Cheapest boards I see on eBAy are about $170.
I used to have several ESS9016 DACs that I built myself. Can only find one beat up, no PSU board now.
Seeking suggestions.
I am trying to find a decent stereo 24/192 soundcard, either external USB or regular PCI slot compatible with ARTA. I tried my onboard Realtek and not low enough THD+N at 0.18%, ouch. My rather expensive ClioFW gives me 0.007% THD+N and THD 0.002% and use proprietary software, but need to use ARTA so that others can replicate and compare.
Also can get a Terratec 24/96 shown in the ARTA manual, chapter 2, but really want 192K. Steve Bolser, as shown by his PDF, see Post #304, has 192K hardware.
Pano, note you on the ARTA thread, do you have/use a good sound card? Is it 192K like Steve's?
How about this one?
M-Audio M-Track Mk-II 2-Ch USB Audio Interface:
Yet again, I think this is only 24/96 and not 24/192?
Any suggestions welcome.
Cheers, Joe
I am trying to find a decent stereo 24/192 soundcard, either external USB or regular PCI slot compatible with ARTA. I tried my onboard Realtek and not low enough THD+N at 0.18%, ouch. My rather expensive ClioFW gives me 0.007% THD+N and THD 0.002% and use proprietary software, but need to use ARTA so that others can replicate and compare.
Also can get a Terratec 24/96 shown in the ARTA manual, chapter 2, but really want 192K. Steve Bolser, as shown by his PDF, see Post #304, has 192K hardware.
Pano, note you on the ARTA thread, do you have/use a good sound card? Is it 192K like Steve's?
How about this one?
M-Audio M-Track Mk-II 2-Ch USB Audio Interface:
Yet again, I think this is only 24/96 and not 24/192?
Any suggestions welcome.
Cheers, Joe
I have no "favored" outcome other than what the data tell us. That's why I put data, methods, and results out in public for scrutiny and (if anyone disagrees) replication. That's why I offered to let you choose the listener. That's why I offered to allow the listener to choose test format, source material, volume, switching times, and anything else that will make him comfortable. And my curiosity is why I offered to put my money where my mouth is- and I'm not exactly a rich guy for whom the money is meaningless!
Where's the unfair part?
My objection, for the nth time, is the lack of data to support your claims. If you participate, and the data end up supporting your claims, you will have no better advocate than me.
Stuart, you are badgering me. What's the super rush, we might still get there. You gave other people like Pano the wrong impression that I had something to send. Step at a time, time to breathe...
Have I actually said no? Not yet. But we need to find a suitable DAC x 2 that is doable. But at least I made the point, I am in no way being evasive any more than you are biased, OK? And that is giving you the benefit, so it should be reciprocated by you. OK?
In the meantime, a few of us are still looking to see if there is something to measure. We can hopefully work out something on both fronts.
And after your listening test(s), then I propose an alternative test and that the circumstances and the result(s) will also be published by you in your 'article' that I note you said you will be paid for.
[Others here note, it is no sin to make an honest buck doing audio and to pay the daily bills.]
I am actually hoping for a positive from both tests, as I am quite comfortable that we have a real 'event' and not imagined or based on some self-delusion - just too many have heard it to be a mass-hypnosis thing, OK?
Think about it, if there is truly something going on here and we all pull together to sort it out - then we will ALL have had a share in something that may prove to be a little out of the ordinary.
We can ALL claim to have been part of the battle for ideas.
Again, too many persons have heard this not to be very real. And I am supremely confident that given the chance, even you will in time hear it - and then we can figure out what the path will be from there on.
Again, absolutely no evasiveness at all.
Cheers, Joe
I think we all thought you had something to send. As you waited until all shipping (your concern) was paid for to point out you had nothing to send you can understand all the confusion.
You have not said no, but at every step you find a way to wriggle and move goalposts. Hopefully entirely innocent, but exactly how boutique suppliers get out of things when called. Esp your request now to have a second set of testing independent of anything SY does, and you attempt to discredit him as a neutral tester.
It's no sin to make an honest buck from audio, but doing audio and having no test equipment is a bit worrying.
You have not said no, but at every step you find a way to wriggle and move goalposts. Hopefully entirely innocent, but exactly how boutique suppliers get out of things when called. Esp your request now to have a second set of testing independent of anything SY does, and you attempt to discredit him as a neutral tester.
It's no sin to make an honest buck from audio, but doing audio and having no test equipment is a bit worrying.
Good, then let's get the test moving. The results will be the results, positive, negative, or ambiguous. Two of the same DACs suitable in your estimation for the mod, and whoever supplies them (you or anyone else) gets them back (with one of them modded). I'll even pay for parts cost for the mod.
Hi, thanks, I did see that and wonder. But nobody Down Under seems to sell them and they are rather more expensive than other options.
But I might have an alternative in a box lying nearby:
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
It comes with a cumbersome what-I-believe-is-called break-out box. I don't think I can fit that into the computer box, but I gather that it might be optional and the card works fine without it? If so, I should try it. Hopefully it hasn't been zapped as it has been stored rather crudely. But if it works, and without the break-out thingy, this might be it?
Cheers, Joe
EDIT: Oh, I think it might only be 24/96. Uses CS4382 DAC which is 24/192 though.
Last edited:
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/SBtestingmetodbyCreative_v1.0.pdf
some test results for the audigy.
some test results for the audigy.
Please don't blame me for wrong assumptions - I had nothing to do with that.
We always needed to find out what was needed to be tested, should have been obvious. Expecting vapor-ware was never going to cut it.
And once again I see my motives questioned - that's a bad habit here. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence, put yourself in my shoes, OK?
Gives me good reason to be cautious, a lamb among wolves.
Cheers, Joe
-
Of course you do, SY. It's long been obvious that you are not impartial on this topic. You have clearly and often asserted your doubt, even to the point of insinuating that Joe has disingenuous motivations. You have a stake in the final outcome, let's not pretend otherwise. To use a colorful colloquialism; you clearly have a dog in this fight.
Please Joe, understand that my background is medical, and in medicine is not only dishonest but illegal to sell something saying it has some effect without actually having proof that the thing does have such effect. And morally it's equally wrong in medicine and audio.
I get paid the same for a magazine article regardless of outcome (and trust me, it's not much, barely enough to cover my contribution to shipping and parts cost, AudioXpress and Linear Audio are not Stereophile in their budgets!). So let's not pretend there's a bias, other than one of expecting data to back up claims.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.