The Computer Audiophile Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 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 Link to comment
JoeWhip Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 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
Popular Post bluesman Posted July 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 1, 2020 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. 4est, sandyk, Solstice380 and 1 other 4 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 1, 2020 Author Share Posted July 1, 2020 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 :~) DuckToller 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post bluesman Posted July 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 1, 2020 29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: You're way smarter and more experienced than I am :~) I seriously doubt that - but I may have been forced into playing more blame games with manufacturers and vendors than you have. I really don't believe that they're as naive or ignorant as their responses often suggest. They're simply trying to avoid being blamed for dissatisfaction that originates in "innovative" customer use of their products in ways they hadn't foreseen or intended. And the line staff who respond to most such inquiries seem to be as concerned about keeping their jobs as they are about saying and doing the right thing to us. Most with whom I've had to do this were clearly just covering their asse(t)s, e.g. "It's your internet connection", "It's your router", "It's your operating system", "It's your configuration", "It's your player / streamer / DAC / preamp / amp / speakers / wires / configuration / diet / location / weather / scotch / Zodiac sign..." etc. Only those with a broader vision, true passion for their pursuits, a spirit of adventure, respect for each and every customer, and the self confidence to tackle problems they hadn't encountered before respond positively and constructively starting with "we don't know, but let's find out". Most simply don't go the extra mile. You may recall a thread I started many moons ago because my brand new and highly touted DAC wouldn't hold its USB connection when turned off - the USB cable had to be unplugged and plugged back in before turning it back on. The manufacturer's service tech responded by email that it was because I was running Linux and they don't support Linux. Their website says quite clearly that Linux is a supported platform, which I documented with a big screen shot from their own site. The next response was that there are so many variants of Linux that they couldn't possibly keep track of them to make sure each one works with their product. I had it connected to ROCK on a NUC, which is not what I'd call rare or esoteric - it's probably one of the most common platforms to which their DACs are connected. I only posted the encounter on AS after giving up and deciding to leave it on 24/7. I finally received a response months later from Customer Service (through AS) asking if they could be of any help. I'm also a lot older than you are, Chris. So I remember when customer service was typically much better. I bought a new Crown SX724 in 1974, exactly when the first back-coated tapes were introduced. As their transports had been on the market for years already, they were never tested with back-coated tape - and it squealed loudly because the back coating stuck slightly to the pinch roller material they used. My dealer told me to call them directly because this was a brand new problem and they'd want to know about it. He also told me that he'd gladly exchange it for a Revox or take it back for a full refund, if it simply wouldn't work with the latest tape. I called Crown, got a very nice response, and was told they'd get back to me. A few weeks later, I came home from the hospital to find my wife watching John Haines (Crown's service manager) taking my deck apart on our living room floor. He brought multiple new capstans, pinch rollers, and other parts and did a lot of adjusting before leaving me with what he thought were the three best rollers they'd developed in the weeks since I called. He asked me to use each for a while and report back to him so they could change their production specs, retrofit unsold dealer stock to the one that worked the best, and notify current owners of the problem and its solution. They never even mentioned that it wasn't designed for back-coated tape. It's this kind of enthusiasm and integrity that make one a delighted customer. Although satisfied customers return, they'll look at other buying opportunities. Truly delighted customers never consider going elsewhere if they can get what they want / need or a satisfactory substitute from a source that delights them. I will never buy another product from that DAC manufacturer. But I was a loyal customer of my dealer until he retired. I ended up with items I'd never even considered because he carried, recommended, and stood behind them - and I agreed with his opinion after trying them (like a pair of early Sony monobloc power amps, a Yamaha B2, a McIntosh MX110, an Apt Holman preamp, a Hafler 500 etc). I had to buy my Rogers LS3/5as elsewhere because he brought in a pair for both of us to evaluate for several weeks, concluding afterward that he loved the sound but they weren't worth their cost because of their limitations (power handling, dynamic range, nominal 15 ohm impedance, etc). He was a true gentleman about it, even asking me to bring them in several times in so we could compare them to new designs he and Fred Martin were developing. The wise consumer buys the seller as well as the product. DuckToller, Superdad, StreamFidelity and 7 others 3 7 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 1, 2020 Author Share Posted July 1, 2020 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. 4est 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Account Closed Posted July 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2020 On 7/1/2020 at 8:49 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 Chris, Just saw this. Here is my take in no particular order of importance: 1. Limiting choice means having a unique product. 2. Limiting choice preserves the "House Sound" (every high-end manufacturer has one and jealously guards it) which is what brings and keeps many buyers. 3. Limiting choice means easier support. 4.Limiting choice preserves the high profit section of a modern high-end DAC which is the computational section. Most of the mega dollar units you review are really mostly custom built computers with proprietary software connected to an output stage. The money is not in the output stage. 5. Limiting choice reduces the fear that some some users will totally mess it up and will then blame the manufacturer for the poor sound profile. 6. Limiting choice reduces operational complexity as in "is the internal filter on or off and how can I tell and why should I care". All of this reminds me of the old saying "generals are always fighting the last war". sandyk and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post barrows Posted July 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2020 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... Le Concombre Masqué and StreamFidelity 1 1 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Account Closed Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 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
PeterSt Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 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. Superdad 1 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
Popular Post barrows Posted July 5, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2020 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. I like your project idea, good luck! I am aware of what Holo and Denafrips are doing, but neither of these really meets my desires. The Denafrips has no output stage and high output impedance, and as such is really not suitable for driving amps directly. The Holo DACs have no volume control, and the output from the DSD section is too low to really drive amps directly. Also both of these DACs include over samplers onboard (I understand that they are defeatable) and both include both R2R sections for PCM plus a discrete DSD converter, this is way too much stuff for me. I would like to see just the input receiver (either USB or Ethernet, where the customer gets to choose one only) and the discrete conversion stage, followed by a volume control (bypassable at 0 dB) and a robust output stage capable of driving amplifiers directly (less than 100 ohms output impedance, with at least 4 V output at full scale, a little more would be better, and high current capability, say 100 mA or more). Either no onboard oversampling, or maybe designed for DSD 256 input with further (onboard) oversampling to 90.3808 MHz to make the conversion stage even simpler. No input switching, no switching to bypass the oversampler, just no other stuff at all. With less "stuff" one has plenty of room in a standard size chassis for complete isolation of the input receiver, and very good multiple power supplies, with no need to go to the extra expense of multiple box chassis designs that would just raise the expense. Jud and Solstice380 2 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Miska Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 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. barrows 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Albrecht Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 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
Popular Post Miska Posted July 5, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 5, 2020 If one counts in companies who make chip based DACs that have some kind of direct/bypass possibility for the input data, there are many options. Two common features is bypassing digital filters with high rate PCM inputs and/or possible NOS mode, and DACs that have direct DSD conversion possibility. Some examples of such are RME ADI-2, TEAC and iFi. How/if DAC manufacturers communicate about possibilities of external processing differs a lot. Superdad and AnotherSpin 1 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Jud Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 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
sandyk Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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
Jud Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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. 4est 1 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
sandyk Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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
4est Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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
4est Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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. Albrecht and sandyk 2 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
Jud Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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. 4est 1 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
4est Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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
barrows Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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? 4est 1 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Miska Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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. barrows 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now