DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP

[Jud]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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/

 

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.  

[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. 

[barrows]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

And if I was a manufacturer like Ed Meitner, - I"d NEVER put an USB B input on any of my DACs. 

I disagree with this.  The same could be said for any digital input on a DAC.  I mean, there are plenty of terrible sources with Toslink output, or SPDIF or AES... (and not even considering how bad HDMI is by design...)

If you are making a DAC, you have to put some kind of input on it.  Of course it is probably wise to advise your customers that source quality will make a difference in the ultimate performance of the product.  Despite every effort of every DAC manufacturer who claims that their DAC is immune to source quality, i have never experienced such a DAC, and I have played with a lot of DACs over the last 15 years or so.  Some DACs are certainly better in this regard than others, but none of my experience have been immune to the source quality.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I disagree with this.  The same could be said for any digital input on a DAC.  I mean, there are plenty of terrible sources with Toslink output, or SPDIF or AES... (and not even considering how bad HDMI is by design...)

If you are making a DAC, you have to put some kind of input on it.  Of course it is probably wise to advise your customers that source quality will make a difference in the ultimate performance of the product.  Despite every effort of every DAC manufacturer who claims that their DAC is immune to source quality, i have never experienced such a DAC, and I have played with a lot of DACs over the last 15 years or so.  Some DACs are certainly better in this regard than others, but none of my experience have been immune to the source quality.

I hear what you are saying, - but please do not think that I am saying that USB is horrible. I am also not saying that ALL input methods/signals do not have their flaws.

 

I am saying that USB is still quite young in its development, - and there are new developments happening, - something that DAC manufacturers would be foolish to try and keep up with. As I wrote before, - DAC manufacturers cannot predict what kind of QUALITY USB signal is being fed to their DAC. That "job" is the duty of the digital file player. 

 

USB has more POTENTIAL to be mis-applied than SPDIF COAX. SPDIF COAX sure does have it's limitations as well. I2s does also. But in this world of trying to get something for nothing, - people are still putting computers designed to run Email/Photoshop/Netflix on their audio rack. 

[Foggie]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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/

O M G that site is hilarious 😲

[R1200CL]

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
 

I wonder this manufacturer will add Ethernet interface. Maybe someone can email him ?

 

I suppose Tim at Kitsune could be asked same question ?

 

[One and a half]

The thread is drifting to interfaces, although important,  is not at the core of the topic.

 

With regard to processing by a computer prior to the DAC needs some care. The other day, a new version of Fidelizer was released with some fixes and improvements. The point of Fidelizer is to keep the computer with a little processing as possible,  ok , can accept this.  

 

When listening to the new version,  the soundstage collapsed and clarity suffered a hit, this I attribute to noise. This also occurred with a previous build a few generations ago, but it illustrates how easily SQ can be derailed by software even though it is supposed to be 'bit perfect'. 

 

For once I agree with @Miska and at @jriver in that the OS (Windows especially) needs to stay as is out of the box.

 

The greatest contribution that a computer can provide is to keep common mode noise out of the USB signal, that challenge has still not yet met and remains to be defeated.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, Albrecht said:

An un-treated USB signal coming from a Dell Optiplex USB bus, or a MacMini USB bus designed for printers, mice, (two way comms) etc., - sucks for high quality 4K video and high performance audio.

 +1.

Unfortunately, some members don't believe that the the front end matters,. and that you can fix up all these problems later with ISO Regens, expensive USB cables etc., or trying to push the problems up near the GHZ region with more conversions. 

 

[Summit]

15 hours ago, matthias said:

 

IMO, one of the best USB implementations at the moment is the Schiit Unison USB. But even with this implementation the source matters. It seems to be that the better the implementation the better shows the USB interface the quality of the source and the quality of the music.

 

Matt

 

What make you come to this conclusion? I mean have you compared the Schiit Unison USB implementations to any other USB implementations? If you actually have which USB have you compared to and in which DACs?

[Summit]

17 hours ago, barrows said:

1.  Most input options can be implemented to work "perfectly" with good engineering.  Both Ethernet and USB allow for any sample rate, which is an advantage as far as I am concerned.  The main advantage of Ethernet is that has no distance limitations, so the server computer on the Network can be far away from he audio system, and Ethernet has an optical fiber option, which allows for excellent isolation.  But, Ethernet requires more processing power than USB for the receiver, so it needs to be very carefully implemented inside a DAC, with its own separate power supply, and internal shielding.  Also, for DAC manufacturers, Ethernet requires some serious development to work really well, we are in the early days, and it is going to be awhile before many DACs have really god built in Ethernet interfaces, IMO, there are really only a couple of DACs with really good Ethernet interfaces now, and many of these are still limited for sample rate, and/or compatibility with various protocols (HQPlayer NAA for example).

 

2.  HDMI sucks for audio, nuff said...

 

3.  For DSD conversion to analog, a discrete approach can be used, and the data can be kept single bit this way.  Which approach is "best", hmmm...  Implementation is very important, saying one approach is "best" is fraught with problems, as no one can guarantee "best" implementation with a given approach.  There are quite a few DSD DACs around these days, but many which do not keep things single bit all the way through.  T+A, Bricasti, Holo Audio, Denafrips, LampiZator, are some commercial DACs which use discrete single bit converters for DSD.  Also EMM labs and Playback Designs.  And there are various DIY variations on Jussi's DSC approach available as well.  

 

4.  Nothing is "perfect", remember also, a DAC is both an analog and a digital component, and analog circuitry is always going to add its sound signature to a DACs output.  But the approach of dong all the oversampling/processing in a computer and not the DAC does give the user more control over the sound, and frees up the DAC designer to make things as "perfect" as possible in the DAC hardware.

 

5.  As my desires are for single bit DACs and DSD, SPDIF has no place in my world.  SPDF is an ancient interface technology, originally designed for simplicity and ease of use, not ultimate sound quality.  While with heroic engineering SPDIF can be made to sound very good, i am of the opinion that it should be avoided for future development.

 

6.  There is nothing "wrong" with USB.  In fact, USB is one of the best digital audio interfaces we have.  Like anything, it can be done well, or not.  IMO the best option, if done well, is an optical Ethernet interface, with no sample rate limitations, and supporting all the relevant protocols (DLNA, RAAT, and NAA).  but USB is really the best option for most existing DACs right now, with a separate Ethernet Renderer, preferably optical, which supports all sample rates and Ethernet protocols.

 

7.  i prefer a simple system, and there is no reason to have an additional box (preamp) if one does not have multiple sources to contend with.  For me, that means a DAC with optical Ethernet input, going directly to an amp, or even a single box DAC with amplifier inside.  While a lot of audiophiles believe in many boxes, this is old skool thinking.  With the technology available now, it is possible to build things much smaller, and the need for many boxes is mostly inside peoples' heads.  The simpler the system, the less loss one can have, and the better fidelity.  Consider that every connection is a point of loss, every additional circuit is a point of loss...  Not every DAC built now can perfectly drive every amplifier directly, but it is very, very easy to insure that one's DAC design has adequate output capability to drive amplifiers directly.  Digital volume control with DSD is tricky (HQPlayer can do it well).  I think the DAC should have an analog volume control onboard, which is bypassed at 0 dB, in order to allow for volume control for those who might be nervous about just relying on volume control in software (HQPlayer).  There are very, very, very good resistor ladder analog volume control chips, which make adding an analog volume control to the DAC relatively trivial, without compromise.  For example, Pass Labs' most expensive mega buck preamp uses resistor ladder volume control chips.    

 

HDMI doesn’t sucks for audio. If it would no manufacturer would use it for AV.

 

If you mean I2S LVDS there a HDMI cable is used I disagree. Please name the DACs with I2S LVDS have you tested and in which way they sucked?

[R1200CL]

A standard or preferred DAC interface for external DSP is important. 
 

Both USB and HMDI requires the noisy processing computer close to the DAC. 
It’s my understanding we like to have that PC far away from our DAC. 
 

John S design with Sonore’s Redus is one of few products that solves this. 
 

It seems quite clear to me that only Ethernet with fiber can be the future way for DAC manufacturers that like to allow for external DSP. 

 

I would still like to understand why HMDI shouldn’t be implemented as an interface for DACs, as I like my DAC to be used in conjunction with TV or TV boxes. I would prefer HMDI in and out, so after my DAC has collected sound, the signal can go to TV. (Or even another multichannel DAC). 

Also it’s my understanding that HMDI will allow for SACD transports.

 

Can the SACD be up sampled in the external PC, and signal sent over Ethernet?

(Not ripping, but you insert it in the drive of your PC, assuming there is SACD drives on the marked). 

[Miska]

31 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I would still like to understand why HMDI shouldn’t be implemented as an interface for DACs, as I like my DAC to be used in conjunction with TV or TV boxes. I would prefer HMDI in and out, so after my DAC has collected sound, the signal can go to TV. (Or even another multichannel DAC).

 

Well, it can, and some DACs do. For example the T+A HA 200 headphone amp I'm using now has option for HDMI input board. And it can be useful when used for audio with video. But since HDMI is completely video driven interface, it is not so great for audio-only.

 

It is expensive thing to do in low production volumes though, so it will add quite some cost.

 

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

Can the SACD be up sampled in the external PC, and signal sent over Ethernet?

(Not ripping, but you insert it in the drive of your PC, assuming there is SACD drives on the marked).

 

Since there are no SACD drives available, it cannot be played directly from a computer.

 

You need to rip SACD and then you can play it upsampled in PC and sent over Ethernet. This is what I'm doing. But I would say as physical format, SACD is almost dead now. DSD downloads are alive and doing well, and at higher rates like DSD128 and DSD256.

 

[R1200CL]

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 ?

[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. 

[Miska]

8 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

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.

 

It is doable, but data center power is not cheap either. So after all it likely wouldn't be any cheaper for you.

 

DSD512 would take constant 50 Mbps streaming and DSD1024 would take constant 100 Mbps. Not so much problem with current gigabit fiber internet connections, but still notably more than current approach.

 

[R1200CL]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

They really aren't that expensive if you shop around. 

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

 

Part one wasn’t cheap, so .....

[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. 

[R1200CL]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps a better way is to have HQPlayer create the files in an offline mode

@Miska

This isn’t possible today or ?

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

@Miska

This isn’t possible today or ?

 

It is, HQPlayer 4 Pro is for that purpose.

 

But down side is that it takes a lot of time to convert files, it takes a lot of space, and if you want to change conversion settings you need to redo conversions. And of course it won't work for streaming services like Tidal or Qobuz.

 

OTOH, that allows you to use EC modulators for DSD512 or DSD1024...

 

[barrows]

6 hours ago, Summit said:

HDMI doesn’t sucks for audio. If it would no manufacturer would use it for AV.

When I say HDMI, I mean HDMI.  It is compromised for audio, if you do not believe me, do a little research.  Charlie Hansen (RIP) has explained why fairly well and his thoughts on this are available somewhere on the Internet, a Google search will find it.

My opinions are formed from technical facts, these are not things I am just making up.  HDMI was developed in order to provide a simple, easy to use, interface for home theater use, it was not designed to deliver the best audio performance possible.

I would suggest that anytime one combines a Television with an audio, one is making a compromise on audio performance, unless one unplugs all TV from the wall and connections between it and the audio system before listening to music.   

[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.

[barrows]

35 minutes ago, 4est said:

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.

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...

[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.

[R1200CL]

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

[barrows]

54 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

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

Seems pretty relevant here?  Sending a DAC high rates requires oversampling in a server, so...