most PCM actually recorded as DSD? lol NONE of the mastering plugins, hardware or software mixers, EQ, etc etc work on 1 bit files, there are only a few very esoteric DSD recorders/ADCs and you say all pro recordings are done that way? seems like youve drunk someones coolaid. there is not a single standard ADC chip on the market that records in DSD; there are a couple of proprietary discrete solutions.
Korg tried, doesnt seem to have gained much momentum, I only see them drastically reduced for sale on ebay. but then you cant do anything with the files without conversion.
it may get a look in when/if multibit DSD is realised on something more than a hardcore diyers bench. at that point I will take another look, as it is, doesnt do anything for me
Korg tried, doesnt seem to have gained much momentum, I only see them drastically reduced for sale on ebay. but then you cant do anything with the files without conversion.
it may get a look in when/if multibit DSD is realised on something more than a hardcore diyers bench. at that point I will take another look, as it is, doesnt do anything for me
Last edited:
Almost..
Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your point? Because the statement you made makes no sense to me?
There are 48-bit and 64-bit integer calculations related to mathematics, which have absolutely nothing to do with the quantization bit depth.
http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/48-bit%20Audio.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~
They can because they think they can.
~ Virgil
Happiness gives us the energy which is the basis of health.
~ Henri-Frédéric Amiel
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.
~ Stephen Hawking
Could you be mistaken?
Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your point? Because the statement you made makes no sense to me?
There are 48-bit and 64-bit integer calculations related to mathematics, which have absolutely nothing to do with the quantization bit depth.
http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/48-bit%20Audio.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~
They can because they think they can.
~ Virgil
Happiness gives us the energy which is the basis of health.
~ Henri-Frédéric Amiel
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.
~ Stephen Hawking
Last edited:
Done!
~~~~~~~~~~
When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less.
~ Paul Brown
We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible.
~ Vince Lombardi, 1913-1970, Hall of Fame American Football Coach
What we hope ever to do with ease, we must learn first to do with diligence.
~ Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, English Author and Critic
Thank you! I am enjoying it; and also the sweet music to my ears! Likewise, I wish you the same.
~~~~~~~~~~
When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less.
~ Paul Brown
We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible.
~ Vince Lombardi, 1913-1970, Hall of Fame American Football Coach
What we hope ever to do with ease, we must learn first to do with diligence.
~ Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, English Author and Critic
I will respect your wishes and not respond to the recent ramblings, especially as the poster actually included pointers to documents proving my points.
Now, should I include half a page of irrelevant quotes?
Last edited:
Now, should I include half a page of irrelevant quotes?
to remain in keeping with the current trend, it would seem so...
Interesting option! Does anyone have experience on Monarchy vs. MHDT Havana??
I have heard & upgraded the MHDT dac that uses one PCM56P-K per channel, single dual triode tube for output and has spdif & usb inputs, can't quite recall the model, and it sounded very, very good for what it is. However, the designer, in all of his models, AFAIK, uses the opamp built in to the dac chip for i/v, and just uses the tube as a buffer for output drive. The Monarchy is far better, even in stock form(at least with Dutch Amperex 6DJ8 tubes & a 47k-50k preamp input Z), using no opamps at all, just the i/v resistor and srpp tube stage after each dac chip's current out. The MHDT sounds congested by comparison, and overall not nearly as refined & layered.
It's only been three days since I joined diyAudio, and I'm already discovering the trolls here. I suppose it is a manifestation of the Universal 80/20 rule?
Some people just criticizing others, without providing any substance, facts, or information. Merely their petty uneducated opinions based on their own ignorance and prejudice.
They don't even know the difference between a DSP and a DAC... Lol!
Any 32-bit CPU such as used in DSP (Digital Signal Processing) chips can perform 64-bit integer and arithmetic floating point calculations, it is a matter of software/firmware. Heck I even performed 32-bit wide calculations on an 8-bit Zilog Z80 CPU back in the days... The smallest processor I worked on was a 4-bit Hitachi CPU used in a Golf Caddy Calculator to keep track of PAR and scores... The point? Processor bus & address width doesn't limit the mathematical calculations to the level of precision desired, that can be performed with it. Duh!
Yet they even deny the existence of true and cost-effective 32-bit deep DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) (even claim the output is only 16 or 24 bit deep).
Here's the DSP portion used in the Pioneer SC-65, I enjoy so much:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/sprt377/sprt377.pdf
Found simply by searching for Digital Core Engine with Texas Instruments Aureus(tm) DSP:
For the obtuse: No this isn't the 32-bit DAC. Only the DSP.
What's inside your equipment? Can it decode all the latest codecs? Is it THX certified? Does it support the latest Dolby standards? How about the latest DTS Neo:X? And how does it sound? What about your opinion about looking forward, or backwards? Finally, is it practical and affordable?
Fortunately, there are tons of great technical info buried in this community of audio fanatics.
Since I'm here to share with and learn from others; I'll know who to pay attention to, and who to ignore. Simple algorithm: those who convey true information fall into the preferred group. The rest is mere low-level noise.
Time is the most precious commodity after all. Be efficient!
To those who truly want to learn and help others; Cheers and thank you!
~~~~~~~~~~
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
~ Confucius
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
~ Albert Einstein
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.
~ C. W. Leadbeater
There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.
~ Indira Gandhi
Some people just criticizing others, without providing any substance, facts, or information. Merely their petty uneducated opinions based on their own ignorance and prejudice.
They don't even know the difference between a DSP and a DAC... Lol!
Any 32-bit CPU such as used in DSP (Digital Signal Processing) chips can perform 64-bit integer and arithmetic floating point calculations, it is a matter of software/firmware. Heck I even performed 32-bit wide calculations on an 8-bit Zilog Z80 CPU back in the days... The smallest processor I worked on was a 4-bit Hitachi CPU used in a Golf Caddy Calculator to keep track of PAR and scores... The point? Processor bus & address width doesn't limit the mathematical calculations to the level of precision desired, that can be performed with it. Duh!
Yet they even deny the existence of true and cost-effective 32-bit deep DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) (even claim the output is only 16 or 24 bit deep).
Here's the DSP portion used in the Pioneer SC-65, I enjoy so much:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/sprt377/sprt377.pdf
Found simply by searching for Digital Core Engine with Texas Instruments Aureus(tm) DSP:
For the obtuse: No this isn't the 32-bit DAC. Only the DSP.
What's inside your equipment? Can it decode all the latest codecs? Is it THX certified? Does it support the latest Dolby standards? How about the latest DTS Neo:X? And how does it sound? What about your opinion about looking forward, or backwards? Finally, is it practical and affordable?
Fortunately, there are tons of great technical info buried in this community of audio fanatics.
Since I'm here to share with and learn from others; I'll know who to pay attention to, and who to ignore. Simple algorithm: those who convey true information fall into the preferred group. The rest is mere low-level noise.
Time is the most precious commodity after all. Be efficient!
To those who truly want to learn and help others; Cheers and thank you!
~~~~~~~~~~
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
~ Confucius
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
~ Albert Einstein
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.
~ C. W. Leadbeater
There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.
~ Indira Gandhi
For those like me, new at external DAC's this is an interesting read:
Audiophile Review's Top Five DACs Under $1,000
If I had to experiment with a separate component DAC, this is probably where I'd start:
Q N K T C USB-I2S Module and Analog Board
Personally, I can't stomach this ultra-high-end nonsense (more like ultra-high-priced, only):
Audio Note Kits - L3.1 DAC Kit
$2250 for the signature edition, plus $1000 for the balanced C-core (HiB) output transformers. (Please no offense to those who own those, may you enjoy the fruits of your labour and power to you!). I don't have a problem with the absolute amount of money, just that I prefer to cover more bases, with a finite budget?
Well, I don't really believe in transformers, due to their inherent non-linear characteristics due to magnetic hysteresis. Heck, maybe it is the output transformer sound some like? To each his own they say.
On the topic of high quality transformers, it appears to me that for audio fidelity they probably should be made from a toroidal form factor, so as to minimize magnetic losses caused by rectangular laminates. At every 90 degrees corner, there will be a magnetic flux escaping. And also must be thoroughly shielded from external EMF radiations. The better units will use mu-metal construction methods?
A simple visual inspection of the transformer might divulge if it is more appropriate for audio? A rectangular transformer is probably not as good. A cylindrical one would be better?
Also this is enlightening reading concerning Answers to common questions about audio transformers
Also if I had to source some transformers, these people look interesting:
E A Sowter Ltd SOWTER TRANSFORMERS
Yes there is a lot of technical jargon. But this is a technical community focused on DIY after all.
~~~~~~~~~~
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
~ Confucius
Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; and yet: as long as the melody has not reached its end, it also hasn’t reached its goal. A parable.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
~ Lao Tzu
The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance, the wise grows it under his feet.
~ James Oppenheim
Audiophile Review's Top Five DACs Under $1,000
If I had to experiment with a separate component DAC, this is probably where I'd start:
Q N K T C USB-I2S Module and Analog Board
Personally, I can't stomach this ultra-high-end nonsense (more like ultra-high-priced, only):
Audio Note Kits - L3.1 DAC Kit
$2250 for the signature edition, plus $1000 for the balanced C-core (HiB) output transformers.
(Please no offense to those who own those, may you enjoy the fruits of your labour and power to you!). I don't have a problem with the absolute amount of money, just that I prefer to cover more bases, with a finite budget?Well, I don't really believe in transformers, due to their inherent non-linear characteristics due to magnetic hysteresis. Heck, maybe it is the output transformer sound some like? To each his own they say.
On the topic of high quality transformers, it appears to me that for audio fidelity they probably should be made from a toroidal form factor, so as to minimize magnetic losses caused by rectangular laminates. At every 90 degrees corner, there will be a magnetic flux escaping. And also must be thoroughly shielded from external EMF radiations. The better units will use mu-metal construction methods?
A simple visual inspection of the transformer might divulge if it is more appropriate for audio? A rectangular transformer is probably not as good. A cylindrical one would be better?
Also this is enlightening reading concerning Answers to common questions about audio transformers
Also if I had to source some transformers, these people look interesting:
E A Sowter Ltd SOWTER TRANSFORMERS
Yes there is a lot of technical jargon. But this is a technical community focused on DIY after all.
~~~~~~~~~~
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
~ Confucius
Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; and yet: as long as the melody has not reached its end, it also hasn’t reached its goal. A parable.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
~ Lao Tzu
The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance, the wise grows it under his feet.
~ James Oppenheim
Last edited:
I think it is you producing a huge amount of noise with the object to be 'right', julf, myself, nor ANYONE mentioned 48bit or 64bit dacs being needed. they do not even exist in the audio domain afaik. there is some argument whether 32, 48 or 64bit floating point is preferred over 32,48-64bit integer calculations. the only time 32bit width is used for stereo dacs is PCM; most times only 16 or 24bit is used in the dac, with the rest padded with zeros, depending on i2s/PCM, left/right justified format.
your post that julf replied to, did not specify whether you were talking about the DSP chip bit depth, or the DSP calculation depth. Julf obviously read it as meaning the DSP process bit depth, not the processor and that leads you to go on a massive off topic rant?
with regard to the quality of members, erm what pray-tell does your pages full of noise have to do with the subject? it only serves to bolster your own ego. for me, its pretty easy to judge the quality of the reply by the number of quotes from famous people in the tag line, leveraged to elevate the posters own intelligence, or contrast with a lack thereof
for me, I tend to form an opinion of new posters as well.... you made that job rather easy for me.
your post that julf replied to, did not specify whether you were talking about the DSP chip bit depth, or the DSP calculation depth. Julf obviously read it as meaning the DSP process bit depth, not the processor and that leads you to go on a massive off topic rant?
with regard to the quality of members, erm what pray-tell does your pages full of noise have to do with the subject? it only serves to bolster your own ego. for me, its pretty easy to judge the quality of the reply by the number of quotes from famous people in the tag line, leveraged to elevate the posters own intelligence, or contrast with a lack thereof
for me, I tend to form an opinion of new posters as well.... you made that job rather easy for me.
Last edited:
And to the original question...
If the OP is still reading this thread...
YAQIN CD-2 Upgrade Tube Buffer Processor For CDVCDDVD
If the OP is still reading this thread...
YAQIN CD-2 Upgrade Tube Buffer Processor For CDVCDDVD
I think the conclusion is that you like the tube sound. I suggest you try something like the YAQIN CD-2 I linked to.
Benchmark DAC1 should not be on the list. It was just a good technical acheivement at that time, but never really fared well in listening tests. You really got to hear the DACs for yourself. Benchmark DAC1 sounds like my sound card with some opamp replacements. A discrete output stage sounds far superior even if it does not measure better.
No, it is a tube buffer to go between a DAC and an amp. It has unity gain (no amplification).
Allows you to go for a (decent-priced) solid-state DAC and still get the sound you like.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.