Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About numlog

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. HQP Pro is very expensive, what are the best alternatives?
  2. what do you mean by this in relation to what he said? Is looking at a single factor in a vacuum any different to a number? I believe dithering would impact another factor, SNR, for some reason I dont understand SNR or THD doesnt seem to directly relate to the linearity ''bits'' measurable on output but it would impact the dynamic range of the music. If we are going to put a factor into a vacuum is linearity the right one? I have seen delta sigma DACs measured on asr that fall a few bits below 16 bit linearity and yet they were not deemed ''bad'', I dont* know enough about this measurement to understand why not. And when it comes to actual sound quality Isnt putting these measurements as a whole in vacuum misleading since they are all mostly considered to be at inaudible levels? There isnt single area R2R DACs can beat DS in measurements, so if measurements if a concern why bother with them at all
  3. Have you found that with other R2R DACs? Holo spring uses a different technique to achieve good linearity, some kind of digital compensation, most DACs like Soekris seem to use some other method, based on PCM1704 DACs.
  4. From my limited understanding it is a 28 bit R2R ladder, it can process 28 bits of data, this is important to avoid digital processing error with upsampling and digital volume control. The DAC actually converting all those bit to analogue accurately is a different story However ASR showed soekris having ''perfect'' 20bit resolution which is top of the line performance even for ''32 bit'' delta sigma However #2 that SNR figure is probably true but actual resolution on the DAC output is determined by Signal to noise + THD, according to asr thats around 90dB which is not even 16 bit resolution... what the ''20 bit'' figure they measured above actually means in practice I have no idea. How can 20 bits of resolution be measured when the DAC output is less than 16 bit?
  5. On Soekris board there are switching regulator used for digital only, to power FPGA at least, possibly the clock too but maybe not, FPGA is lower on the list of places you need linear supply, and when designed for high end audio in mind the SMPS can be less harmful.... linear reg used for analogue. That is in the defense of the humble Soekris R2R board... all power to the R2R board and tubes comes from switching power modules anyway, this DAC is actually using cheaper OEM soekris board that uses higher jitter clock and lower tolerance resistor (0.02% vs 0.01%) and sells for around 250 euro... dont know enough about tubes to say but that asking price seems high The soekris DAC have natural voltage output from the resistor ladder, so the only thing a tube output stage can really provide in the DAC is gain (at the cost of transparency).
  6. scripts to do the different steps (enable high performance power mode, disable driver/services etc.) it goes through you when running the optimiser? Probably , but you dont even need scripts, most of the stuff can done manually. However there is definitely more important stuff going on under the hood that accounts for most of the difference, with non-''ultimate'' mode (cant remember the name) there was basically little to no improvement, ''ultimate'' mode made a more noticeable difference but the visible steps that optimiser went through in these modes didnt seem to change at all.
  7. I dont think its worth it tbh, very disappointing you have to pay to upgrade to 3.0 aswell. XXHighend is an extremely good player software (IMO the best, if you dont need DSD) which costs €50 (I think I even got refunded about €10 after paying, with no explanation), one feature it has is an OS optimiser that does more extreme version of what AO does, I can say that from stock XXHighend optimiser brings greater improvements than AO, maybe AO added a little extra improvement when combined with it, im not sure, but for more than twice the price of something that is far more than just an optimiser is it worth it? I didnt have to pay anything extra to get it to work in Server 2019 either. XXHE also has another feature that basically shutdowns the OS during playback, this also significantly improves sound quality but is kind of awkward to use. I dont like the ''filter'' settings in AO, there is either minuscule or no difference between them. all I want OS activity to be reduced as much as possible, not different gimmicky sound ''flavours''
  8. Right, that makes things clearer. The thread on diyaudio touches on some of these things so far, I will read through and hopefully learn a bit more. It will need to be adjusted for DSD64 i.e native SACD rips.
  9. Unless im interpreting it wrong it sounds like more elements = slower roll off? I was assuming it would create a steeper filter, but also suspecting it would influence THD and noise performance, so if it doesnt improve THD/noise or make the filter more effective what's the purpose?
  10. What is the resulting difference (subjective and objective) between having 32 elements and 64? The reason I ask because the DSC1 boards you can get from china are the updated version with differential output and 32 elements per phase. It uses XOR gate to get the inverted DSD signals and then a transformer to convert the hot and cold output to single ended... I am not sure the reasoning behind this but doubling the component count plus adding an XOR gate and especially a transformer to the signal path just to end up with the same single ended output as the original design seems counter intuitive. So how about combining all 64 elements per channel and leaving out the XOR gate and transformers? this would closer resemble the 9038 SDM conversion Alternatively what about having far less, 4 or 8 elements? I am weary of quality of chinese kit so also considering building a simpler version from scratch... it would cost basically nothing so no reason not to.
  11. Yes I seen them, infact they led me to explore DSD conversions in the first place, I only meant subjective performance but probably better not to go down that road. So anyway without a PC to perform conversion there is probably not much better than the 9038Q2M for PCM. R2R is also interesting, the concept certainly appeals to the audiophile, being the ''purest'' way to handle PCM, but does not carry any theoretical advantage. There have been audiophile beliefs that were complete nonsense/exaggerations (e.g negative feedback and op amps should be avoided), which even seem somewhat rational, and others that held true but make no sense at all (which has been particularly common in computer audio).
  12. So there really is not much difference between the DSC1 and SDM portion of 9038 DAC. This was the theory behind why you should use HQPlayer, only things start to get confusing when using HQPlayer's best filters werent able to outperform the DACs internal DSP. I have wondered how the 9038 DACs handles the DSD input before the SDM portion, for example it does allow volume control. AKM DAC's have some sort of bypass mode for DSD that bypass volume control, filtering and whatever else before SDM stage, clearly there must be some disadvantage to what Sabre is doing for DSD if AKM has this mode, so the DSC1 might be the only right choice to hear HQPlayer to its full potential
  13. For Sabre 9038 DACs I found the best SQ came from native PCM playback. No upsampling or DSD conversion, there was clearly some benefits to these options but negatives too, native PCM seemed the most balanced in the end. The DSC1 DAC is designed to deliver a DSD input to the output with as little processing as possible, since not much is needed for DSD. For native DSD there is probably not a better choice of DAC than DSC1... but what about PCM? It appears the DSC1 is also recommended for use with PCM to DSD conversions. My understanding is fairly limited but AFAIK converting PCM to DSD is similar to how a Delta Sigma DAC works. How do they differ? Why would one be superior to the other? Based on listening experiences, did any of you find one of them to be superior? At a given DSD rate, DSD to PCM conversion can be done very with little computing power or it can require more computing power than what our fasted consumer CPUs are capable of. what is the difference with these conversions? If you aren't using a PC the option for PCM to DSD conversion would be limited to the AK4137 SRC. I am interested in the DSC1 for DSD playback regardless but I could pick up an AK4137 board for PCM conversion... The question is if there would be any point if I already own a decent 9038Q2M DAC when the aim is to achieve the best PCM playback possible.
  14. I moved over to an 800P Optane M.2 for both OS and storage (but in seperate partitions) so no use for my Pachanko Mk2 anymore. If anyones interesting in buying I will sell it for €70 with free shipping within europe (or outside europe, if you dont mind covering some of the extra shipping cost). I have lots of positive feedback as a seller on a buy and sell site which I can show you if you need reassurance.
  15. it will certainly be a field day here whenever some progressive engineer(s) figures out a way to prove the existence of the things we hear, or more simply someone passes controlled DBT (which is hard to believe hasn't happened already)
  • Create New...