Computer based Hifi - Page 22 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > PC Based

PC Based Computer music servers, crossovers, and equalization

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 22nd December 2011, 10:10 PM   #211
i2k92 is offline i2k92  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indonesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javin5 View Post
boris81:

80-100 Watt should be enough. What is the fanless unit you found (brand, model)?
Arenīt there already existing Android apps for remote Windows-PC control?
Even 60w is enough, some reviews mentions that Fusion power consumption on max load is still below 40w. In case of music server, it is important to disable unnecessary peripheral and services so the consumption should fall below the number above.

Using remote desktop with a tablet is IMHO dreadful, due to small screen and touch interface. To do basic remote task (shutdown, manage services, etc) I uses OneID over the android, if I need to remote the server's desktop I use my laptop (which is rarely necessary).
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2011, 01:16 PM   #212
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisA View Post
One thing that is VERY important are analog volume controls. Any digital control will reduce the dynamic range. It has to, it's something engineers can't work around.
yeah kinda like how engineers cant get past the fact that reducing the volume with ANY system results in lower dynamic range; its kinda what the whole thing is about

i think youve probably missed the last few years. when volume control is operating at 40bit or 64bit like quality implementations are now, you will not come anywhere near the same LACK of impact on the DNR with an analogue control
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2011, 06:54 PM   #213
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
i think youve probably missed the last few years. when volume control is operating at 40bit or 64bit like quality implementations are now, you will not come anywhere near the same LACK of impact on the DNR with an analogue control
What matters are MSBs, not LSBs, since LSBs will be dropped before entering the maximum 24bit DACs with S/N resolution of 20bits max. Volume control in more than 24 bits brings no benefits (the first 24bits will be the same no matter how many further lower bits are used in the division, perhaps one more for dither calculation, but the 24th bit is below any real-world resolution anyway). Volume control in 32bits makes sense due to native numerical formats of CPUs. But the 64bit volume control is a nice selling point for commercial audio players developers :-)

DSP calculations are another story since they involve thousands of multiplications by often miniscule coefficients and additions on each sample where rounding errors at LSBs accumulate. Volume control is a single operation of dividing each sample by a static reasonably-sized number.

Last edited by phofman; 23rd December 2011 at 06:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2011, 05:56 AM   #214
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
you misunderstand me, the dacs i'm talking about, like sabre 9018 (which is multichannel of course), the new AKM 32 bit parts, etc have an internal DSP/filter section which acts independently to the dac, also the DSP in my multichannel usb-i2s and also in completely software DSP. they all have integrated volume controls and i'm afraid the bits DO matter to the effectiveness and in some cases steepness of the filter (depending on the application), of course theres no free lunch, but compared to even the best analogue controls there is very little impact. channel matching is perfect all the way through the range, impedance is not effected, no extra parts are in the signal path, its far cheaper, it can be controlled in any number of ways including remotely, it doesnt wear. you can control as many channels as you want with one number etc etc.

analogue controls add noise of their own, the more you turn them down, but they attenuate the input noise, so DNR is impacted in 2 ways, digital the noise stays the same with respect to the signal, so when turned right down the ratio is of course higher, but given a noise floor that is low enough not to matter its a non-issue.

Last edited by qusp; 24th December 2011 at 06:07 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2011, 12:18 PM   #215
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
I am not saying digital volume control is inherently worse than the analog one. My argument is that more bits in volume control do not raise the headroom since the actual DAC circuitry does not transfer more than 20 most significant bits of resolution. No matter what is the number of bits below this level, some are hidden in the noise, the rest is dropped before entering the DAC.

DSP is performed before volume control, so that calculations are carried out on maximum information possible.

32bit DACs are built for convenience since 32 bit samples are natural language of CPUs, many transfer mechanisms (e.g. PCI controllers, Intel HDA) work at 32 bits only, and the samples had to be converted down to 24 bits before entering older 24-bit DACs. The actual resolution of 32bit DACs is the same as that of 24bit DACs, in fact I presume the actual DAC circuitry ignores the last 8 bits as it is way below physical resolution of the circuit and implementing them would be waste of energy and resources. And from outside of the chip only an electron microscope could tell
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2011, 01:34 PM   #216
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
no, you really still dont get it. you have read some, but not all and understood some, but not all of what i said. lumped some bits in together, when i was talking specifically about something similar but different. i suggest you reread it, the 40 bit control i mentioned is NOT EVEN IN the DAC, neither is the 64bit, they are part of a multichannel usb-i2s convertors DSP and a piece of DSP software respectively. so i'm afraid they very much DO provide more bandwidth for the digital volume control, Crossover steepness and noise shaping filter. i'm just finishing up a multichannel digital XO, with dedicated individual i2s->dac->amp->driver path, the volume and filter are inseparable and calculated at the full bandwidth.

sabre also has one 256 step volume control, i spoke less of this, but there are all manner of processes running in it at higher bit depth and often at much higher bitrate if async is in use. it is a collection of parts in the one unit, the DSP and FIR filter section is actually operating at 48bit. i suggest you read this for some insight.

also the intel codec has little to do with 32bit support, 32bit float PCM has been in use on macs for years for audio mixing purposes

Last edited by qusp; 24th December 2011 at 01:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2011, 01:54 PM   #217
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
I do not argue about DSP. All I am saying is that doing volume control in significantly more bits than physical resolution of the DAC circuit gives no advantage since only as many most significant bits as is the resolution of the DAC will be used in the end and the rest of the bits will be dropped. If you disagree, please show us an example where this does not hold. I do not know of any since this is simple logic.

Merry Christmas :-)
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2