What polarity you are looking for? As seems on pictures above, on black PCBs polarity for najdą PCB is printed on. On others is same. Generally non black wire there is +. As this power supply has single ground, only one -/gnd is connected to 5v supply only
I've recently updated my streaming capability, focused on removing noise from Ethernet (optic fibre link), better streamer (Sonore Ultrarendu into Gustard G18 reclocker this has galvanic isolation) etc.
Taken the streaming sound quality to a higher level.
Anyway, for longest time I've been running Najda at 96KHz.
It's processor load levels fitted with my need to have 8 channels, time alignment, fairly steep slopes on the 2 bass channels and a few room correcting cuts below 100Hz on the tapped horns.
Yesterday I decided to try 192KHz.
I had to strip nearly all of the room correction away and choose less steep crossover slopes on the 2 bass channels.
I get core 1 in the high 90%s, core 2 in the 80%s.
The result however was intriguing.
I found that I preferred the extra resolution across all the complicated / demanding tracks I threw at Najda 192!
From CD quality to 24/192.
Bass is booming away on some tracks though - room modes..
I have more load on Processor core 1 than on 2.
I can't see a way to load share - is there one?
If I could eek out a couple more PEQ filters on the bass freqs it would be great.
I do have 2 Najda.
I could chain them so one does the bass channels / sub channel only.. time alignment and volume control would be the challenge?
Taken the streaming sound quality to a higher level.
Anyway, for longest time I've been running Najda at 96KHz.
It's processor load levels fitted with my need to have 8 channels, time alignment, fairly steep slopes on the 2 bass channels and a few room correcting cuts below 100Hz on the tapped horns.
Yesterday I decided to try 192KHz.
I had to strip nearly all of the room correction away and choose less steep crossover slopes on the 2 bass channels.
I get core 1 in the high 90%s, core 2 in the 80%s.
The result however was intriguing.
I found that I preferred the extra resolution across all the complicated / demanding tracks I threw at Najda 192!
From CD quality to 24/192.
Bass is booming away on some tracks though - room modes..
I have more load on Processor core 1 than on 2.
I can't see a way to load share - is there one?
If I could eek out a couple more PEQ filters on the bass freqs it would be great.
I do have 2 Najda.
I could chain them so one does the bass channels / sub channel only.. time alignment and volume control would be the challenge?
You have searched wrong place. I guess RTFM phrase is still actual
. It's in NUC manualAttachments
Last edited:
👍 Didn't search there😂You have searched wrong place. I guess RTFM phrase is still actual
Searched online.
All set for a test soon.
Be nice to bolt on faster processors!
Thanks for the help guys.
After a little playing with setups and output plugs on Najda, I have both 96KHz and 192KHz with the same X/O, slopes, PEQs etc and the 192KHz setup shows Core 1 and 2 are both at 83% and stable.
Very easy to hear which is which.
Got wife to double blind test me, and I picked the 192 every time! Easy!
Listening is not pretty for the 96KHz setup.
Edgy as F*** on some tracks, in comparison.
Some are less damning, but still.
I prefer 192HHz across the board.
It's a very different presentation of the same music!
Edit: forgot to say, CD quality, 24/96, 24/192 music from Qobuz they all found different / better.
A nice free upgrade.
After a little playing with setups and output plugs on Najda, I have both 96KHz and 192KHz with the same X/O, slopes, PEQs etc and the 192KHz setup shows Core 1 and 2 are both at 83% and stable.
Very easy to hear which is which.
Got wife to double blind test me, and I picked the 192 every time! Easy!
Listening is not pretty for the 96KHz setup.
Edgy as F*** on some tracks, in comparison.
Some are less damning, but still.
I prefer 192HHz across the board.
It's a very different presentation of the same music!
Edit: forgot to say, CD quality, 24/96, 24/192 music from Qobuz they all found different / better.
A nice free upgrade.
I have it in my mind that this 48/96/192KHz sampling that Najda runs at is different to the resolution that a track is laid down at or served up at by CD or Streaming services.
It makes no difference what the track's input res is.
It sounds different out of Najda.
Bug, might be? As the presentation is a bit different too.
Blind test was done by a piece of card blocking my view of the setup on the Najda display, my leaving the room, no track playing.
Wife selecting one of the 2 setups available at random, she noted the track, res and setup selected. My returning, listening, marking what I thought.
Stop that track, I leave the room again.
Something else is cued up in Bubble, the setup is changed or stays the same, I don't know..
I return, play, mark up what I though.
Did that over and over. Sometimes revisiting the same track, same setup or not. I had no idea.
Wife kept record of the order of play, what res the tracks were in Bubble UPnP, CD, 16/48, 24/96 and 24/192. Even one 24/176.
Sorry, it's not double blind test.
They are hard to do..
I was blind other than via ears🙂
It makes no difference what the track's input res is.
It sounds different out of Najda.
Bug, might be? As the presentation is a bit different too.
Blind test was done by a piece of card blocking my view of the setup on the Najda display, my leaving the room, no track playing.
Wife selecting one of the 2 setups available at random, she noted the track, res and setup selected. My returning, listening, marking what I thought.
Stop that track, I leave the room again.
Something else is cued up in Bubble, the setup is changed or stays the same, I don't know..
I return, play, mark up what I though.
Did that over and over. Sometimes revisiting the same track, same setup or not. I had no idea.
Wife kept record of the order of play, what res the tracks were in Bubble UPnP, CD, 16/48, 24/96 and 24/192. Even one 24/176.
Sorry, it's not double blind test.
They are hard to do..
I was blind other than via ears🙂
Last edited:
Did done digging and found what others have written on increased sampling rate of DSP..
"sample rate can be 96 and 192 kHz for improved DSP calculation precision"
That succinct sentence cleared it up.
It's all about the precision the DSP box can operate at.
That's why we any of 16/44, 24/44 etc, 24/96 and 24/192 playback I feed Najda, all sound better with the DSP box set at 192.
It's not that we (I) can hear the difference between those recorded formats..
In all probabilty, I don't think I can..
It's that I can hear the improved precision / resolution my DSP box operates at, on all of them - when it's doing it's thing.
Another longer take on it..
"DSP does profit by increasing the precision. Doing all calculations with 32 or better 64 bit keeps down the quantization error.
As DACs only accept integers, as DSP uses a precision much higher that 16 or 24 integer, in the end any DSP action has to be dithered.
Here a 24 bit recording has the advantage as with 16 bits the dither is at -96 dBFS but with a 24 at -144 dBFS
You have to play FFF loud to make something at -144 audible if possible at all.
To sum up, DSP is about doing calculations
This has nothing to do with sample rate except that sample rate might be a limiting factor (time)
This has all to do with precision, the more bits the better".
Or Nick did a better job (to my ears and system) on 192KHz than 96KHz..
"sample rate can be 96 and 192 kHz for improved DSP calculation precision"
That succinct sentence cleared it up.
It's all about the precision the DSP box can operate at.
That's why we any of 16/44, 24/44 etc, 24/96 and 24/192 playback I feed Najda, all sound better with the DSP box set at 192.
It's not that we (I) can hear the difference between those recorded formats..
In all probabilty, I don't think I can..
It's that I can hear the improved precision / resolution my DSP box operates at, on all of them - when it's doing it's thing.
Another longer take on it..
"DSP does profit by increasing the precision. Doing all calculations with 32 or better 64 bit keeps down the quantization error.
As DACs only accept integers, as DSP uses a precision much higher that 16 or 24 integer, in the end any DSP action has to be dithered.
Here a 24 bit recording has the advantage as with 16 bits the dither is at -96 dBFS but with a 24 at -144 dBFS
You have to play FFF loud to make something at -144 audible if possible at all.
To sum up, DSP is about doing calculations
This has nothing to do with sample rate except that sample rate might be a limiting factor (time)
This has all to do with precision, the more bits the better".
Or Nick did a better job (to my ears and system) on 192KHz than 96KHz..
DACs only accept integers as input, but they use extended precision or floating point when actually doing calculations. Dithering is only done once, at the end of the operations. From the point of view of the end result, it doesn't matter if the input is 16 or 24 bits. Also note the important sentence "This has nothing to do with sample rate except that sample rate might be a limiting factor (time)".