DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP

[4est]

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.

[4est]

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.

[4est]

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.

[4est]

10 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, and we are now talking about internal upsampling vs external upsampling. Not about redbook vs hires.

Sandyk appears to be in denial that the resampling chip in his DAC does the similar thing as your software, but with simpler and non adjustable filters and modulators. Of course the recording is the limiting factor, but that doesn't negate the fact that your software allows us to fine tune PCM as well as convert to DSD.

[4est]

49 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

We should get an answer to that in CAPS twenty part two 😀

 

Part one wasn’t cheap, so .....

I wouldn't get too hung up on having an uber expensive machine for starters. Even then they last for a long time if you are willing to stay put. Until my recent upgrade I was getting by with a i7 3770k with a 1060 video card. It would play- poly sinc/DSD7 at 512 just fine. The new filters are even better, but I didn't know what I was missing until I upgraded. It sounded great, and one can always upgrade computers as they go. When using an NAA one has already separated the functions and there are plenty of lower cost computers than can serve as an endpoint.

[4est]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Except that I would mention, at least for me, once I heard the EC modulators at DSD 256 through my (DIY) DSC-2 DAC, I would not be satisfied building a machine which could not run them.  This is actually why I am still using Roon for conversion to DSD, as I still have not gotten around to putting together a machine powerful to run the EC modulators at DSD 256 (my previous auditioning of them was brief, they would play on an I9 machine, not "K", for 20 seconds or so before stuttering).  

Ultimate goal became for me a non-compromised machine running I9-9900K or better so that I can run the EC modulators at DSD 256.  For me the EC modulators were so good, that I would not even bother building something which cannot run them reliably.  Jussi says for these modulators the base clock rate is the important factor, not so much Turbo boost, or number of cores.

 

I am looking forward to what Chris builds for the "Twenty" but the 10th Gen Intel processors are getting really, really expensive!  and then throwing in a Jcat NIC and, well...   I am hoping the price of I9-9900K might come down a little once the 10th Gens are established...

Of course the EC filters are that awesome. That is why we put up with the expense of the latest CPUs. I also think the other HQPlayer filters were better than Roon. YMMV.

 

Just to reiterate, up thread it was implied that one must have a pricey digital server set up to make use HQPlayer to an advantage. That is simply not true at all by Jussi's design. I'd likely take my old $500 computer with a $500 DSD DAC than what I have heard for $1K in PCM, or perhaps multiples of that. The PCM>PCM upsampling is pretty darn nice too. I can't imagine going back to playing Redbook direct anymore. I upsample everything, typically to the max input rate.

[4est]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

Maybe save the server discussion and HQPlayer requirements to CAPS Twenty part 2, or continue on the HQPlayer  tread 😀

Perhaps you should read the original post. HQPlayer is precisely what this thread is about, and by extension the hardware requirements seem on topic. Regardless, it the OP's call.

[4est]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Correct, - the job of the DAC....

 

 

What specifically do you mean by this?

[4est]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

APL and PSAudio DACs.

As in DACs that us FPGAs or hardware upsampling?

[4est]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

Yes....

Then Miska's reply above is very applicable. We use his software and feed the highest native rate. In most modern DAC chips there is already a conversion to DSD and so many pursue that over PCM.