1, 1KHz -138dBFS, the signal nicely sticks is nose above the field (and a normal 8K FFT, nothing averaged).

 

No dither or anything. But, "upgraded" to 705.6KHz sample rate into 24 bits.

 

The signal itself (as a sine wave) looks nicely like a sine as always, but of course a lot of modulated noise rides on it. But still it works.

I can add that the signal itself is -3dBFS, so actually it should be at -141dBFS (leaving out the fractions per 6dB step).

 

I am not sure I expected this myself. Ok, I did not. :-)

Mind you, the original signal is 16 bits. The signal fed to the DAC should be wobbling around 1 bit only ...

So, no dither, but inherent noise might nicely provide that.

 

Also : at -96dBFS (-99dBFS) there's nothing like further harmonics visible, and the signal looks "perfect" in the FFT (now sticking out some 45dB which makes it well judgeable).

 

Whether this tells that a 24bit R2R like the 1704U-K is accurate to the last bit ... I don't think so. At least I never thought it would be (also looking at the specs).

What my differentially setup throughout here contributes ... not sure. The 2 pairs of 4 1704's all together for sure will do a few things, but them canecelling out eachothers LSBs inaccuracy - I don't think so. Or at least I don't see how.

 

Peter

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Lavry talks of 'near 24-bit at 50-60Hz' So it will be lower at 192K.

 

I have already asked PeterSt, who makes DACs, whether it is possible today or not.

 

Regarding my last post - judge yourself, but maybe draw better conclusions than I do at this time.

But at least that is at 705.6KHz (768KHz really would not be different - better actually).

 

Of course there are some prerequisites to allow judgement in the first place. For example, when the whole lot starts to express noise at e.g. -110dB, a. I could never have seen that signal and/but b. Mr Lavry would immediately say : see ? This happens at these high rates.

But there is the difference; nothing happens at these high rates here, which is exactly what I tried to tell about in that "Ratios" post.

 

Whether it is all that important to perceive "accuracy" of any kind at these lightyears away from audible levels, is something else.

 

Peter

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

(I'd be curious, Miska, about what the calculations are that you did to determine 8x sample rates are reasonably sufficient.)

 

If you'd ask me, I don't think it is sufficient;

Regarding this, it may be good to know that I hunted for the 768 (705.6) not for the numbers, and not because of any math I could predict it with, but because the step from 176.4 to 352.8 made a siginificant difference sound wise (mind you, this is just about "upsampling" 16/44.1). So I thought : when that makes (still) a difference, then who guarantees me that going from 352.8 to 705.6 will not.

 

Sadly, the step from 352.8 to 705.6 made an even bigger difference (meaning with sadly : I want to go beyond that now), and it is also measureable why. I can't dig it up right away (it wouldn't tell a thing anyway), but I have lists of tables of where harmonics fall, and how the shift from 352.8 to 705.6 solves a couple of things (while nothing regarding this was solved from 176.4 to 352.8).

 

But please see : this is only about my own means of filtering for the 24 bit PCM chips, and this specific subject will be totally unrelated to SDM DACs and their means of filtering.

For the SQ result of either it is of course, but never mind that now.

 

Peter

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

I have made up my mind this morning to apply for a certain job in Germany. For 20 months only.

I will make a mess of it for sure, and by the time I must resign (which is after 20 months) I will be receiving 200K euros for pension annually, a secretary and a car, and a place to put the secetary in. Most probably the car can go in there too.

For life.

Only the cigar fails to be there.

 

So yes, I understand. Btw, I am known as the foremost biggest nagger on the planet.

The difference might be that I try to not do it by standard. My father in law does that already.

 

Oh well.

haha

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

I tried to dig up something in English : http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/17/c_131416841.htm

 

A successor to Wulff has to be elected by parliament within 30 days.

 

So be fast ! one week left ...

 

My story about this is not in this text, but true anyway.

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

I think PeterST is trying to say that Delta Sigma "cannot deliver the goods" but has not been clear enough on how to show it in technical measurements, and claims to hear it.

 

Hi Demian,

 

I don't think I said that anywhere, and I hope not to have implied it either.

It is only that I measured my DAC the other day throughout for low level information, and found (a bit to my surprise) what I reported a few posts back in the thread.

 

Thermal noise will be the biggest problem for PCM/R2R chips. So, they (the resistors) may be accurate alright, but for THD YMMV per bit combination active, plus the switching noise adds up.

 

What I further said (and always talk about) is that for these PCM chips real THD figures can be measured with test signals, that being a real representative for music once the filtering is a real interpolating means. Not so with SDMs; they can only show test signal THD, while music will turn out to be nothing as accurate the THD figures show (the music influencing itself by means of the filtering).

 

*Because* I can do all ahead in PC software and the DAC does nothing, I can easily compare any filtering means (useful for PCM). So, THD figures can easily be better for the higher frequencies by means of different filtering, behavior will be similar to any DAC then, but the accuracy is lost and the sound (relatively) awful.

This is how I said "who can test this ?" (similar), implying "me only".

 

I am not saying SDM can't be accurate. I think it even can be measured but it will require some changes in hardware and things have to move to the software side of matters (for both being accurate and being able to measure the real merits). I am not up to that though.

Miska is. Or otherwise he will be way more close than I am.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...