Hmm, alright. I don't really have a precise idea but can you please try the following:
- Disconnect the USB cable and see if the pop is still showing up
- Try a different power supply. I know this one is more complicated.
On a complete different note!
Can you guys send me a few pics of your build, whoever wants? I'll post these pics on my website in a user gallery, with your name and your place of residence. That would be great
- Disconnect the USB cable and see if the pop is still showing up
- Try a different power supply. I know this one is more complicated.
On a complete different note!
Can you guys send me a few pics of your build, whoever wants? I'll post these pics on my website in a user gallery, with your name and your place of residence. That would be great
I tried pulling the USB, but it didn't help I'm afraid.
I have also noticed that when the noise comes, both the input and the output meters in the PC application moves, so it seems to be something on the inputs.
Could it be that the whole Najda board is "floating" and needs to be grounded somehow?
Please use my pictures at will: Index of /bomellberg/Najda
/Bo Mellberg
I have also noticed that when the noise comes, both the input and the output meters in the PC application moves, so it seems to be something on the inputs.
Could it be that the whole Najda board is "floating" and needs to be grounded somehow?
Please use my pictures at will: Index of /bomellberg/Najda
/Bo Mellberg
Yeah, sure, we are building 11 set of Najda in a GB in France and I wanted to avoid 11 guys change the rear panelThat's the problem of committing to production on the basis of a conceptual design
...nowhere did you see it confirmed
Lesson learned
Yeah, sure, we are building 11 set of Najda in a GB in France and I wanted to avoid 11 guys change the rear panel
Lesson learned
The new expansion project is compatible with the previous one, it's just adding more features for about the same cost.
If you have already drilled a pair of holes in your panel and don't want to drill new ones now, then just take off one pair of connectors from the expansion (I can also deliver the expansions with the connectors aside) until you find a good reason for drilling more holes
I pulled the analogue inputs and inserted an optical from my Sonos. No noise at all!
So it seems the noise is here only when the analogue in is selected, right?
As Donald suggested above, you must ensure you're not clipping (but my understanding is that you can hear the noise when there's no signal, so it doesn't look like a clipping issue).
Can you please try the following: turn off your source (or better, disconnect it from Najda's jacks)?
When I tried the digital in, I removed the analog ins. I will try this afternoon to go back to analog in, but not connecting any input cables. It might also be interesting to insert the analog ins, while having the optical in selected.
I have to say, with the digital fed straight into Najda, I had a very satisfying listening experience yesterday, even if it was on very low levels. I have measured the bass response using REW, exported the suggested filter as a miniDSP-96 txt-file, which I imported straight into Najdas both subwoofer output channels. It flattened my room response nicely. Thanks again!
Last edited:
What is maximum amount of FIR taps/coefficients on 96 kHz for Najda?
For input processing taps maximum is 1023 per input/channel, for output processing Ch1,2,3,5,6,7 taps maximum is 1023, for Ch4,8,9,10 511 (decide by error messages what is get if I try load more taps) but what is total maximum and maximum for DSP Core0, what for Core1 on 96 kHz, on 48 kHz, on 192 kHz?
For input processing taps maximum is 1023 per input/channel, for output processing Ch1,2,3,5,6,7 taps maximum is 1023, for Ch4,8,9,10 511 (decide by error messages what is get if I try load more taps) but what is total maximum and maximum for DSP Core0, what for Core1 on 96 kHz, on 48 kHz, on 192 kHz?
Last edited:
Thanks all for your feedback.
The next release will feature:
- Enabling/Disabling of processing channels
- FIR/IIR mix
- Channel pairing
- Input processing optionally included in output graph
- Renaming of sources on LCD
- Possibly more
The remaining items will be included in a further release.
On another note, there's the expansion board. The original idea was to add 2 more analogue outputs for those who are into 2x5 ways systems.
My problem is that there's no economically viable solution for this. Indeed, a stereo volume chip that can do the same on 2 channels as the CS3318 on 8 channels, is about as expensive as the CS3318...
I'm thinking of extending the capabilities of the expansion board in order to justify the cost:
- 2 analogue outs with volume
- 2 analogue ins with adjustable input level
- 4 volume controls for external channels.
How does that sound?
Thanks for that, it's surely going to prove useful at some point.
We could do that, of course (provided there's a way to integrate this nicely in the app). In the meantime, you can use the custom biquads for that.
Thanks Bengt
Hi Nick,
I am too late to vote, but this sounds really great!
Evenings are getting darker now, so if you need betatesting I might be able to help ;-)
best,
Paal
Hi Meelis,
The total number of coefficients is somewhere between 8500 and 9000 at 48 kHz - depending on the board settings.
FIR mode is mainly intended for 48 kHz sampling frequency. 96 kHz and 192 kHz sample rates are also available in FIR, but their purpose is more for experiments than actual use in a system because indeed the resolving power of the coefficients is dropping significantly.
Here's a quick rule of thumb for estimating the number of taps. The DSP is dual-core 250 MHz with 1 tap/clock period. So in 1 second, Najda can in theory process 2 x 250 x 10e6 = 500 x 10e6 taps.
Not all the processing power is available for taps processing because the DSP must also route the signals, manage the delay lines etc. At 48 kHz, the burden of the above tasks is roughly 15 %. So the actual number of taps per second is 0.85 x 500 x 10e6 = 425 x 10e6.
If the sample rate is 48 kHz, then the number of taps per sample period is (425 x 10e6) / (48 x 10e3) = 8854.
By using the above approach, you can compute the number of taps at the other sample rates.
Hey Paal,
Long time no see!
Thanks for offering to help with testing!Nick
Sad.
Did this mean that best/most effective way of using Najda is IIR mode and biquads as file?
If yes, then use of rePhase for creating taps is not the best choice?
Is existing any tool what can crate biquads and have Parametric Phase EQ as rePhase? Or is existing any way to convert rePhase result to biquads?
Being able to coordinate 2 najdas - using a 2nd najda for expansion - should immediately double its processing capability.
Without any detailed thought I'd guess the functional requirements would be:
- single input one one board fed to both boards
- single point of control for volume
(disabling/ignoring IR control on 'slave' board)
The problem is a bit more complex. Indeed, at higher sampling rates, not only the DSPs have less time for processing the samples, but also the resolution of the FIR filter is reduced if you keep the same number of taps.
Basically, in order to replicate, at 96 kHz, a filter you originally designed for 48 kHz, you need 4x the processing power. To replicate it at 192 kHz, you would need 16x the processing power.
Doubling the number of boards doubles the processing capability. Unfortunately it doubles also the cost. Is it really worth? What's your expectation by doubling the processing power (i.e. what would you like to implement that you can't currently achieve with a single unit?)
Basically, in order to replicate, at 96 kHz, a filter you originally designed for 48 kHz, you need 4x the processing power. To replicate it at 192 kHz, you would need 16x the processing power.
Doubling the number of boards doubles the processing capability. Unfortunately it doubles also the cost. Is it really worth? What's your expectation by doubling the processing power (i.e. what would you like to implement that you can't currently achieve with a single unit?)
Please don't take any of the following comments too seriously or critically. I think Najda is a wonderful bit of design, technically well thought out and packaged providing a balanced design (in terms of features spec and price) and far better than the primary alternative - but I'm comparing with my ultimate 'wish list'
From my point of view I see three limiations with Najda.
24 bits/digital volume
I perceive some advantages in digital volume control, but I think it ideally should involve 32bit maths and a 32bit DAC. Actually I think diigtal attenuation within 24bits is also perfectly acceptable given the right gain stucture.
I'm not really intending this to be the time/place to discuss why, it's a slighlty different philosophy to the way najda is conceived and implemented. I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs and I totally agree with your philosophy of getting the gain structure right and how the components you've chosen do that perfectly.
This can also be addressed by using external DACs with digital volume, but this involves an additional bit of engineering for me including syncing the digital volume of all the DAC channels.
Balanced outputs
Having gone to balanced I wouldn't go back to single ended, so if I don't go for external DACs I would want balanced outputs. I know because of najda's flexibility I can add balanced buffers but again it means I've got a task in order to build the system I want, and with limited free time at the moment it's delays me pushing the button.
44.1 -> 48k ASRC
I've spent some time owning and playing with an autonomous ASRC unit - Musiland SRC-10. To my ears, my least favourite configuration was going from 44.1 -> 48k; my most favourite configurations were sysnchronous upsampling - ie. 44.1 -> 88.2, 44.1 -> 176.4
I know there will be all sorts of reasons why the behaviour of one ASRC cannot be used to judge the actual performance of another ASRC implmentation, but I am most wary of 44.1->48 conversion. I am less wary of 96k conversion, therefore I would want to use it at 96k or have (say) an external 88.2k clock rather than 48k
Interestingly, the Hypex DLCP deliberately uses a clock frequequncy that is not a synchronous multiple of either 44.1 or 48k
On the other hand
The really positive bits:
- user interface
- DSP flexibility - a wonderful amount of flexibility and more being added all of the time
- performance limited by the processing you ask it to do rather than any other abitrary criteria
- user interface
- mixed FIR/IIR modes
- did I say user interface?
Thank you for all of this
In terms of my short list I'm comparing najda with Hypex DLCP. I want a system with 2 x 2way + multiple subs. If I need additional horsepower for the FIR then for a similar budget I can sensibly consider using 2 najdas (did I say how much I like the flexibility and the user interface). But in order to do that I need to make them behave as one.
From my point of view I see three limiations with Najda.
24 bits/digital volume
I perceive some advantages in digital volume control, but I think it ideally should involve 32bit maths and a 32bit DAC. Actually I think diigtal attenuation within 24bits is also perfectly acceptable given the right gain stucture.
I'm not really intending this to be the time/place to discuss why, it's a slighlty different philosophy to the way najda is conceived and implemented. I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs and I totally agree with your philosophy of getting the gain structure right and how the components you've chosen do that perfectly.
This can also be addressed by using external DACs with digital volume, but this involves an additional bit of engineering for me
including syncing the digital volume of all the DAC channels.Balanced outputs
Having gone to balanced I wouldn't go back to single ended, so if I don't go for external DACs I would want balanced outputs. I know because of najda's flexibility I can add balanced buffers but again it means I've got a task in order to build the system I want, and with limited free time at the moment it's delays me pushing the button.
44.1 -> 48k ASRC
I've spent some time owning and playing with an autonomous ASRC unit - Musiland SRC-10. To my ears, my least favourite configuration was going from 44.1 -> 48k; my most favourite configurations were sysnchronous upsampling - ie. 44.1 -> 88.2, 44.1 -> 176.4
I know there will be all sorts of reasons why the behaviour of one ASRC cannot be used to judge the actual performance of another ASRC implmentation, but I am most wary of 44.1->48 conversion. I am less wary of 96k conversion, therefore I would want to use it at 96k or have (say) an external 88.2k clock rather than 48k
Interestingly, the Hypex DLCP deliberately uses a clock frequequncy that is not a synchronous multiple of either 44.1 or 48k
On the other hand
The really positive bits:
- user interface
- DSP flexibility - a wonderful amount of flexibility and more being added all of the time
- performance limited by the processing you ask it to do rather than any other abitrary criteria
- user interface
- mixed FIR/IIR modes
- did I say user interface?
Thank you for all of this
In terms of my short list I'm comparing najda with Hypex DLCP. I want a system with 2 x 2way + multiple subs. If I need additional horsepower for the FIR then for a similar budget I can sensibly consider using 2 najdas (did I say how much I like the flexibility and the user interface). But in order to do that I need to make them behave as one.
The only digital volume control I've had is the one on a miniDSP 2x4 and in that case an analog volume control (stepped attenuator, post-dac) sounded better than the digital volume control.24 bits/digital volume
...
This can also be addressed by using external DACs with digital volume, but this involves an additional bit of engineering for me
Most of your volume control worries could be fixed by adding a Buffalo III DAC to your Nadja. It's an 8ch DAC with 32bit digital volume control that just happens to sound fantastic. If you use the IVY I/V stage, you get balanced (+unbal) output too, so another one of your problems is solved. I'm awaiting delivery on one for myself however my philosophical preference for analog volume control will likely see me pumping the output of the DAC back into the volume control chip of the Nadja and run unbalanced
The only digital volume control I've had is the one on a miniDSP 2x4 and in that case an analog volume control (stepped attenuator, post-dac) sounded better than the digital volume control.
Most of your volume control worries could be fixed by adding a Buffalo III DAC to your Nadja. It's an 8ch DAC with 32bit digital volume control that just happens to sound fantastic. If you use the IVY I/V stage, you get balanced (+unbal) output too, so another one of your problems is solved. I'm awaiting delivery on one for myself however my philosophical preference for analog volume control will likely see me pumping the output of the DAC back into the volume control chip of the Nadja and run unbalanced
So you haven't tried the digital volume control in the Sabre/Buffalo? You should. You may change your mind
My preamp is a Meridian G02 - fully balanced throughout, including the volume control chips - I've been trying to find out what chip is used within the G02, I'm sure I've seen a reference in hte past but can't find it now. To these ears there's a slight veil that's lifted when the DAC feeds directly to my power amps (nCore 400) rather than through the preamp. Also, not all analogue volume controls are the same - your stepped attenuator is one of the purest implementations.
I'm using a Sabre based DAC at the moment (Audiolab MDAC, balanced out) so I know that that's one of my options. However, I would never use it as 8 discrete channels - I'd be looking for no more than 2 channels per DAC, and therfore I need to externally synchorise volume between several DACs. I've been following AAK's modular DAC development with great interest http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/240287-my-es9018-dac-amp-controller.html but as I said, it's another development/implementation task (for me)