Tranquility, looking at the ESS "bit perfect" volume control caught my attention.
The literature you posted a link to is presented in a manner that, in my mind, tells half the story.
--> Using a 16bit DAC to implement D/A and volume is asking a lot of it. The obvious imitation being overall dynamic range.
--> Their paper makes a lot of using a 32bit internal DAC. Yes, I get it, mathematically at 35dB attenuation, a 32bit resolution set of data representing this will have bags of remaining dynamic range.
Here are a few questions the paper avoids:
- The precision (and related Spurious Free Dynamic Range) will be nothing like 32 bits. "32" is great marketing, but the number is not really relevant.
- Interestingly they did allude to the noise floor being -135dB, which is a much more relevant number, and not bad at that.
- The datasheet states S/N 135dB and THD -120dB, both of which are absolutely creditable and realistic.
- For the record, 135dB is about 22 bits.
Do the sums for a decent 24bit DAC, and you will find fairly similar results.
- A 24 bit DAC running at -35dB will at worst have errors of 3-4 ppm (let me go on record that I think talking in "PPM" is misleading), or something way down below -100dB.
What is the intent of the above rant?
- If you implement a volume control in either a 24 or 32bit DAC, then at any sensible level you will have masses of resolution to implement the volume function.
- For decent modern DACs, the SFDR of the DAC will support a volume control down to a good low level.
- You could do this for yourself in the DSP quite happily.
- Oh, I guess the message is I think that the SABRE data you pointed to is overstated: "Don't believe the hype"
As an aside:
- I have measured the performance of a number of DACS (CS4398 and a range of predecessors and Analogue Devices CODECS). These were all "24 bit" DACS, fed 24 bit data from a DSP. This is in a system using digital domain volume implementation. I didn't record the measured results, however the harmonics and overall signal to noise were low enough that I concluded the digital volume was not a problem with these devices and moved on.
- That said, the purist in me led to a number of tests on the PGA2310, 2320. I built a set of DACS using these on the output of a CS4398. It is extremely hard to measure the distortion at these low levels, but I did see evidence that the PGA2320 was increasing harmonic levels. The difficulty is that you need to be very specific about the load impedance you look at.
The literature you posted a link to is presented in a manner that, in my mind, tells half the story.
--> Using a 16bit DAC to implement D/A and volume is asking a lot of it. The obvious imitation being overall dynamic range.
--> Their paper makes a lot of using a 32bit internal DAC. Yes, I get it, mathematically at 35dB attenuation, a 32bit resolution set of data representing this will have bags of remaining dynamic range.
Here are a few questions the paper avoids:
- The precision (and related Spurious Free Dynamic Range) will be nothing like 32 bits. "32" is great marketing, but the number is not really relevant.
- Interestingly they did allude to the noise floor being -135dB, which is a much more relevant number, and not bad at that.
- The datasheet states S/N 135dB and THD -120dB, both of which are absolutely creditable and realistic.
- For the record, 135dB is about 22 bits.
Do the sums for a decent 24bit DAC, and you will find fairly similar results.
- A 24 bit DAC running at -35dB will at worst have errors of 3-4 ppm (let me go on record that I think talking in "PPM" is misleading), or something way down below -100dB.
What is the intent of the above rant?
- If you implement a volume control in either a 24 or 32bit DAC, then at any sensible level you will have masses of resolution to implement the volume function.
- For decent modern DACs, the SFDR of the DAC will support a volume control down to a good low level.
- You could do this for yourself in the DSP quite happily.
- Oh, I guess the message is I think that the SABRE data you pointed to is overstated: "Don't believe the hype"
As an aside:
- I have measured the performance of a number of DACS (CS4398 and a range of predecessors and Analogue Devices CODECS). These were all "24 bit" DACS, fed 24 bit data from a DSP. This is in a system using digital domain volume implementation. I didn't record the measured results, however the harmonics and overall signal to noise were low enough that I concluded the digital volume was not a problem with these devices and moved on.
- That said, the purist in me led to a number of tests on the PGA2310, 2320. I built a set of DACS using these on the output of a CS4398. It is extremely hard to measure the distortion at these low levels, but I did see evidence that the PGA2320 was increasing harmonic levels. The difficulty is that you need to be very specific about the load impedance you look at.
Last edited:
The ESS chip is a 24 bit payload processing capable circuit with a 32 bit internal processing depth structure. So, it's not a "32bit DAC", even if they unfortunately use this term themselves...
Ther is no relevance to speculate what any 32 bit would represent in the analogue domain (e.g. spurious, noise floor etc) as the extra bits (32-24) is used for internal computing/calculations made solely in the digital domain. Rounding/estimation errors of such calculations is relevant to speak of as they would manifest themselves as distorsion / noise in the analogue domain i.e. after the conversion of the resulting 24bit stream. Now, ESS claim that there is no such errors present in their digital "volume" implementation. I understand it as they are shifting the whole payload 24 bit word up or down in the 32bit space, affecting the output only by the static aspects of the low level performance of the 24 bit conversion - at full level, i.e. no attenuation, the volume function do nothing. I think it is very transparent and at least is for me means a system improvement as I have been able to remove a pre-amplifier. Its the net system result that counts
//
Ther is no relevance to speculate what any 32 bit would represent in the analogue domain (e.g. spurious, noise floor etc) as the extra bits (32-24) is used for internal computing/calculations made solely in the digital domain. Rounding/estimation errors of such calculations is relevant to speak of as they would manifest themselves as distorsion / noise in the analogue domain i.e. after the conversion of the resulting 24bit stream. Now, ESS claim that there is no such errors present in their digital "volume" implementation. I understand it as they are shifting the whole payload 24 bit word up or down in the 32bit space, affecting the output only by the static aspects of the low level performance of the 24 bit conversion - at full level, i.e. no attenuation, the volume function do nothing. I think it is very transparent and at least is for me means a system improvement as I have been able to remove a pre-amplifier. Its the net system result that counts
//
Last edited:
Yes at the output it may have 22 bits resolution and anything below that is buried in the noise floor. No different than analog processing with the same noise floor. The important bit is the internal arithmetic is 32 bits to start with and not 24 bits. This means that a 32 bit number attenuated by 16 bits or 90 dB still has 16 bits LSB to play with instead of 8 bits for a 24 bit DAC.
cheers
Agreed on all the above - and I would expect the DSP to be operating at well in excess of 24 bits.
Just remember that once that once you have attenuated the 32 bit data by 16 bits (90 odd dB) there is only 30dB above the noise floor. Oh, and the actual signal is so low you need specialised test gear to even find the signal is there!!!
I have used 32 bits in some software DSP I have done - purely because the ALU operates at 32 bits. I would have been happy with a few bits less - but what the hey. The real challenge hits you in implementing filters (particularly IIR) where some fo the coefficients become very close to one and also very small. Having those few extra bits and the right structure of maths is important then. Much less in the DAC.
Just remember that once that once you have attenuated the 32 bit data by 16 bits (90 odd dB) there is only 30dB above the noise floor. Oh, and the actual signal is so low you need specialised test gear to even find the signal is there!!!
I have used 32 bits in some software DSP I have done - purely because the ALU operates at 32 bits. I would have been happy with a few bits less - but what the hey. The real challenge hits you in implementing filters (particularly IIR) where some fo the coefficients become very close to one and also very small. Having those few extra bits and the right structure of maths is important then. Much less in the DAC.
Tranquility, this is almost exactly what I've been looking for; you can never have too much DSP bandwidth when using FIR filters for mulitway crossovers and room correction. I've had a miniSHARC or a Najda on my list as the core of my DSP-based crossover solution, but your product could be a much more integrated fit for what I'm looking for.
Quick questions and comments:
1. Would the I2S input support DSD (double DSD, in fact)? I believe the PS Audio I2S interface does support it?
2. I would not need/use the phono preamp section; I will already be using the PS Audio Nuwave Phono Converter which has the I2S outputs that I'd use for double-DSD
3. Would LOVE to see an HDMI input that would route PCM audio through the DSP for eq/crossover/etc.
4. What are your thoughts re: the SW and UI? Something similar to how miniDSP/miniSHARC is handled?
5. I like the idea of including AD and DA on the base offering, then also having expansion connectors to allow an upgrade path. I know I would like the option of tweaking with DAC's in the future, but want to get up and running right away with a base package.
Major kudos!
Quick questions and comments:
1. Would the I2S input support DSD (double DSD, in fact)? I believe the PS Audio I2S interface does support it?
2. I would not need/use the phono preamp section; I will already be using the PS Audio Nuwave Phono Converter which has the I2S outputs that I'd use for double-DSD
3. Would LOVE to see an HDMI input that would route PCM audio through the DSP for eq/crossover/etc.
4. What are your thoughts re: the SW and UI? Something similar to how miniDSP/miniSHARC is handled?
5. I like the idea of including AD and DA on the base offering, then also having expansion connectors to allow an upgrade path. I know I would like the option of tweaking with DAC's in the future, but want to get up and running right away with a base package.
Major kudos!
I did not know that PS Audio piped DSD down the I2S interface. Do you have anymore details on this ?
Currently the design handles DSD processing via the USB audio interface. It can process DSD64,DSD128 and DSD256 although this has only been simulated and not actually tested.
Should be no problems. See above.2. I would not need/use the phono preamp section; I will already be using the PS Audio Nuwave Phono Converter which has the I2S outputs that I'd use for double-DSD
You may like to try the built-in phono preamp because it makes use of the on-board Sabre ADC which would probably be a better spec device than what is in the Nuwave Converter. Also it would eliminate the conversion step from PCM to DSD inside the Nuwave converter as well as the conversion back to PCM which is necessary for processing by the DSP.
EDIT: I just read the manual for the Nuwave Phono converter and it states that the Phono EQ is done in the analog domain whereas I plan to do it in the digital domain which is much more accurate as well as handling a multitude of different EQ curves with software changes.
Well there is already a HDMI input to handle I2S audio so I'm not sure if this would be suitable for your needs.
I will start with something basic and then add to it based on requests
Currently there are no digital outputs specifically for running external DAC's but there is an external digital interface which is being used for the USB Audio interface board. It could easily be configured to drive external DAC's but you would have to forfeit the USB Audio interface. Perhaps another board design without the DAC's and a header might be more appropriate.
cheers
Last edited:
I discovered an issue today with my current DSP. Maximum time delay is limited to 10ms. I need twice to implement a double bass array system delaying the back woofers according to the length of the room divided by 343m/s. I also checked MiniDSP and it seems like their standard IIR platforms are limited to 9ms. MiniSharc however can delay each channel by up to 3000ms, way more than my need.
Just for info with regards to your development and variations in applications.
Another thing I would be happy to see is the possibility of using custom biquad parameters on IIR filters to enable use of any filter type (like e.g. allpass, Linkwitz transform and others I haven't though of).
Cheers,
Just for info with regards to your development and variations in applications.
Another thing I would be happy to see is the possibility of using custom biquad parameters on IIR filters to enable use of any filter type (like e.g. allpass, Linkwitz transform and others I haven't though of).
Cheers,
I don't have much specific detail, but PS Audio does specify that DSD output is supported through their "I2S interface protocol" connector in both standard (DSD64) and double-data rate (DSD128). My plan was to use this with I2S inputs an a miniSHARC
I will most certainly try out this feature, it sounds promising. If it has sufficient performance, I could possibly replace the Nuwave Phono Converter (NPC). The A/D section of the NPC uses a Burr-Brown PCM4222. They run it as a core DSD converter directly from analog, then if the user wants PCM output instead of DSD, they convert in digital domain. That's one reason I'm looking for DSD via I2S input in your system.
So your product will have a true HDMI input, separate from the PS Audio I2S interface connector? The PS Audio I2S interface is not a true HDMI interface (no handshaking, etc), it just uses a physical HDMI connector to carry the I2S signals.
I would only be looking to use other/future DAC's that use I2S inputs. My initial system was going to use BuffaloIII DAC's, but since that uses the ES9018, I would look at a different upgrade path for the long term.
I'm very much looking forward to hearing about your prototype testing, this is a good looking product for my project!
Will be able to easily accommodate the delays that you require
Also no problems with the custom biquads
cheers
david
Don't worry I will work it out
Currently the analog input board only supports MM cartridges. You would need a head amp or steup transformer for MC cartridges. I was going to add MC cartridge support but ran out of space for an extra relay and impedance selection switch.
I believe that the use of HDMI requires a license and payment of royalties or something along those lines. Perhaps there is a chip that simplifies it.
Yes no need for external DAC boards
cheers
Great product!
I think You are on to something here Tranquility Bass.
This is similar to what I am considering piecing together with my Buffalo III DAC kit. I was going to use the miniSharc for the DSP.
Now seeing your design as a finished board, I may want to assemble the Buffalo as a 2 channel DAC and plug it into the BNC coax output! 10 channels of DSP! ...room for a nice 4 channel surround system (you know, the kind with BIG line array speakers).
The determining factor in my case is the processing power difference between the two Sharc chips and cost.
Either way, You have a winner here, and I think the market is screaming for these kinds of products. I am waiting patiently for the Home Theatre Industry to start creating Dolby Atmos, DTS, etc decoders with channel dedicated digital outputs to plug into devices like this... You will be ready if and when they finally do.
Now the big question: How much are You expecting this current design to cost?
Allen
I think You are on to something here Tranquility Bass.
This is similar to what I am considering piecing together with my Buffalo III DAC kit. I was going to use the miniSharc for the DSP.
Now seeing your design as a finished board, I may want to assemble the Buffalo as a 2 channel DAC and plug it into the BNC coax output! 10 channels of DSP!
...room for a nice 4 channel surround system (you know, the kind with BIG line array speakers).The determining factor in my case is the processing power difference between the two Sharc chips and cost.
Either way, You have a winner here, and I think the market is screaming for these kinds of products. I am waiting patiently for the Home Theatre Industry to start creating Dolby Atmos, DTS, etc decoders with channel dedicated digital outputs to plug into devices like this... You will be ready if and when they finally do.
Now the big question: How much are You expecting this current design to cost?
Allen
Interested
I am interested in this board as well. Please let me know if you get this into production.
steve@rowlastudios.com
I am interested in this board as well. Please let me know if you get this into production.
steve@rowlastudios.com
Lots of work going on in the background. Thanks to the input and feedback from members I have made some changes and enhancements. Thanks to jcga for the step model of the Vampire Wire RCA connector. Also some suggestions have led to some brand new ideas which came to me out of left field
It always pays to get others opinions before blindly committing to a design It will be new-year before I send off the artwork to get boards made and proto-typed.Here is the current board line-up that I promised I would post.
Analog Audio Input Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Digital Audio Input/Output Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Power Supply Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Eight Channel Un-balanced Output Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Eight Channel Balanced Output Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
User Controls Board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Amanero isolated USB interface board
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I think You are on to something here Tranquility Bass.
This is similar to what I am considering piecing together with my Buffalo III DAC kit. I was going to use the miniSharc for the DSP.
Now seeing your design as a finished board, I may want to assemble the Buffalo as a 2 channel DAC and plug it into the BNC coax output! 10 channels of DSP!
The determining factor in my case is the processing power difference between the two Sharc chips and cost.
Either way, You have a winner here, and I think the market is screaming for these kinds of products. I am waiting patiently for the Home Theatre Industry to start creating Dolby Atmos, DTS, etc decoders with channel dedicated digital outputs to plug into devices like this... You will be ready if and when they finally do.
Now the big question: How much are You expecting this current design to cost?
Allen
I've been thinking about these things now that others have made suggestions in this area. I have some ideas on this but I will save the best till last
As for cost I cannot give a fair estimate now until I get a quote from the board loader. I just tell people don't expect mini-dsp prices but at the same time it will be a lot less than stuff you see at the Munich hi-end audio show
cheers
Last edited:
Thanks for the update
I'll take my hat off for all the work you have done so far. Impressive!
You have not made it easier for us to wait for your item to be finished and tested. As previously told you, I would be more than happy to contribute to your beta testing
Totally agree with ArtsyAllen regarding lack of such product in the marked. We do off course have DeqX, Trinnov, Lyngdorf, Groundsound etc. All good products but they are expensive and they all have their limitations wetter it comes to hardware implementation or software. With regards to diy the only solution that come in close is IMO MiniDSP MiniSharc with proper analog interfaces - but it demands a lot of the user to build one.
With a scalable hardware platform, a flexible software solution allowing the user to have full control of all parameters and a reasonable price tag, I believe you will eat them all for breakfast.
Wish you the best for the finalizing your project!
I'll take my hat off for all the work you have done so far. Impressive!
You have not made it easier for us to wait for your item to be finished and tested. As previously told you, I would be more than happy to contribute to your beta testing
Totally agree with ArtsyAllen regarding lack of such product in the marked. We do off course have DeqX, Trinnov, Lyngdorf, Groundsound etc. All good products but they are expensive and they all have their limitations wetter it comes to hardware implementation or software. With regards to diy the only solution that come in close is IMO MiniDSP MiniSharc with proper analog interfaces - but it demands a lot of the user to build one.
With a scalable hardware platform, a flexible software solution allowing the user to have full control of all parameters and a reasonable price tag, I believe you will eat them all for breakfast.
Wish you the best for the finalizing your project!
Wow!
I am even more fired up now!
Why should I "reinvent the wheel" piecing together my own digital speaker management system when it is so obvious that You, Tranquility Bass, are more gifted in this area. It will more then likely cost more for your product then it would for me to piece together my Buffalo, miniSharc and various output jacks and such (which add up quick). However, taking into account how feature packed your product is and the fact that the features are the relevant ones we audio buffs really want, I am thinking it would be worth waiting and saving the $$$$ for Yours. In fact, as Tytte71 pointed out, I can use the time it would have taken to figure out how to piece together one of these myself, and instead do some extra carpentry jobs on the side and buy yours! I actually enjoy building speakers and assembling well designed kits more then designing electronic components. Learning the electronics has been a necessary burden for me, as the market does not have what I want. They are too busy cramming their stuff with DNLA, limited use web browsers, Blue tooth, and the such. The audio quality seems to get lost...
Anyway, I digress...
Now seeing the Input, Output, and user interface boards, I am wondering if You will be providing pre-cut mounting plates for these to be installed in a hand crafted DIY chassis? (You could provide a ready made chassis also, at an extra cost, for those interested in simply assembling a completed product). How far "down the rabbit hole" are You willing to go?
Needless to say, I am excited to see the Best You are saving for last! I have a feeling this is going to be worth the wait.
Keep up the good work,
Allen
I am even more fired up now!
Why should I "reinvent the wheel" piecing together my own digital speaker management system when it is so obvious that You, Tranquility Bass, are more gifted in this area. It will more then likely cost more for your product then it would for me to piece together my Buffalo, miniSharc and various output jacks and such (which add up quick). However, taking into account how feature packed your product is and the fact that the features are the relevant ones we audio buffs really want, I am thinking it would be worth waiting and saving the $$$$ for Yours. In fact, as Tytte71 pointed out, I can use the time it would have taken to figure out how to piece together one of these myself, and instead do some extra carpentry jobs on the side and buy yours!
I actually enjoy building speakers and assembling well designed kits more then designing electronic components. Learning the electronics has been a necessary burden for me, as the market does not have what I want. They are too busy cramming their stuff with DNLA, limited use web browsers, Blue tooth, and the such. The audio quality seems to get lost...Anyway, I digress...
Now seeing the Input, Output, and user interface boards, I am wondering if You will be providing pre-cut mounting plates for these to be installed in a hand crafted DIY chassis? (You could provide a ready made chassis also, at an extra cost, for those interested in simply assembling a completed product). How far "down the rabbit hole" are You willing to go?
Needless to say, I am excited to see the Best You are saving for last! I have a feeling this is going to be worth the wait.
Keep up the good work,
Allen
I plan to put it in a nice cabinet myself so I'm waiting a little bit until all boards are frozen. Then I will start to draw everything and will show here how it could look...
Jean-Claude
HDMI possibilities....
Cool, I learned something today, and figured I would share, as others, like myself, who are not in the know, are wondering about the HDMI capacities of the I2S (aka LPCM) interface Tranquility is providing on this board.
I am sure everyone is wondering if we can use this board for multi-channel surround applications, like Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD and the such, via the HDMI input.
We certainly can, the trick is to decode the audio first. A lot of the HDMI receiver chips can accept an 8 channel (maybe more) high bit rate audio signal in I2S (aka LPCM) as Tranquility has mentioned. So if one has a Blu-ray player that has a built in Dolby or DTS decoder and can transmit the encoded raw signal LPCM over HDMI, then we can enjoy our surround sound like we have always wanted. I know the Oppo BDP103 and BDP105 can, and I am sure others can too. If you are like me, and run your Home Theatre through your PC or Mac, then all you need is an HDMI graphics card and software that decodes Dolby and DTS soundtracks. Power DVD and Total media Theatre are software packages capable of this. Of course I sure some AV receivers can do this also, but that is a little redundant, unless You wanted two rooms of surround sound!
I believe it would be possible for the HDMI input to receive a decoded Dolby Atmos signal also. Might be limited to a 5.1.2 setup, unless Tranquility can design this to accept 12 channels of hi-res audio. If this be the case, may need to figure out a way to parallel two or more of these boards together to have the ability to manage 7.1.4 multi-way speakers. For my room, 4.4.4 (front left, front right, back left, back right, 4 subs and 4 ceiling speakers) would be enough. 12 channels would do it. All I would need would be an additional SPDIF output on the existing design and build my Buffalo kit as a four channel. I am only throwing this out, as the nicer Dolby Atmos AVRs have twelve channels. (Of course the crazies out there are going to go for the 34 channel rigs!) I am thinking it would be good to have this board available for the 12 channel market. (8 channel DAC and 2 assignable stereo Digital outputs)
But even as the board stands now, the sky is the limit to the audio bliss we can achieve with it...
Allen
Cool, I learned something today, and figured I would share, as others, like myself, who are not in the know, are wondering about the HDMI capacities of the I2S (aka LPCM) interface Tranquility is providing on this board.
I am sure everyone is wondering if we can use this board for multi-channel surround applications, like Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD and the such, via the HDMI input.
We certainly can, the trick is to decode the audio first. A lot of the HDMI receiver chips can accept an 8 channel (maybe more) high bit rate audio signal in I2S (aka LPCM) as Tranquility has mentioned. So if one has a Blu-ray player that has a built in Dolby or DTS decoder and can transmit the encoded raw signal LPCM over HDMI, then we can enjoy our surround sound like we have always wanted. I know the Oppo BDP103 and BDP105 can, and I am sure others can too. If you are like me, and run your Home Theatre through your PC or Mac, then all you need is an HDMI graphics card and software that decodes Dolby and DTS soundtracks. Power DVD and Total media Theatre are software packages capable of this. Of course I sure some AV receivers can do this also, but that is a little redundant, unless You wanted two rooms of surround sound!
I believe it would be possible for the HDMI input to receive a decoded Dolby Atmos signal also. Might be limited to a 5.1.2 setup, unless Tranquility can design this to accept 12 channels of hi-res audio. If this be the case, may need to figure out a way to parallel two or more of these boards together to have the ability to manage 7.1.4 multi-way speakers. For my room, 4.4.4 (front left, front right, back left, back right, 4 subs and 4 ceiling speakers) would be enough.
12 channels would do it. All I would need would be an additional SPDIF output on the existing design and build my Buffalo kit as a four channel. I am only throwing this out, as the nicer Dolby Atmos AVRs have twelve channels. (Of course the crazies out there are going to go for the 34 channel rigs!) I am thinking it would be good to have this board available for the 12 channel market. (8 channel DAC and 2 assignable stereo Digital outputs)But even as the board stands now, the sky is the limit to the audio bliss we can achieve with it...
Allen
Actually,
Ha ha, I just realized that an 8 channel input on the HDMI would be enough for the 12 channel Atmos system I proposed. Four channels are sub-woofers and those can be created by this board from the main channels and I really would not need the extra digital output, as the subs can be paired as left and right or front and back. So needless to say, the board would work as is for the system I desire. Just need to find a software based Dolby Atmos decoder for my PC! I think I am going to be waiting awhile for that one! Yet I can see the gaming industry benefiting from concepts like Atmos. Games are already based on object based sound objects, so...
Bottom line, is this board has a lot of potential...
Time to get some sleep!
Ha ha, I just realized that an 8 channel input on the HDMI would be enough for the 12 channel Atmos system I proposed. Four channels are sub-woofers and those can be created by this board from the main channels and I really would not need the extra digital output, as the subs can be paired as left and right or front and back. So needless to say, the board would work as is for the system I desire. Just need to find a software based Dolby Atmos decoder for my PC! I think I am going to be waiting awhile for that one!
Yet I can see the gaming industry benefiting from concepts like Atmos. Games are already based on object based sound objects, so... Bottom line, is this board has a lot of potential...
Time to get some sleep!