Filter brewing for the Soekris R2R - Page 20 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd February 2015, 05:39 PM   #191
leehan is offline leehan  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kent, UK
Soren,

Excellent selection of filter types, those will cover everything. Take all the time you need. I'm not in a hurry myself, already enjoying the great sound
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 07:00 PM   #192
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldam View Post
Hi Paul,

Your post is not completly clear for me !

What is the result ? Upload filter : ok ! Better subjective sound to you than moving the FIR2 after this upload ?

Thanks for the good work
Stop tap dancing about the delights of Beaujolais....

You need to listen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 07:20 PM   #193
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
kurlbo,

On the fly would certainly be more efficient but I do not like the idea of the CPU doing that much work while playing music.

Of course, processing a 24/196 file requires more work than a 44, but the other is on a different level entirely.

Hope it all becomes a moot point and feel confident it will.

Take care,
__________________
Rick McInnis
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 07:24 PM   #194
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop.sing View Post
I tested in a loopback configuration (blurring the results due to additional AD and DA conversion of course, but still the only way to do a blind test easily) so I can listen against the original file.
I might have missed a previous post this but I'm curious about your setup. Could you expand a little, as I'm not clear what your reference is and how you are making the comparison.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 07:32 PM   #195
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmcinnis View Post
kurlbo,

On the fly would certainly be more efficient but I do not like the idea of the CPU doing that much work while playing music.

Of course, processing a 24/196 file requires more work than a 44, but the other is on a different level entirely.

Hope it all becomes a moot point and feel confident it will.

Take care,
I'm sure it depends on the computing power of your computer but with a relatively new and mid level machine it shouldn't take more than 20% of your cpu capacity....
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 08:09 PM   #196
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
From computeraudiophile.com:

"Head to Head JRMC19, Foobar+SACD (and HQ Player) doing Redbook to DSD and native DSD

Geoffrey Armstrong of Sound Galleries in Monaco and I did a comparison of players doing Redbook to DSD, Hi Res to DSD and native DSD playback. The results were not what we would have expected a couple of months ago:

Redbook to DSD conversion - voices and acoustic instruments the big winners, more texture and detail
JRMC 19 Redbook > DSD 128 results are very good (CPU load 13%)
Foobar + SACD in Integer (?) mode > DSD 256 is even better, jaw dropping for me as I have never heard Redbook this good. We almost gave up on Foobar until we switched to non 32 bit Floating Point mode (therefore Integer mode ?) in the SACD plug-in, and then the SQ difference was night and day (CPU load 13%)."

So it seems, at least with Jriver and foobar, you might only use 13% of your CPU. That wouldn't seem to be significant....
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 08:31 PM   #197
diyAudio Member
 
oneoclock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Thanks Soren. We look forward to. It will facilitate listening tests.

I measured the new filter 1021SA2F2v1.skr. I understand that have changed the filter F2. Keep out measures in multiples of 44 with noise that are not in multiples of 48.

Soren, you may make a difference in the architecture of DAC that may be causing a problem of jitter or calculation in which 352 work?

A greeting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 08:42 PM   #198
ylingf is offline ylingf  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Jersey, US
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop.sing View Post
OK, so I tested most filters and my conclusion is that the MB2 from TNT and bam_comb1 from bambadoo feel closest to the source right now, maybe with the edge at the bam_comb1, it is really nice, keeps the emotional impact and has very little color.
I tested in a loopback configuration (blurring the results due to additional AD and DA conversion of course, but still the only way to do a blind test easily) so I can listen against the original file.
The milder filter slopes of spzzzzkt sound a little bit more coloured than the source, but MinPhaseSlowrev1 is a pleasure to listen to, kind of a bit more exciting than the source file. Very nice!
The winner in the exciting category is NOS, but this one is really coloured, with a very alive bass and prominent highs and a kind of breathing sound, too dirty for me, but I can understand why some people like that configuration.
With the exception of the NOS, all filter configurations sound kind of close to each other (in my setup), and no filter really sucks.
Thanks to all the filter brewers, keep up the good work!
I have been listening to Paul's MinPhaseSlowrev1 for the past few days. I found it very pleasant, have very large/deep soundstage and exquisitely detailed. Even Spotify through JRiver sounded really nice if the recording is good. No harshness at all. Can't comment on the other two filters but will try them shortly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 09:03 PM   #199
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by spzzzzkt View Post
I might have missed a previous post this but I'm curious about your setup. Could you expand a little, as I'm not clear what your reference is and how you are making the comparison.
Well, setup is: Dam dac into adc burr brown pcm 4222 evaluation board, which is the master clock also, all connected via spdif with a rme firefac ufx, monitoring dac is a gustard x10. Monitored either through Geithain 904 or Joachim Gerhard Kalasan Speaker. The reference track has just one dac through the gustard x10, the processed tracks have one dac and adc on top of it. I can hear filter differences pretty well, the pcm4222 is not totally transparent, but good enough.
There are still variables, but that is the best testing method for me I can think of, since I want to use the Dam in the studio in precisely that application.
Tobias
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2015, 10:14 PM   #200
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuribo View Post
I'm sure it depends on the computing power of your computer but with a relatively new and mid level machine it shouldn't take more than 20% of your cpu capacity....
HASWELL i3 4140 and a GIGABYTE H81 board. Not an extravagant CPU but worry about those with four cores. CPU busy-ness is a concern. I think the key to good computer audio is to get as little going on as one possibly can.

Working with NTLite and WIN 10 to get as small a c: folder as possible. My goal is to get c: down to 1gB. At 2.5 gB at the moment and stable as can be. NTLite has gone almost as far as it can - from here it will be manual deletions.

Easier to get the OS into memory when it is small and not require huge amounts of memory. Again, too much memory does not sound as good as just enough. I want to stick with 2 gB stick.

The real gains will come with decimating the registry and removing as many items to be polled as possible and still have a stable machine.

Back in the XP days we had a 20mB OS that sounded very fine, infinitely better than an optimized full install. Take that LINUX!

All of those registry entries are constantly being polled. If they are not there there is nothing to poll and a calmer environment ensues. Tiny XP registry was 56 kB, total. No way I will get anywhere close to that with 8/10 but it should be proportional.

Still think 2% usage sounds better! But willing to try ...
__________________
Rick McInnis
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soekris 's DAC implementations Eldam Digital Line Level 1038 20th April 2017 05:30 PM
Sold: Soekris DAM1021 R2R DAC Eldam Swap Meet 6 6th February 2015 07:23 AM
24-bit R2R DAC using miltiple 16/18/20-bit R2R chips Marek Digital Source 21 1st April 2011 09:05 PM
project brewing in my head, challenging, but seem like a good way to try new concepts lemans23 Multi-Way 26 11th October 2005 12:29 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Wiki