DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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 :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

What's wrong with Belden USB cable? Not that I have one. But I have Deltaco's USB HiSpeed certified cables. I still haven't seen certified "audiophile" USB cables. Many strange cable implementations outright violate the signal integrity and USB cable specifications, but cost a lot while doing so.

 

I hear ya Jussi. I purchased a “high quality” braided USB cable from Amazon and it’s junk. Works half the time. I long for the days of certified cables everywhere. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The certification printed on the jacket with many cables sourced from Asia is nigh on useless. I had a 5M long USB cable that claimed to be certified but had no shielding whatsoever, only 2 internal twisted pairs. That was probably the only way they could reduce it's capacitance enough to work reliably at that length.

I wish certification was a starting point. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Miska said:

P.S. I think this thread has drifted horribly off topic...

Yes. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

53 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

It seems to me USB creates support issues, will use of Ethernet remove those issues as one example ?

Ask any manufacturer who supports Ethernet what the number one issue is with respect to support. The answer is almost always the customer’s network. 
 

I say people need to get real networks, rather than run from Ethernet. But, I like both Ethernet and USB and don’t see one as always better than the other. Heck, get a Sonore device with both. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Interested in learning more.

There are many people using a single “Xfinity” supplied modem / router / switch to run their entire house and audio systems. Plus, some people get curious/dangerous and use creative networking with bridges, loops, and unnecessary configuration pretzeling. It all amounts to trouble. 
 

Getting a “real” network designed by someone who knows what s/he is doing, or educating oneself on the topic can go a very long way. 
 

I should start keeping track of the messed up things I see (no blame though, people just don’t know what to do). I’d soon have a list like this one -

 

https://structuretech1.com/home-inspection-photo-gallery/

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is there already an Audiophile Style article on best practices? Would love to see one (in your spare time, right?). Might be interesting to have you and plissken both write one and see similarities/differences.  

From a cabin near the Boundary Waters with one bar of cell service for 1/3 of each hour, I was actually thinking about such an article and talking to @plissken about it. He has helped me in the past. 
 

I’ll reach out to him soon. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Miska

 

Is it the up sampling itself that requires most power in HQPlayer ?
 

Could one think a model, where Qobuz or similar had a library with DSD 512 (or 1024), and your filters was applied locally in either a DAC or less power hungry PC ?

 

My other idea is that in theory, one should be able to rent space (and processing power) in a data center, add Roon and HQPlayer, and use VPN technology to your home. A CAPS seems to be quite expensive, so maybe price won’t stopping you from such approach. 

Cloud based HQPlayer and Roon. Will it ever happen 😀

It’s doable. I hope someone will try. Your next project Chris ?

 

What do people think about having ones music files,  Roon, and HQPlayer available through a (private) cloud service ?

Won’t this also direct DAC manufacturers in the direction we (or at least this tread) like to see ?

That would be cool. Perhaps a better way is to have HQPlayer create the files in an offline mode, then you can play them whenever you want as normal files but they happen to be DSD512 or whatever you wish. This would take up quite a bit of space though and quite a bit of long term power if one's library is large. 

 

The best way is to get a PC powerful enough. They really aren't that expensive if you shop around. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, R1200CL said:

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

 

Part one wasn’t cheap, so .....

The cool thing about Part 1 is that you can start with only the LattePanda Alpha (Ethernet in / USB out) and be good to go. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, R1200CL said:

Not sure if APL DAC’s accepts DSD 512. 

Yes, the DSD-MR MK2 accepts DSD512, but not the DSD-SR MK2. That's the flagship DAC and I'm unsure if other models will get the same DSP in the future. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I’ve just noticed APL has its own streamer condensed from Auralic. 
https://aplhifi.com/products/digital-3/dnp-sr/#1588695658168-2f4a1e86-5773

 

APL also seems to have a special output (i2s ?) to only be used with their DAC’s. 

 

I have a DSD-SR here and love it. I also asked Alex from APL about the DTR input/output and published his answers in my recent DSD-SR MK2 review you linked to above. 

 

Here is the review where I talk more about the streamer.