Jump to content
IGNORED

DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP


Recommended Posts

Hi Guys, I’ve been thinking about this topic for a while and think perhaps a good discussion may be enlightening. 
 

The vast majority of manufacturers I talk to have a serious aversion to people using apps such as HQPlayer to use filters and modulators of their own choosing before sending audio to the components. 
 

Some manufacturers suggest they know best and that anything other than what’s being done inside the DAC can’t provide better sound. Others say that choice is confusing and most users select a single filter anyway, so they provide that one in their DACs. 
 

I’m a huge fan of choice and would prefer a DAC that enables the best of both worlds, the manufacturers best and the option to select what I think is best externally. 
 

Have others run into this aversion from manufacturers and heard good reasons for it? I’m not suggesting there is a right or wrong way to design, produce, and sell a product. I’m just very interested in understanding why decisions are made, especially when those decisions limit choice. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Hi Chris, I agree that the more choices we have, the better. When it comes to DACs, and the Yggy in particular, I bought it because of the mega burrito filter. I have tried fussing with the Audirvana software and find that sending the data stream unaltered in any way sounds best. But others may feel otherwise which is fine. Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I strongly suspect that most designers, engineers and manufacturers know that there’s no such thing as “the best” - because, with rare exceptions, there isn’t.  The two most likely reasons for the approach you describe are probably the desire to achieve their specific vision for the performance of a product and the need / desire to minimize complaints about product performance from users who alter or ignore their recommendations.

 

There are many philosophies and strategies for business success.  Some incorporate and even promote user choice in an effort to please those who want it (and because they recognize that there’s no “best”).  But most are based on the beliefs that each product or service offered represents and embodies somebody’s vision for it (designer, engineer, owner, etc) and that the vision will be preferred by enough buyers to make it a success in the market.  So they dissuade users from trying to change it.

You're way smarter and more experienced than I am :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, bluesman said:

The wise consumer buys the seller as well as the product.

Absolutely. 

 

This is why I always stress the importance of people over products and technologies. When Andrew Jones designs a loudspeaker, it's going to be one that I'd recommend to anyone. It just is. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, barrows said:

From the manufacturers perspective, i can totally understand why they want the customer to use their components as they are, and not do not external oversampling/filtering or even perhaps room correction/EQ.  Manufacturers work really hard to get their products to sound "right" and they have no way of knowing how experienced a customer is, and how much that customer may just screw up the sound by applying various DSPs, etc.  The manufacturer wants to be able to provide some assurance and consistency to customers that their products will sound good.  I do not think this means that (most at least) manufacturers are ignorant of the possibilities of DSP, I think it is just that they know, from experiences they have had over the years of building products and providing customer service, that often, the customer actually does screw up the sound sometimes by making changes without really being knowledgeable enough to do so in a coherent fashion.

Of course with software based changes, usually the customer can get back to the OE conditions if they screw up!  At least there is that.  Physical mods are a different story though!  I have seen some horrific attempts at doing mods to gear, even by so called "professional" modders, who charge a lot for their "services".

 

Also, we always have to remember, that most manufacturers these days, are still a bit "old school" when it comes to computer audio (also reviewers!).  So they really may not understand how much expertise has gone into  Jussi's work on HQPlayer, for the best example I know of.  Also when one suggests DSP to many manufacturers, they often assume this means going for analog, to digital, applying the DSP, and then going back to analog again!  They often do not realize that with computer audio, the customer is going to apply DSP in the computer, before any conversions.

 

I really think there is market, for example, for a DAC specifically designed to take advantage of HQPlayer.  A DAC which just accepts in DSD 256 and above, which has little or even no onboard oversampling of its own (or even better, maybe oversampling from DSD 256 to 90.3808 MHz).  This could be a simple DAC, with either a single Ethernet or USB interface, and perhaps a by- passable analog volume control, with a robust amplifier stage, for driving amp(s) directly.  I really, really want to make this product (I have heard the EC modulators, WOW!), but cannot find support for doing it, yet...

The Holo Spring 2 DAC and May DAC are pretty close to that ideal. The Dennefrips are also on that list.

 

Disclosure, I own and love a Holo Spring 2 KTE.

 

I like your project idea, good luck!

Link to comment
On 7/1/2020 at 2:49 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m a huge fan of choice and would prefer a DAC that enables the best of both worlds, the manufacturers best and the option to select what I think is best externally.

 

What shall I say ...

(hence a DAC with NO filter at all, but with a manufacturer's best because he also provides software you might like to use - and with clearly the option to use other software)

 

I think the concept is still quite unique (with say Jussi and me on very similar controls), but the combination of DAC with "best" (filtering) software ... I don't think I am aware of such a combination elsewhere. So thinking PCM only, notice that the DAC has to be an R2R DAC or otherwise no (NOS) dice *and* the manufacturer has to supply a "best" filtering means, which preferably is not derived from some existing tool.

 

PS: As far as I am aware, Jussi is the only one who went trough the trouble of supporting our NOS1 for its "two wire" capabilities (hence 24/768).

 

PPS: I have always explicitly said that our DAC should be used by the filtering means (= player software) which sounds best. So I hope I am sufficiently neutral on this subject.

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
18 hours ago, bobflood said:

The Holo Spring 2 DAC and May DAC are pretty close to that ideal. The Dennefrips are also on that list.

 

Disclosure, I own and love a Holo Spring 2 KTE.

 

And you can also consider T+A into similar category. They have their own filters for PCM side - that can be bypassed if you like. And separate pure bit-perfect discrete DSD side. They now even have built-in DSD1024 capable NAA in the SD(V) 3100 HV.

 

For my development headphone rig, I'm now testing the HA 200 headphone amp / DAC.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
On 7/1/2020 at 5:49 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys, I’ve been thinking about this topic for a while and think perhaps a good discussion may be enlightening. 
 

The vast majority of manufacturers I talk to have a serious aversion to people using apps such as HQPlayer to use filters and modulators of their own choosing before sending audio to the components. 
 

Some manufacturers suggest they know best and that anything other than what’s being done inside the DAC can’t provide better sound. Others say that choice is confusing and most users select a single filter anyway, so they provide that one in their DACs. 
 

I’m a huge fan of choice and would prefer a DAC that enables the best of both worlds, the manufacturers best and the option to select what I think is best externally. 
 

Have others run into this aversion from manufacturers and heard good reasons for it? I’m not suggesting there is a right or wrong way to design, produce, and sell a product. I’m just very interested in understanding why decisions are made, especially when those decisions limit choice. 

Hi,

This is a topic that I've always found interesting and thank you for introducing this....

 

I think that in some ways, it can go back to, and perhaps be a part of that notion of design goals. (And I'm talking about applying DAC design as being similar to speaker design). Surely, - Wilson Audio has a very different "take" or opinion about what is good sound than Verity Audio. To be clear, - both are excellently designed speakers, yet they sound nothing like each other. The Halcro amps sounded nothing LAMM....

 

I remember talking to the designer of Jadis amps at CES one year where he pointed out that he builds amps that work with speakers that make Tchiavosky sound "right." He told me that he doesn't give a shit about how the Patricia Barber recordings sound. He hated Patricia Barber, and if you like Patricia Barber, - don't buy my amps...

 

I think that we have to consider a similar thing with DACs, - in that they are part of a system wherein the manufacturer may be focusing on a particular sound that they want to hear. If a customer "mis-applies" their DAC to the wrong speakers and amps, - does that mean that the DAC is not "well-engineered?"

 

Finally, - many of these manufacturers may feel, (and people have said this), that there are a lot of sources out there, - one cannot possibly ever know what a consumer is going to plug into it. Certainly a USB audio signal coming from a shite USB bus directly from a MACMini is very, very, different than one coming from a SoTM or an Optical Rendu. 

A DAC manufacturer can't, and shouldn't design their DAC's USB input with a galvanic isolation "moat" on the USB receiver when one isn't needed. And besides, - the inputs on any DAC are just one of several "parts" of the DAC that can and do affect the final outcome. 

Finally, the DAC is just part of "system." Even the best DACs could possibly perform poorly when paired with the "wrong" amps and speakers. 

Link to comment
On 7/1/2020 at 10:32 AM, bluesman said:

The wise consumer buys the seller as well as the product.

 

Truer words...

 

Yes, I think some manufacturers are reluctant to have customers tinkering with the sound. One of the problems here, I believe, is that a lot of these folks are hardware rather than software guys, and if a customer has a problem, they won't be able to help.

 

One other factor may simply be that some manufacturers might want to hold the only keys to the kingdom. If audiophiles start realizing how easy it is to get great sound inexpensively from software, the hardware manufacturers are reduced to selling the analog circuitry and parts quality. Look at DAC marketing and see how much of it concentrates on the digital side, especially filtering.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:


If audiophiles start realizing how easy it is to get great sound inexpensively from software, the hardware manufacturers are reduced to selling the analog circuitry and parts quality. Look at DAC marketing and see how much of it concentrates on the digital side, especially filtering.

Hi Jud

For the majority of members who are more than likely to own DACs costing < $1,000, (especially the Objective types who believe that is the most a great sounding DAC should cost) I wouldn't call any of the touted S/W solutions here inexpensive, after you factor in the additional cost of fast processors, improved USB cables, ISO Regens etc.
 OTOH, if you are a very smart "Legal Eagle", who is also pretty clued up in this area as well , you are likely to call these additions inexpensive. 😉

 

 Kind Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 hours ago, sandyk said:

Hi Jud

For the majority of members who are more than likely to own DACs costing < $1,000, (especially the Objective types who believe that is the most a great sounding DAC should cost) I wouldn't call any of the touted S/W solutions here inexpensive, after you factor in the additional cost of fast processors, improved USB cables, ISO Regens etc.
 OTOH, if you are a very smart "Legal Eagle", who is also pretty clued up in this area as well , you are likely to call these additions inexpensive. 😉

 

 Kind Regards

Alex


The DAC I currently own was about $400 IIRC. It is not world class, simply by virtue of analog circuitry and parts quality. Truly world class software is available for half that amount or substantially less. So while not insignificant to some folks, true high end software is much less costly than its hardware equivalent.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Jud said:


The DAC I currently own was about $400 IIRC. It is not world class, simply by virtue of analog circuitry and parts quality. Truly world class software is available for half that amount or substantially less. So while not insignificant to some folks, true high end software is much less costly than its hardware equivalent.

 Hi Jud

 I was thinking here of the most touted solutions in this forum from Miska and Peter, where you need much more than their S/W to take full advantage of them .

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sandyk said:

Hi Jud

For the majority of members who are more than likely to own DACs costing < $1,000, (especially the Objective types who believe that is the most a great sounding DAC should cost) I wouldn't call any of the touted S/W solutions here inexpensive, after you factor in the additional cost of fast processors, improved USB cables, ISO Regens etc.
 OTOH, if you are a very smart "Legal Eagle", who is also pretty clued up in this area as well , you are likely to call these additions inexpensive. 😉

 

 Kind Regards

Alex

I do not see what software has to do with USB cables and regeneration hardware. Furthermore, PCM to PCM upsampling does not require a lot of processing power.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Jud

 I was thinking here of the most touted solutions in this forum from Miska and Peter, where you need much more than their S/W to take full advantage of them .

Alex

You do not need anything other than the software to use either HQPlayer or XXHighend. As for "taking full advantage of", that depends upon what your goal is. Quit acting as if this is some elitist pursuit of the wealthy. HQPlayer in particular was engineered to be a cost effective alternative to replacing hardware.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Jud

 I was thinking here of the most touted solutions in this forum from Miska and Peter, where you need much more than their S/W to take full advantage of them .

Alex


Miska’s software does require stout hardware to run higher resolutions with some (though not all) of the filters and modulators, but XXHE and Audirvana don’t particularly. And since they all run on general purpose computers, if your computer is a fairly recent model you should be able to run most of the available software filtering and upsampling for essentially no added hardware cost.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Jud said:


Miska’s software does require stout hardware to run higher resolutions with some (though not all) of the filters and modulators, but XXHE and Audirvana don’t particularly. And since they all run on general purpose computers, if your computer is a fairly recent model you should be able to run most of the available software filtering and upsampling for essentially no added hardware cost.

That is mostly for PCM>SDM(DSD) on HQP. The PCM upsampling is much less intensive. I make this distinction because many might not want or need the conversion and shouldn't pan it thinking that is it's only use case.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Miska said:

 

And you can also consider T+A into similar category. They have their own filters for PCM side - that can be bypassed if you like. And separate pure bit-perfect discrete DSD side. They now even have built-in DSD1024 capable NAA in the SD(V) 3100 HV.

 

For my development headphone rig, I'm now testing the HA 200 headphone amp / DAC.

 

Jussi:  It appears that the newer T+A DACs use the new Thesycon U-HEAR USB receiver code.  Developers at Thesycon have confirmed that this code works with Native DSD to 1024 on Linux.  Can you confirm that the HA 200 works on Linux for Native DSD at 512 and 1024? 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, barrows said:

Jussi:  It appears that the newer T+A DACs use the new Thesycon U-HEAR USB receiver code.  Developers at Thesycon have confirmed that this code works with Native DSD to 1024 on Linux.  Can you confirm that the HA 200 works on Linux for Native DSD at 512 and 1024? 

 

It works the same as Holo Spring 2 for example and I believe Denafrips as well. DSD512 should work with any relatively recent Linux and DSD1024 works at least with my kernel builds.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 4est said:

Furthermore, PCM to PCM upsampling does not require a lot of processing power.

 

Most if not all PCM to PCM cases can run on my fanless light cheap laptop that has Pentium Silver N5000 CPU. It has 6W TDP and essentially is a quad-core Atom. It is my "travel email laptop" because it has 8+ hour battery lifetime and very light weight. Running Linux Mint.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

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...