|
181
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: September 11, 2010, 03:46:13 pm
|
At using the digital attenuation the next thing which happens is that I "throw out" those bloodily created additional bits at Arc Prediction, with the result of AP not doing what it intended. That is, when I have to attenuate digitally 24dB (which is very normal for my modest 27dB gaining amps), I've thrown out 4 bits again ... What about using 32 bit floating point or 64 bit (the latter would require 64bit os probably but who cares? we are in 2011 already)? Anyway, waiting for the 8ch version with XO. |
|
|
|
|
183
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: HD choice for XXHighend
|
on: September 01, 2010, 07:18:52 am
|
When building my audioPC I choose for a 5400 RMP instead of a 7200 RPM HD.
Reasons: less power consumption, less heat, less sound, longer life but I also realized that it has less speed. I agree with you. it wont matter. The slowest HD is still much faster than the biggerst audio bitrate by 100s times. Now if you use a SSD for the OS disc is another matter... |
|
|
|
|
189
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: July 30, 2010, 10:54:05 am
|
Ad d
Although in passive analogue some things can be done about this, it is not the way to do it ... I think. Better solve this in the physical driver alignment. But if you're talking about a subwoofer ... it should be in the subwoofer (overall phase). Well, there are cases in which physical alignment can cause aesthetic issues. I dont need it i think, but it would be easy (i think) to implement and very useful for many, probably lossless (you tell me). About subwoofers, think about who DIY them and dont use very adjustable amps... i dont see many 2kw subwoofer amps and if there are, too expensive to buy rather than build (ok this is only my case which is rather an exception). About the EQ ... that is correct. But in the speaker filter (design) area it can't be avoided. But these should be parametric.
It's early to talk about it, but some drivers need some correction/EQ, yes parametric and with adjustable slope (Q). Not everyone can afford very expensive drivers with quite linear response, which are the MINORITY, anyway. Mechanical equalization like is done with the driver construction or the speaker construction (horn size/shape etc), baffle size/shape etc. is THE best, second is digital correction IMO. There was a very interesting opinion on a white paper from Harman international about speakers design and measurements and they differentiate the kind of adjustments needed because of the drivers/cabinet and because of the room. I know that you disagree on the second point, but the first... I do a notch filter in the digital domain, it requires higher attenuation than if i used a cap and a res... but i just didnt want to use them and the result has been defined "flat" (albeit is not in the HF, but nobody but me seems to hear them  ). |
|
|
|
|
190
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: July 29, 2010, 08:06:46 pm
|
Well, actually it can, and I thought about telling you this, but then I couldn't see a good solution in it. But, I only thought of the different levels for the XOver channels, and didn't see a good reason to change the individual level of them *after* the XOver filters have been defined. And so I never mentioned it. Your reason though is a most legit one. But factory set ? hmm ... how to do that ? of course, if you'd tell me what the difference in gain is, it could. But it would be the most dangerous, and fully dependend on your amps (and changes to them ... others later maybe ...). So, what I would propose in that case is to have an additional small trimpot at the output of one such a "stage" to control the individual attenuation, which would be as legit as the whole thing not being in the signal path, *if* it works in the first place. Changing the gain of a power amp is more difficult and often cause much worse sound. Doing it in the source would be just perfect. I would rather consider a jumper (internal) than another pot, since i wouldnt change in years. Bu yes of course it wont be in the signal path since itěs set as default by another mean. For factory set I meant set by you according to my needs (that i dont know yet haha). But for the 8 channel analogue stages, which as you know are not ready yet, it would be better to make that single ended from the ground up, which avoids the differential attenuation setup, so the 1600 drops to 800 again. This still allows for others to choose for balanced, if they only know it has its price. For me it doesnt matter if balanced or single ended, as long as SE sounds as good in the DAC part as balanced. |
|
|
|
|
192
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: July 29, 2010, 10:32:19 am
|
It will work with 8 channels allright, if you only multiply the costs with 4.  A kind of crazy, right ? Ahiahiahi, now i have to think about it a little bit. It'll depend on the base cost of the 8ch version which is not known yet, right? But tell me one thing, if there would be 4 pots, can you factory set to have a different default (i.e 0, -4db, 0, -8db) and then change all at the same time with the remote? This would cover the different gain of the amps in a totally transparent way (probably better than doing it in the digital domain like i do now). |
|
|
|
|
194
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: July 28, 2010, 04:47:57 pm
|
Ok, I have worked this out a bit, and there is positive news as well as somewhat negative news. The negative is that I now realize that this all operates in the differential (balanced) domain, so it takes 4 "channels" of this attenuation, meaning a price of near 400 euro. And no, "differential" means that I can't do only half when you'd want SE output only. The positive news is that this is relais controlled (no clickclicklcick), and uses 64 steps, for normal operation meant to be 1dB steps. In our application here this means the dB steps will be far less (maybe 1/3dB, but I have to find out what the useable range is). I just ordered one, but probably everybody will tell me that 400 euro really is too much for a stupid volume control. Oh well ...  Peter When I said 24 steps are too few, i was thinking about full output and each step of 1db each which is too coarse for me. But this way, 0,5db or less, and setting a reference volume in xxhe (maybe or maybe not for highres files), it would work for me, very well indeed. I have a question, though: will it work with 8 channels? I can have all balanced outputs for what i care of that ^^ The most important thing is that all steps have the same impedance output seen by the amp (which IS different than without it). 400 euro is fine by me - any decent pre costs more. The savings on cables alone is very much worth it. I'm really happy of this news. |
|
|
|
|
195
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ?
|
on: July 27, 2010, 11:25:33 pm
|
The way it is constructed allows me to parallal a 24 fixed (hence step) resistor (Vishay/Dale 0,1%) volume pot, with remote control. The kind of downside is that it "steps" and you will hear that at changing the volume (at low volume). By no way I can predict the result on SQ....
24 steps are way too few for me. But if it works good for SQ, maybe Peter can offer a more fine attenuator. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
