Yeap, definitely not the same.
Did the prototype use OS-CONs?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Did the prototype use OS-CONs?
OK that was subtle.
Any pictures or screen shots of the configuration software ?
regards
Qusp has right. Only a dsp was better. Everbody has a favourite dac he like to use.Further is the USB input a weak point. And if there must be dac's on the board, why only 1 Dac for 2 channels and not 1 Dac a channel?
Only DSP has been done already though, but high quality analogue outputs hasn't.
And Stereo DAC chips are good enough, the weakest spot isn't in that area as long as you buy a decent one.
Though I have to agree that the USB input is sub par, would have prefered to have a modern chip instead of an old 16-bit one. SPDIF | AES/EBU input works though, though it isn't as compact a solution as if it had good USB input on the board.
no it hasnt, a GOOD DSP only board with discrete clock multiples for 44.1/48* FS in synchronous/asynchronous and quality psu, good quality ARM based digital filter etc hasnt been done, they always throw in a dac, so I would have to pay for stuff I dont need.
agreed on the USB, though I actually feel USB is the best option if done well. so i'll stick with software XO.
I will wait for the final presentation of the product with detailed measurements etc. (which I'm sure will follow) before I decide if I'll pull the trigger or not.
I too was following (and paying for) the latest and greatest developments in the Sabre arena for many years (since the first Buffalo to be exact) but I came to realise this is a fund-sucking project that never ends.
Personally, I never managed to say "OK this is my DAC in its final form" - it actually only happend when I *had* to box it up to sell it and get the next version. You see the next best I/V, power supply, clock etc are always around the corner...
[And I only went for stereo - now that I need at least 6 channels (i.e. active loudspeakers), complexity and cost issues would be exacerbated.]
I'm a bit fed up with that and decided I want something that works great out of the box (I trust Hypex won't release a sub-par product) to listen to my music without any significant compromises.
Having sold my Buffalos, my next source is either going to be this DSP or the Metric Halo LIO8.
*Then*, if I'm really bored or have money to spare, I might go on chasing "Buffalos", FIFOs, clocks and the like, just for the fun of it.
Or, better yet, focus on other DIY projects that I keep postponing like headamps and, of course, loudspeakers.
I too was following (and paying for) the latest and greatest developments in the Sabre arena for many years (since the first Buffalo to be exact) but I came to realise this is a fund-sucking project that never ends.
Personally, I never managed to say "OK this is my DAC in its final form" - it actually only happend when I *had* to box it up to sell it and get the next version. You see the next best I/V, power supply, clock etc are always around the corner...
[And I only went for stereo - now that I need at least 6 channels (i.e. active loudspeakers), complexity and cost issues would be exacerbated.]
I'm a bit fed up with that and decided I want something that works great out of the box (I trust Hypex won't release a sub-par product) to listen to my music without any significant compromises.
Having sold my Buffalos, my next source is either going to be this DSP or the Metric Halo LIO8.
*Then*, if I'm really bored or have money to spare, I might go on chasing "Buffalos", FIFOs, clocks and the like, just for the fun of it.
Or, better yet, focus on other DIY projects that I keep postponing like headamps and, of course, loudspeakers.
Last edited:
+1
In the end the tuning of the filters and corrections made by the user are more influencing the end result!
If Hypex have the same knowledge about DAC that they have about power amps, it should be great. Hopefully a true transparent DAC with the best volume control option. My Buffallo II DAC with exaU2IS is on the way out of the door...... Digitally out from a pro soundcard is many ways a better option because of good and solid drivers that work easily with all windows programs besides the Asio driver.
I'm more concern about the software and crossover options though. What I've seen and heard about here hasn't been impressive.
I'm more concern about the software and crossover options though. What I've seen and heard about here hasn't been impressive.
Bruno knows his digital as few do - though I'm not really sure to what extent he's involved in the development of the DLCP. With Mola-Mola, Grimm and OEM customers, I'm sure he's got his hands full at the moment.
Still, the Grimm products, for instance, are top notch.
I don't expect the DLCP to reach that level of performance of course (nor the price tag).
Bruno knows his digital as few do - though I'm not really sure to what extent he's involved in the development of the DLCP. With Mola-Mola, Grimm and OEM customers, I'm sure he's got his hands full at the moment.
Still, the Grimm products, for instance, are top notch.
I don't expect the DLCP to reach that level of performance of course (nor the price tag).
The board wasn't designed by Bruno but he did guide the design process quite firmly and contributed some key circuits like the clock and the output circuit. The philosophy behind the DLCP converters is to get solid performance and a neutral sound without going overboard in terms of fancy parts or esoteric circuits.
The philosophy behind the DLCP converters is to get solid performance and a neutral sound without going overboard in terms of fancy parts or esoteric circuits.
So if you want to go overboard, you have to go off-board?
