High quality nonos PC based DAC - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, 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 5th January 2004, 07:01 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: .
Quote:
Originally posted by fedde


The latency of EQ on a PC will likely be lower than on an external EQ. An external EQ will need to buffer data (another time) in order to filter it.

Fedde
Not so.Even outboard digital EQ's using FIR filters have lower a latency than a PC based system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2004, 07:16 PM   #22
fedde is offline fedde  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Send a message via ICQ to fedde
Not if you use the PC as source! Eg. mp3 is processed in blocks. These blocks can be directly EQ-ed without further delay. An external EQ will have additional delay due to buffering!

Fedde
__________________
http://www.fedde.nu, gainclone and non-oversampling DAC audio projects and kits...
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2004, 07:51 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: .
The sane amongst us adopt the horses for courses approach. On a PC one uses a fomat native to the PC. With outboard EQ one would use a format native to outboard EQ. Only a complete eejit would seek to transfer MP3 as blocks to an outboard EQ. If an outboard EQ is processing audio the odds are the data arrived via one of the serial digital audio formats.
Given a level playing field i.e. dedicated hardware decompression engine connected to a source of MP3 data, dedicated hardware will run rings round a PC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2004, 09:15 PM   #24
deandob is offline deandob  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Regarding PC digital equalisation & room correction, check this thread at avsforum:
Digital Room Correction
Detailed step by step guide

Regarding Ogg vs WMA (lossless) formats, not much difference between the two as they are both lossless, however I have faith that the WMA format will be around for a long time.

Regards,
Dean
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2004, 11:03 PM   #25
Nielsio is offline Nielsio  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Nielsio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by deandob
Regarding PC digital equalisation & room correction, check this thread at avsforum:
Digital Room Correction
Detailed step by step guide


I've been through it (the first two pages of the thread and also the step by step guide), and it seems that the method doesn't take in mind the non-linearity of the soundcard. If the used soundcard is linear, this shouldn't form a problem.

But moreover: (correct me if I'm wrong) this method tries to flatten the sound 100%. This will not sound pleasant at all. You'd want to add a target curve after flattening.
See: http://www.prijsindex.net/tmp/room%2...0and%20eq.html

Because of this (and also to be able to experiment, especially in the bass region, which is a majorly tricky area, and cannot be dealt with measure-wise) I don't fancy the method.

What I want is a 32-band graphical equalizer without delay.

(I've tested Shibatch Super EQ plugin for Winamp 2 before, and although it's practical in usage, it's not HI-FI material: the sounds loses detail (~unlike my Behringer 8024)).

I'd really like to find one for PC, so I can also start to equalize at systems besides my own.

The delay-thing could be worked around (introduce delay for video also), but the loss of detail is an absolute no-go.

Quote:
Regarding Ogg vs WMA (lossless) formats, not much difference between the two as they are both lossless, however I have faith that the WMA format will be around for a long time.

Regards,
Dean
I have little faith in Microsoft on being a reliable party. Also: I really, really don't like Windows Media Player, and have therefore never liked the WMA-format. Maybe it's because wma-files are created using this software (right?), and I can't take those people serious (can I?).
__________________
Behringer DEQ2496 . Twisted Pear Buffalo II DAC . JLTi tube buffered LM3875 . Supravox 215 Signature Bicone 125L vented
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2004, 11:05 PM   #26
Nielsio is offline Nielsio  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Nielsio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
and it seems that the method doesn't take in mind the non-linearity of the soundcard. If the used soundcard is linear, this shouldn't form a problem.
I'm talking about the recording non-linearity.
__________________
Behringer DEQ2496 . Twisted Pear Buffalo II DAC . JLTi tube buffered LM3875 . Supravox 215 Signature Bicone 125L vented
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2004, 12:33 AM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: .
Default Cheaper and simpler?

I also find this a very iteresting thread. I have been reading for a while some threads here and on the avs forum and have decided to give it a try.

A fully implemented computer stereo-system (as i'd like it ) could do digital crossover (2 or 3 way) & dsp (both available now with BruteFir on Linux, or only dsp with DRC on Win) to feed an external multi-channel non-os DAC (tda1541 for mid-highs, tda1543 lows). Now, the link between sonundcard and DAC could be spdif, USB or even i2s. It was suggested on this board that an expensive pro-audio card could be spared and get the I2s out of any non-resampling Envy24 based card, such as the Chaintec AV-710 ($~21) or Terratec Aureon (or on the CMI8738). That would be the cheapest and probably simplest implementation.

Anyone done something similar (i2s)?
these two theads are usefull:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-22019.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-22556.html

I'll be doing some reaserch before I start ordering what i need.
Regards,
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2004, 12:49 AM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: .
Nielsio:

DRC allows any target curve characteristics, it even has a built in euphonic curve - according , to psychoacoutical tests, that is

  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2004, 01:17 AM   #29
Nielsio is offline Nielsio  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Nielsio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by swak
Nielsio:

DRC allows any target curve characteristics, it even has a built in euphonic curve - according , to psychoacoutical tests, that is

Mmm, what comes to mind: the DRC-method uses (recorded) wave-samples to calculate the filter, right? So then it would be possible for me to (somehow) generate a wave as I would wish and use that for it (..thus would be able to use my own measurement methods and experimenting-possibilities)?

I'm sorry to not dig in yet and try the method et al, to get the answers on my own; but seen (some of) you have experience already, that could save time for me (in case it wouldn't give me what I need).

Something I'd also like to share:
My silent computer project:
http://www.prijsindex.net/cgi-bin/pr...ilent-computer
__________________
Behringer DEQ2496 . Twisted Pear Buffalo II DAC . JLTi tube buffered LM3875 . Supravox 215 Signature Bicone 125L vented
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2004, 03:30 AM   #30
MWP is offline MWP  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Im another thats been thinking about this for quite a while.

This is what im thinking of doing:

WinXP box (Envy42HT) -> Optical spdif -> Linux box (Envy24HT) -> BruteFIR (xovers & room EQ) -> Envy24HT -> I2S transmitter (TI MuxIT parts) -> Multiple chan DAC (with ASRCs) -> Gainclone amps

The Envy24HT in the Linux box will be heavily modifed for Optical input and the TI-MuxIT outputs.

Im not quite sure on the details of the DAC ill build yet.
Ill probably have fixed gain (no volume control) between the DAC and the Amps and use the Linux box (BruteFIR) to do volume control in 24bit.

Sound like a good plan?

The only thing im unsure about is if the copper connection between Linux box and DAC will cause noise issues... it would be nice to isolate the two somehow.
  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
how is the quality of a chip-based volume control VS normal stepped attenuator? jarthel Parts 4 16th July 2007 03:40 PM
Low wattage, high efficiency, high quality? Nordic Multi-Way 5 5th September 2005 12:12 AM
High Power High Quality Digital Amp aspycaudio Digital Source 0 6th December 2003 10:49 AM
Progression nonos dac&high output fedde Digital Source 3 1st February 2003 01:15 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2