nanoSHARC kit from minidsp

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Just saw a new MiniDSP product for active crossovers with DSP.

www.minidsp.com/products/minidspkits/nanosharc-kit

While I am currently happy with a NAJDA DSP, I might add a FIR stage with this i2s in i2s out processor, that can also accept USB audio via XMOS chip. This last point makes it interesting in comparison to the miniSharc (which also does not have Toslink input). What I do not yet know is whether there will be plugins with mor than four output channels? Also its seems like it is not possible to connect a volume know etc. as with miniSHARC.
 
It looks like a nice addition but it will only work for a set of two way speakers. I find this too limited given the price, otherwise I would seriously consider this product.

I agree, that two ways is a bit too limited. But I am intrigued about a statement about 8 channel audio (the plugin obviously is not yet ready):

I2S inputs Up to 4 x I2S data line (8ch audio) / See plugin implementation for details
I2S outputs Up to 4 x I2S data lines (8ch audio) / See plugin implementation for details

See Product brief:
https://www.minidsp.com/images/documents/Product Brief-nanoSHARC.pdf
 
Sound quality is not as good as can be gotten from ES9038Q2M, IMHO. I have a pretty good idea from looking at the page for the dac boards they use in that box. AUDIOPHONICS DAC I-Sabre ES9038Q2M Raspberry Pi / I2S & SPDIF / PCM DSD - Audiophonics

If I am understanding your comment - by eye you are asserting that they are not maximising the capability of that DAC chip, is that right? But not necessarily asserting that it will sound bad?

You might well be right (and I'd guess that the PSU isn't the best available, nor the I2S clock) - but so what?

A DLCP hardware set if about €550 including VAT and the Ghent Audio case is about a further 300.

This unit has direct replay with an embedded Pi but that's hardly a big expense - but its in the same ballpark as DLCP and both are much cheaper than a Ground Sound DCN28 or the made-in-Australia part that escapes me.

Even if it is suboptimal, would you rather have those DACs and that PSU, or the Hypex DLCP? (Which is a 4+ year old design.)

Having something with an engineered case etc and just get on with things is handy - its bad enough engineering speaker cabinets, let alone aluminium electronics cases.

Of course - for the cost of the DLCP and case or near enough, you can have 2-off FA123 plate amps anyway. No replay from USB but I guess a decent AES or SPDIF interface can be had.
 
If I am understanding your comment - by eye you are asserting that they are not maximising the capability of that DAC chip, is that right? But not necessarily asserting that it will sound bad?

Yes, to the first question. Regarding the second question, sounding good or bad may be a very subjective matter. I can say it would probably sound bad to me, but can't say for anyone else.

Regarding value, the price may well be rather attractive for someone who needs are met by the unit. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have as many choices for such things as we might prefer, so maybe it is the best choice available.

Also, even if one didn't like the sound, one could perhaps hook up other dacs to it.

Again unfortunately, sometimes the only way for everyone to really find out about a product is for someone to buy one and tell everyone else about it. For that someone needs to be willing to try it. Good of you if you are willing to volunteer.
 
Really? Why?

I have done a lot of work with ES9038Q2M dacs. The one I modded over in the ES9038Q2M board thread is quite good, but I am not aware of a commercial offering of the same sound quality using that particular dac chip. However, Allo Katana prototypes have equaled it at times (not in the last tests though), and Katana 1.2 may surpass it, which would be the next iteration. Problem with Katana is that it runs in master mode which means it can't sync to an external clock source, whereas mine can. Anyhow, I have learned enough about those dacs to judge them pretty well just by looking at a picture. I look at the clock, power supplies, especially the AVCC supply, output stage, etc. I also look at peripheral chips, if present. Some now have CPLDs. I find an AK4137 makes a big difference. It all matters.

Anyway, if one listens critically to these things enough, it becomes difficult to ignore whatever remaining imperfections there may be. So, there are not many dacs that sound good to me anymore. One can get spoiled by the good ones.

I am always willing to say I find Benchmark DAC-3 to be a good one, at least until better ones come along.

Also, I don't think it is THD that makes dacs sound bad. There is dynamic modulation of the noise floor (which is audible to some people), IMD, clock jitter effects, etc., that seem to be a lot of what detract from ideal sound quality.

I wish I could tell people there are good $200 dac boards, or that a good one can be built without too much time and effort, but we just aren't there yet. Where we are is good commercial ones are expensive, and DIY can be done but it is a lot of work.

One big reason is that most people do not want better sound quality if they are able to spend a bit more for an upscale dac. What they want are more bells and whistles, nice cases, displays, remote controls, etc. They figure sound quality will be good enough. They don't know they figure wrong (presumably because they never heard a good enough system, and there are no more Hi Fi stores to go listen). Human nature to make assumptions and believe them to be facts, or so says the research.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I think the issue for many of us is price-performance. This is a DIY forum after all, and I guess most of us are not professionals with unlimited time or budget. Certainly I'd rate the opportunity cost to do something out of my sphere (which is software) very high - its bad enough cutting wood for cabinets.

The issue is really - is that (suboptimal and bad for you) DAC with the clock source provided in this case, likely to be better or worse than alternatives (that are available to us, not you) at a reasonable price?

I like this sort of thing because I can remove a preamp and cables.

I follow the I2S direct to power amp on the same grounds - if I could read digital sources in an RPi or micro-PC and do the crossover and volume with float or double bit depth and then pump multi-channel I2S direct to power amps (or pump at full volume and control the power amp gain from the RPi or an attached Arduino) then I figure that I'd remove more stuff, and less is more to some extent. So long as the clock is sane.

So tempting - just use HDMI and a receiver. Doh! Part of me says: its cost effective: allow the jitter and that you can get more from the budget this way. Its all a big fat compromise somewhere.

(I'm kinda resigned to software volume - but also rather relaxed so long as its at 24 or 32 bit depth: even the best 1% ladder attenuator systems are all over the place compared to that)
 
Last edited:
Nanosharc I2S in any luck?

I am asking for anyone who had success in using I2S in pins at the nanosharc board. Any success - whether being a Raspberry Pi or any other device? I cannot find anyone who has been using it?

The Nanosharc can only be master, with the following specifications:
Plugin sample rate (LRCLK) 96 kHz
Master clock (MCLK) 24.576 MHz
Bit clock (BCLK) 6.144 MHz
MCLK/LRCLK 256
BCLK/LRCLK 64

I was close to luck with a Hifiberry+ pro on a Raspberry, using the I2S out from that. I got sound but it did not work properly.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.