tiroth said:
I'm running out of ideas. It might be time to try another / newer AD1896 or SRC4192.
Brian.
AD1865:
I agree with your premise that the ultimate approach is to avoid ASRCs altogether. An ideal system would be designed so that there is a single low jitter clock by the DAC, distributed to the sources, with the data buffered and reclocked near the DAC.
On the other hand, that approach isn't always practical for DIY when modifying existing commercial units. ASRC certainly offer a high level of convenience when interfacing between varying devices.
Especially being a newer technology, the spec. sheets for these devices probably are missing some characteristics that affect the sound quality. The specs. that are published, however, I find to be quite impressive.
Convenience and specifications aside, my subjective impression of the AD1896 has been entirely favorable. In some cases, I've heard little or no improvement. In others (especially upsampling 44.1KHz CDs) I've been very surprised at the level of improvement in clarity and detail that I hear. This seems particularly true of softer sounds and at higher frequencies. A common thing I've noticed on many recordings has been the ability to hear the breathing of a vocalist or wind player where it had been completely masked before. I haven't found a technical explanation that fully explains why this occurs. The best idea I've been able to come up with is that some recordings have information that is statistically dithered below the word size and sample rate that an ASRC is somehow able to recover. Jitter attenuation offered by these devices has been stated. The change in the low-pass output filter allowed by the higher sampling rate could also be a factor.
I have yet to find a case where the AD1896 caused something to sound subjectively worse. I also haven't found any case where the AD1896 made any change to the imaging, depth, or tonal balance of the sound. I wouldn't be surprised to find that another person, or perhaps a different sound system might find the AD1896 to have certain sonic deficiencies, but I do have to take exception to the notion that the AD1896 sounds like garbage.
I suspect that most of the people on this thread, like myself, are new to ASRC devices. At this point our main concern is simply getting experience with them and also making comparisons to different devices as they become available.
My experience so far has been very rewarding.
Regards,
Brian.
I agree with your premise that the ultimate approach is to avoid ASRCs altogether. An ideal system would be designed so that there is a single low jitter clock by the DAC, distributed to the sources, with the data buffered and reclocked near the DAC.
On the other hand, that approach isn't always practical for DIY when modifying existing commercial units. ASRC certainly offer a high level of convenience when interfacing between varying devices.
Especially being a newer technology, the spec. sheets for these devices probably are missing some characteristics that affect the sound quality. The specs. that are published, however, I find to be quite impressive.
Convenience and specifications aside, my subjective impression of the AD1896 has been entirely favorable. In some cases, I've heard little or no improvement. In others (especially upsampling 44.1KHz CDs) I've been very surprised at the level of improvement in clarity and detail that I hear. This seems particularly true of softer sounds and at higher frequencies. A common thing I've noticed on many recordings has been the ability to hear the breathing of a vocalist or wind player where it had been completely masked before. I haven't found a technical explanation that fully explains why this occurs. The best idea I've been able to come up with is that some recordings have information that is statistically dithered below the word size and sample rate that an ASRC is somehow able to recover. Jitter attenuation offered by these devices has been stated. The change in the low-pass output filter allowed by the higher sampling rate could also be a factor.
I have yet to find a case where the AD1896 caused something to sound subjectively worse. I also haven't found any case where the AD1896 made any change to the imaging, depth, or tonal balance of the sound. I wouldn't be surprised to find that another person, or perhaps a different sound system might find the AD1896 to have certain sonic deficiencies, but I do have to take exception to the notion that the AD1896 sounds like garbage.
I suspect that most of the people on this thread, like myself, are new to ASRC devices. At this point our main concern is simply getting experience with them and also making comparisons to different devices as they become available.
My experience so far has been very rewarding.
Regards,
Brian.
I will make a new DAC
Brian Brown:
If you have compared the pictuer to its magnified picture you will see the magnified picture can't recover the original details which the first picture havn't. The SRC can't recover more than input inf.I believe AD1896 is garbage because it broken the original sound not only it sounds bad.Someone maybe like the
smooth and more "detail" sound,but i don't. If you hear AN dac you will know what oranginal sound replayed is.But if you like AD1896's sound,of course you can use it.
I will make a new DAC with PCM1704,PCM63, AD1865, DIR1703, CS8414 and so on. I prefer R-2R DAC becuae the sound
is more real,the density of the sound is the best.I also will use
SRC4192.
regards,
markamp
Brian Brown:
If you have compared the pictuer to its magnified picture you will see the magnified picture can't recover the original details which the first picture havn't. The SRC can't recover more than input inf.I believe AD1896 is garbage because it broken the original sound not only it sounds bad.Someone maybe like the
smooth and more "detail" sound,but i don't. If you hear AN dac you will know what oranginal sound replayed is.But if you like AD1896's sound,of course you can use it.
I will make a new DAC with PCM1704,PCM63, AD1865, DIR1703, CS8414 and so on. I prefer R-2R DAC becuae the sound
is more real,the density of the sound is the best.I also will use
SRC4192.
regards,
markamp
YES, THE bypass function in ad1896 is meaningless! i can hear any different! and the LRCLK and BCK are the same freq as up sampled.
and have you all tried src4192? can it do the "bypass" function?
and have you all tried src4192? can it do the "bypass" function?
Re: I haven't tryed SRC4192
all,
I tested the SRC4192, it is a great device, listen more detail than before.
Which device I use?
I simple put it on to replace the Ad1896 in Philips DVD-963SA.
PS: The original 963SA is using AD1895.
My SRC4192 is not the sample from TI, I bought 20pcs from TI through the distributor.
Regards,
nFORCE
all,
I tested the SRC4192, it is a great device, listen more detail than before.
Which device I use?
I simple put it on to replace the Ad1896 in Philips DVD-963SA.
PS: The original 963SA is using AD1895.
My SRC4192 is not the sample from TI, I bought 20pcs from TI through the distributor.
Regards,
nFORCE
I think there are some stringent requirements for the bypass function to operate. i.e. the output clocks must be syncronous to the input clocks. In output master mode I assume this means the ratio must be set appropriately via MCLK and MMODE_X. In most cases this will not be possible, but if your design is flexible enough you can try it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.