Hypex UcD AS2.100

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#255
Is AES/EBU digital audio input of PSC2.400 compatible with SPDIF output which comes with my sat receiver?

Which link is the better sounding solution? Analog link by amplifier output or digital link by AES/EBU?

Ruediger
 
#256
Matthijs_Hypex said:
There are a couple of programs that can create the impulse file which can be imported into the Hypex filter program, I will post them tomorrow because today I am working at home.
But we are going to build a import function for .frd files, there files are more common.
Click to expand...

Which program do you recommend for measurement files?

Important is to compensate the errors of microphone frequency response by a microphone calibration file. HOLMimpulse is a freeware tool which deliver this feature. Please check whether the maesurement data format is compatible with Hypex.

HOLMimpulse download HOLM Acoustics

Ruediger
 
#258
I want to get either the AS2.100 or the PSC2.400 but am still undecided which one would suit me better. I don't need the subout of the AS and prefer the balanced operation of the PSC, but don't really need the power of the bigger module. That's also what worries me a bit about the PSC: I will run the modules digitally and have very sensitive drivers, meaning I would only need a fraction of the PSC's power. How would that affect the signal quality? If I run a PSC at very low volumes in the digital domain there will only be a few bits left at the amps. It's been said that dithering is the key, but that would need to be a LOT of dithering, if a 400W amp is only outputting, say, 2W. That's why I'm leaing towards the AS2.100 although I prefer the feature set of its bigger brother. Any comments on this? How does the PSC2.400 handle very low signals?
 
#259
Vathek said:
I want to get either the AS2.100 or the PSC2.400 but am still undecided which one would suit me better. I don't need the subout of the AS and prefer the balanced operation of the PSC, but don't really need the power of the bigger module. That's also what worries me a bit about the PSC: I will run the modules digitally and have very sensitive drivers, meaning I would only need a fraction of the PSC's power. How would that affect the signal quality? If I run a PSC at very low volumes in the digital domain there will only be a few bits left at the amps. It's been said that dithering is the key, but that would need to be a LOT of dithering, if a 400W amp is only outputting, say, 2W. That's why I'm leaing towards the AS2.100 although I prefer the feature set of its bigger brother. Any comments on this? How does the PSC2.400 handle very low signals?
Click to expand...

The most important thing to rectify here is the notion that you need "a lot" of dither. There is *only one* correct level of dither and it relates to the size of the LSB. It is not signal-dependent. So once you have 1LSB dither in place, all quantisation noise sounds like analogue noise, with no loss of "resolution" whatsoever. You just get a steady hiss, just like in the analogue world.
Actually, since all converters are 24-bits but are rated in the 100dB SNR range, the analogue noise fully dominates anyway, by several orders of magnitude in fact. SNR fully accounts for what you hear.

Having said that, extremely efficient drivers will make the background hiss noticeable. If we had to design the PSC/AS modules for use with very efficient drivers we'd have had to use much lower noise converters, which would put the modules in an entirely different price bracket altogether. So your intuitions about efficient drivers are correct insofar as noise is concerned. As far as loss of digital resolution is concerned, that problem is nonexistent in these modules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom