I did some measurements on my 2x8 with a scope today.
Test setup:
Scope: Picotech 3224 12-bit scope. (noise floor -126dBV)
2x8: 12V battery powered
Laptop: battery powered
Both battery and 2x8 is inside faraday cage.
Spectrum up to 20kHz. shows a noise floor of about -73dBV or 0.22mV RMS
The scope picture has a lot higher values due to the high frequency noise.
Note also the 12kHz peak. I am not impressed..
I'll do some more measuremens. But I have to go now
Test setup:
Scope: Picotech 3224 12-bit scope. (noise floor -126dBV)
2x8: 12V battery powered
Laptop: battery powered
Both battery and 2x8 is inside faraday cage.
Spectrum up to 20kHz. shows a noise floor of about -73dBV or 0.22mV RMS
The scope picture has a lot higher values due to the high frequency noise.
Note also the 12kHz peak. I am not impressed..
I'll do some more measuremens. But I have to go now
Attachments
Last edited:
Excuse me. The answers, yes. I hope Minidsp has nothing against me spreading the answers to my active XO n00b questions:
"In answer to your question, the hardware is as is. We do provide already
a lot of flexibility but there is a limit like anything in life..
So if you need 12ch, that is not a 4x10, that's a 4x12 which doesn't
exist no matter how you look into it. Adding more flexibility to a
product (e.g. more channels, more DSP) isn't as "lego like" as we make
it already. there are a LOT of firmware + software implications which
don't appear as clearly to our customers.
The nanoDIGI is a 2x8 and once again not something that will become a
2x12 I'm afraid without a new hardware + firmware + software
configuration. A complete new product that won't even fit on the current
DSP since adding 30% channel count does come at a cost of DSP power +
resources.
Hoping this info helps.
Best Regards
Devteam
miniDSP Ltd
Unit 1204, Crown Industrial Building
106 How Ming Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 23582066
Email: info@minidsp.com
On 16/6/13 7:25 PM, J wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you for answering.
>
> Yes, but what if I need 10 or 12 channels with the opportunity to
> upgrade DACs later, on all 10 or 12 channels? I read somewhere that I
> could solder on the 4x10HD to make them into a 2x8 +2 but this seem
> cumbersome to say the least, although I could probably do it.
>
> I would really like if it was possible to connect the nanodigi 2x8 to
> another card and add two or four channels more.
>
> I also wonder about the 192KHz that nanodigi should handle, but the
> 4x10HD cannot handle. One user with the nanodigi 2x8 said there are no
> software that handles 192kHz yet, which is strange since it says so on
> your website. My Lynx L22 soundcard, that I want to record and use as
> playback via digital out, works best in 192KHz where it has the lowest
> latencies. Then it is a bummer for me that the 4x10HD only handles
> 96kHz, which would double my latencies with the Lynx L22. I might not
> be able to sing or play guitar while listening, because the latencies
> would cause the audio to be so delayed.
>
> Any chance to add two more channels for the nanodigi and get updated
> 192kHz software?
>
> Best Regards,
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Opprinnelig melding----- From: Customer Service - miniDSP
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:19 PM
> To: J
> Subject: Re: MiniDSP: 4x10 hd
>
> Hello,
>
> The 4x10 is 2 x Analog IN, 8 x Analog OUT, 2 x digital IN, 2 x Digital
> out.
> A 5 way speaker in stereo is 10x OUTs required. Right?
>
> So to build it with one 4 x 10, easiest that you use one external 3rd
> party DAC for the extra 2 x channel and you connect it to the digital
> outputs. Then you have 10x analog OUT via RCA.
>
> Hoping this makes sense.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Devteam
>
> miniDSP Ltd
> Unit 1204, Crown Industrial Building
> 106 How Ming Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 23582066
> Email: info@minidsp.com
>
> On 13/6/13 1:37 PM, MiniDSP wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I want to use the digital input from my computer to a 5-way speaker
>> with 5 amps with analog RCA inputs. Would this 4x10 HD suit my needs?
>>
>> What would it cost to ship it to Norway? Would you declare the packet
>> with a lesser value to reduce customs?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> J"
>>
>>
>
"In answer to your question, the hardware is as is. We do provide already
a lot of flexibility but there is a limit like anything in life..
So if you need 12ch, that is not a 4x10, that's a 4x12 which doesn't
exist no matter how you look into it.
Adding more flexibility to a product (e.g. more channels, more DSP) isn't as "lego like" as we make
it already. there are a LOT of firmware + software implications which
don't appear as clearly to our customers.
The nanoDIGI is a 2x8 and once again not something that will become a
2x12 I'm afraid without a new hardware + firmware + software
configuration. A complete new product that won't even fit on the current
DSP since adding 30% channel count does come at a cost of DSP power +
resources.
Hoping this info helps.
Best Regards
Devteam
miniDSP Ltd
Unit 1204, Crown Industrial Building
106 How Ming Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 23582066
Email: info@minidsp.com
On 16/6/13 7:25 PM, J wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you for answering.
>
> Yes, but what if I need 10 or 12 channels with the opportunity to
> upgrade DACs later, on all 10 or 12 channels? I read somewhere that I
> could solder on the 4x10HD to make them into a 2x8 +2 but this seem
> cumbersome to say the least, although I could probably do it.
>
> I would really like if it was possible to connect the nanodigi 2x8 to
> another card and add two or four channels more.
>
> I also wonder about the 192KHz that nanodigi should handle, but the
> 4x10HD cannot handle. One user with the nanodigi 2x8 said there are no
> software that handles 192kHz yet, which is strange since it says so on
> your website. My Lynx L22 soundcard, that I want to record and use as
> playback via digital out, works best in 192KHz where it has the lowest
> latencies. Then it is a bummer for me that the 4x10HD only handles
> 96kHz, which would double my latencies with the Lynx L22. I might not
> be able to sing or play guitar while listening, because the latencies
> would cause the audio to be so delayed.
>
> Any chance to add two more channels for the nanodigi and get updated
> 192kHz software?
>
> Best Regards,
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Opprinnelig melding----- From: Customer Service - miniDSP
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:19 PM
> To: J
> Subject: Re: MiniDSP: 4x10 hd
>
> Hello,
>
> The 4x10 is 2 x Analog IN, 8 x Analog OUT, 2 x digital IN, 2 x Digital
> out.
> A 5 way speaker in stereo is 10x OUTs required. Right?
>
> So to build it with one 4 x 10, easiest that you use one external 3rd
> party DAC for the extra 2 x channel and you connect it to the digital
> outputs. Then you have 10x analog OUT via RCA.
>
> Hoping this makes sense.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Devteam
>
> miniDSP Ltd
> Unit 1204, Crown Industrial Building
> 106 How Ming Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 23582066
> Email: info@minidsp.com
>
> On 13/6/13 1:37 PM, MiniDSP wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I want to use the digital input from my computer to a 5-way speaker
>> with 5 amps with analog RCA inputs. Would this 4x10 HD suit my needs?
>>
>> What would it cost to ship it to Norway? Would you declare the packet
>> with a lesser value to reduce customs?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> J"
>>
>>
>
Last edited:
I found the 4x10HD quite poor sounding right out of the box.
I bought out of the hype and almost returned it.
As a DAC only feed via SPDIF (no EQ or anything), feeding an amplifier and passive speaker directly, my Benchamrk DAC2 run circle around it on about every parameter you can think of...
even after burn in, dynamics aren't much more impressive.
For the price, it's ok but far from a bargain.
Very, very easy to use on the positive side
I did a full recap on the power supply section with Pana FM and it really brought life to it convincing me to upgrade it a bit more.
If you can live with ~3-8mV of DC offset on your main amp or preamp, removing the all the 24 output coupling capacitor bring much more details and a presence to the overall sound. Coupling caps really screw the sound...
(1 coupling cap per RCA (8) out and 2 for each +- side of the balanced output(16))
I don't know if the stock Nichicon KW are fake or not but getting rid of them was a significant upgrade.
The 16 capacitors around the op-amp balanced output stage aren't power supply bypass as I initially thought but signal coupling from the Cirrus DAC. (blocking ~2.7Vdc)
I've changed them all with Panasonic FM and I could hardly believe the improvement. This led me to believe that either the KW aren't very good or the were fake.
I'm considering changing the FM to film caps but size is an issue and I do not think I can install 24 film caps cleanly inside this box)
Stock opamp are very low end and are a weird case standard making swap almost impossible. (case is smaller than standard SOIC and direct solder is impossible) Slew rate of the stock device is poor.
I'm in the process of replacing them all with AD8599 despite difference in casing. Very long job as you have to install a lifting rail and glue the new opamp on top of the PCB mount point. Once this is done, you have 96 tiny wire connection to make on SMT board... Very long and require good skill.
Hopefully, this will bring it to much better sonic performance
Because of it's price and ease to use, I admit that I now own 2 miniDSP 4x10HD
Thinking about buying a 3rd one if the opamp upgrade turn out great.
I hope to compete with Lynx Aurora16 sound quality for 1/5 the price (1/4 with mods as the AD8599 aren't exactly cheap)
I bought out of the hype and almost returned it.
As a DAC only feed via SPDIF (no EQ or anything), feeding an amplifier and passive speaker directly, my Benchamrk DAC2 run circle around it on about every parameter you can think of...
even after burn in, dynamics aren't much more impressive.
For the price, it's ok but far from a bargain.
Very, very easy to use on the positive side
I did a full recap on the power supply section with Pana FM and it really brought life to it convincing me to upgrade it a bit more.
If you can live with ~3-8mV of DC offset on your main amp or preamp, removing the all the 24 output coupling capacitor bring much more details and a presence to the overall sound. Coupling caps really screw the sound...
(1 coupling cap per RCA (8) out and 2 for each +- side of the balanced output(16))
I don't know if the stock Nichicon KW are fake or not but getting rid of them was a significant upgrade.
The 16 capacitors around the op-amp balanced output stage aren't power supply bypass as I initially thought but signal coupling from the Cirrus DAC. (blocking ~2.7Vdc)
I've changed them all with Panasonic FM and I could hardly believe the improvement. This led me to believe that either the KW aren't very good or the were fake.
I'm considering changing the FM to film caps but size is an issue and I do not think I can install 24 film caps cleanly inside this box)
Stock opamp are very low end and are a weird case standard making swap almost impossible. (case is smaller than standard SOIC and direct solder is impossible) Slew rate of the stock device is poor.
I'm in the process of replacing them all with AD8599 despite difference in casing. Very long job as you have to install a lifting rail and glue the new opamp on top of the PCB mount point. Once this is done, you have 96 tiny wire connection to make on SMT board... Very long and require good skill.
Hopefully, this will bring it to much better sonic performance
Because of it's price and ease to use, I admit that I now own 2 miniDSP 4x10HD
Thinking about buying a 3rd one if the opamp upgrade turn out great.
I hope to compete with Lynx Aurora16 sound quality for 1/5 the price (1/4 with mods as the AD8599 aren't exactly cheap)
Last edited:
I have no issue with 2x10Hd except for its lack of visual indication for volume setting. I am soon moving to an 8-channel analog volume control on one system, but I am considering getting another miniDSP unit which would mean the issue would stay. If there is another product of the same quality (6 channels would be enough) and visual indication for remote volume control I would consider it. please let me know.
p.s IMO driving changes to these circuits is a waste of time compared to working on any other part of the audio system incl. room acoustics.
p.s IMO driving changes to these circuits is a waste of time compared to working on any other part of the audio system incl. room acoustics.
You can link two Hypex DLCP boards together and get 12 channels. Read the manual.
And this work well now? You did have some problem I think I remember?
//
I haven't tried recently. Right now, 6 channels is sufficient for me.
My subjective experience is that the DLCP also lacks a little in compared to the very best DACs but I don't see any other better options at the moment. Unless you want to take the route with PC software and a sound card (like Lynx).
Very interesting. Lots of nice hints that I want to try myself. Let us know how it turns out.
Are you using all 10 channels? I only use 5 channels for the moment, but I may get another sub, even if it is difficult to setup up with Dirac Live, and an upper mids horn, and will end up with 8 channels. Otherwise you could try some other product with digital outputs and get a better DAC. I compared the 4x10HD against a cheap $60 DAC from Ebay and even that was a significant improvement. I was using the cheap DAC on mids and tweeters for a while until I realised the clock of the DACs must be different and now I am just using the 4x10HD for its ease of use.
Still dreaming of an analog solution.
Last edited:
I compared the 4x10HD against a cheap $60 DAC from Ebay and even that was a significant improvement.
I've cited my DAC2 to be polite, my 10years old Yulong D100 also easily beat my miniDSP 4X10HD, Also was my now sold SMLS M8.
The point of the DSP is to run 100% active and the "not so great" MINIDSP DAC more than make up for mess created by the passive crossover.
Once you add the DSP feature and correct for room acoustic, no DAC and passive speaker can ever compete.
I used to use a 10uf on the tweeter for protection. (10uF wasn't doing anything as a crossover as it's value was too high to impact the curve)
I removed it and installed a 300mA fuse instead
the 10cents fuse sounded 10X better than a expensive Mundorf SIO!
once you remove the crossover, it's amazing how better drivers sound.
I've checked my bin for the original 4x10HD opamp
they are JRC2068 (SSOP8 case)
6v/uS device and 0.001% distortion
Factory, the 4X10HD had 2 coupling caps in the signal path (given you use it as a DAC)
If you use the analog input, you have 4 electrolytic coupling caps in the path
Talk about induced coloration...
You can (and should) take 3 of them out!
My unit is now running with all new AD8599 but is burning-in
No comments for at least 1 week.
Sound changed quite a bit, mostly for the better with ton of extra details and layers after layer of extra sound stage depth, but deep bass has less impact
Maybe, I'll add to the decoupling caps (0.1UF) on the positive and negative pin of the opamp.
Need to wait 100hours or so before being too critical.
I know that some opamp take a while to sound good (lm4562 is a good example of slow burnin-in)
I also always have the secret weapon to install a CCS or a resistor from the output to the negative rail and run every opamp in classA.
I have to test that the negative PSU can handle the extra current first.
Difference are subtle but noticeable.
p.s IMO driving changes to these circuits is a waste of time compared to working on any other part of the audio system incl. room acoustics
I have a slew of accoustic treatment (maybe 26 acoustics panels and 2 Helmholtz resonator in rear corners)
My 4 way system is 100% active and my 3 cones driver are all installed on infinite baffle system Only my tweeter is on a stand. (you can see them behind the red curtain
Image aren't current anymore as some stuff changed but it give you an impression.
Audio by Martin
I've cited my DAC2 to be polite, my 10years old Yulong D100 also easily beat my miniDSP 4X10HD, Also was my now sold SMLS M8.
The point of the DSP is to run 100% active and the "not so great" MINIDSP DAC more than make up for mess created by the passive crossover.
Once you add the DSP feature and correct for room acoustic, no DAC and passive speaker can ever compete.
I used to use a 10uf on the tweeter for protection. (10uF wasn't doing anything as a crossover as it's value was too high to impact the curve)
I removed it and installed a 300mA fuse instead
the 10cents fuse sounded 10X better than a expensive Mundorf SIO!
once you remove the crossover, it's amazing how better drivers sound.
I've checked my bin for the original 4x10HD opamp
they are JRC2068 (SSOP8 case)
6v/uS device and 0.001% distortion
Factory, the 4X10HD had 2 coupling caps in the signal path (given you use it as a DAC)
If you use the analog input, you have 4 electrolytic coupling caps in the path
Talk about induced coloration...
You can (and should) take 3 of them out!
My unit is now running with all new AD8599 but is burning-in
No comments for at least 1 week.
Sound changed quite a bit, mostly for the better with ton of extra details and layers after layer of extra sound stage depth, but deep bass has less impact
Maybe, I'll add to the decoupling caps (0.1UF) on the positive and negative pin of the opamp.
Need to wait 100hours or so before being too critical.
I know that some opamp take a while to sound good (lm4562 is a good example of slow burnin-in)
I also always have the secret weapon to install a CCS or a resistor from the output to the negative rail and run every opamp in classA.
I have to test that the negative PSU can handle the extra current first.
Difference are subtle but noticeable.
p.s IMO driving changes to these circuits is a waste of time compared to working on any other part of the audio system incl. room acoustics
I have a slew of accoustic treatment (maybe 26 acoustics panels and 2 Helmholtz resonator in rear corners)
My 4 way system is 100% active and my 3 cones driver are all installed on infinite baffle system
Only my tweeter is on a stand. (you can see them behind the red curtainImage aren't current anymore as some stuff changed but it give you an impression.
Audio by Martin
Last edited:
I wish,
the 1st thing is to bypass the output caps,
Changing the opamp is significant but quite difficult if you do not solder often.
I do not think that the ad8599 are the best match in the DSP, It is hyper detailled, fast and soundstage is wider, all good, but bass is a bit dry to my taste. Yes the 2068 is rounder and lack intelligibility of voice but Daft punk miss their punch. I'll probably use a different opamp in my 2nd 4x10hd.
Later
AD8599 now has bass like it should
the 4X10hd doesn't have bypass on the power supply of the opamp
It only have an 0.1uf (ceramic?) and a 0.01uf (ceramic also?)
The only electrolytic on the +-15V is from the very distant SMPS where 2 small 47uf SMT provide the power for all the opamp(14 of them) on board
Clearly not enough!
I've installed 16 Panasonic FM on the small ceramic ones.
I've also put a 1uf polypropylene across the positive and negative rail of every opamp
If you plan on keeping the stock opamp, at least put more caps on the board...
Wow, now I really like the AD8599
Sound is incredible, the bass punch like it should and all details are preserved. soundstage is wide as well, the best I ever achived here.
No wonder the 8599 have some great review on the web.
I'm installing the sames opamp one on my 2nd 4x10hd.
the 4X10hd doesn't have bypass on the power supply of the opamp
It only have an 0.1uf (ceramic?) and a 0.01uf (ceramic also?)
The only electrolytic on the +-15V is from the very distant SMPS where 2 small 47uf SMT provide the power for all the opamp(14 of them) on board
Clearly not enough!
I've installed 16 Panasonic FM on the small ceramic ones.
I've also put a 1uf polypropylene across the positive and negative rail of every opamp
If you plan on keeping the stock opamp, at least put more caps on the board...
Wow, now I really like the AD8599
Sound is incredible, the bass punch like it should and all details are preserved. soundstage is wide as well, the best I ever achived here.
No wonder the 8599 have some great review on the web.
I'm installing the sames opamp one on my 2nd 4x10hd.
Last update,
2 weeks later and maybe 250hours on both my 4X10hd, I'm really happy with the mods.
I've installed 16 more power supply bypass capacitor under the board as there is 8 more opamp in there.
all of the electrolytic capacitor become warm on both my 4x10hd proving that some good mA is constantly flowing thru them.
Output noise seem less audible but I doubt I gained anymore than 3dB of SNR, I'm just going by feeling here and haven't measurement of before/after...
both 4x10hd are modified exactly the same with the AD8599 opamp and containing a bunch of new capaciors about everywhere.
A is entirely done with mix of panasonic FM/FR (signal coupling and power supply)
B is done entirely with Nichicon KA (same uf value as A)
after about the same hours of burn-in, A and B sound vastly different.
I prefer A I but guess that 80% of people would pick B (my wife live by B)
A is more detailled, almost edgy and more dynamic
B is very smooth and forgiving, voice are more relaxed, instrument lack their initial attack.
Would be interesting to have a C with Elna Silmic ii but in previous DAC test, I didn't like this one very much finding the bass bloated.
Later
2 weeks later and maybe 250hours on both my 4X10hd, I'm really happy with the mods.
I've installed 16 more power supply bypass capacitor under the board as there is 8 more opamp in there.
all of the electrolytic capacitor become warm on both my 4x10hd proving that some good mA is constantly flowing thru them.
Output noise seem less audible but I doubt I gained anymore than 3dB of SNR, I'm just going by feeling here and haven't measurement of before/after...
both 4x10hd are modified exactly the same with the AD8599 opamp and containing a bunch of new capaciors about everywhere.
A is entirely done with mix of panasonic FM/FR (signal coupling and power supply)
B is done entirely with Nichicon KA (same uf value as A)
after about the same hours of burn-in, A and B sound vastly different.
I prefer A I but guess that 80% of people would pick B (my wife live by B)
A is more detailled, almost edgy and more dynamic
B is very smooth and forgiving, voice are more relaxed, instrument lack their initial attack.
Would be interesting to have a C with Elna Silmic ii but in previous DAC test, I didn't like this one very much finding the bass bloated.
Later