XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
April 30, 2024, 12:27:11 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: August 6, 2017 : Phasure Webshop open ! Go to the Shop
Search current board structure only !!  
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 [922] 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 ... 1047
13816  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ? on: November 30, 2008, 09:48:15 pm
You need to send this to me for, ah hmm, evaluation.
(ya, that's the ticket)

Not necessary. You'll accept it blindly. Happy
But honestly, yeah, I'd dare to invest the time of building, send it yo you, pay for the shipping charges, and be sure it won't come back.
A kind of Internet means btw, because how else to judge products from far away countries without a local distributor and dealers ?
What goes with it, would be a "maybe some other user tried this very product before you" and each scratch would allow for some discount.
13817  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: World's first NOS 24/192 filterless DAC ? on: November 30, 2008, 09:39:09 pm
Very interesting!
[...]
BUT: With no filter, there will be a lot of HF noise at the sampling frequency, and above. This noise can be quite stressful for wideband amplifiers. Also it will create IM distortion at audible frequencies. Do you have the possibilty to measure this noise?

Yes, but it won't be different from what you are used to (at 44.1). But still it is so that with the filter it sounds less good/natural.
Just take a look at what manishandher produced by means of (RME's) Digicheck which is just about that. As commonly known, nos DACs should not be "measured".
Not an excuse of any kind, but just the net result of filtering which debets to the sound. As I say it : not filtering makes all "snappier" (or more dynamically if you want), but also more natural.

Btw, don't confuse the "HF noise" you mention with HF noise as the left over of downsampling from a higher sample rate. This sure is *not* anything you'd like at all, and this happened for XX at downsampling from 352800 to 176400 at first, which really needs a filter (the AA filter as is there since). This is important, because nothing in there (the DAC) is downsampling again. Not at oversampling (to 210 KHz) and not at nos.
13818  Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / World's first NOS 24/384 filterless DAC on: November 30, 2008, 08:03:57 am



Edit, May 2011 :

I just changed the title for its "24/192" part into "24/384", because this is of course what the Phasure NOS1 DAC turned out to be.
I also removed the question mark about 24/192 being the first NOS filterless DAC, because by now we really know it didn't exist. As it still doesn't if we count out the NOS1 (which of course is filterless at all sample rates).

Also, the topic has been moved from the Chatter board to the Phasure NOS1 DAC board.

For those who are new, well, you can try to read it all through, because it really shows the history of how someone like me started to produce D/A converters, which after over two years ended up in the very best DAC existing at this time. Not because I say so, but because by now it replaced all the great names people owned, them people usually gaining a fair net amount of money after putting their old DACs to eBay.
You may ask for your DAC to be potentially replaced whether it has (you could do it in this topic), and or I'll wait a few days for the now NOS1 owner to respond himself but will answer myself if nothing pops up, or I will respond right away if I know it's a "new" one.

Anway, of course all ended up in a DAC which uses completely uncommon technology (interface, less is more approach with hardly anything in the signal path, no switches, NON-oversampling which measures as good as OS but showing the *real* figures, in-software filtering (e.g. by means of XXHighEnd), really zero in-DAC filtering, special differential setup of the 8x PCM1704U-K chips with better figures than even the chips themselves, super low noise and jitter levels) ... all from an external DAC.

But maybe it is more efficient to start reading somewhere at the back of this topic. Happy

Lastly for here in this edited first post, maybe it's nice so see some new posts in this topic, because it has been a great time throughout creating it with many of us, still having the nice memories about it. Or maybe I will add some newbies to the topic myself later ...

Regards,
Peter




Guys,

I must be honest with you. I have been working on other things than software lately ... Happy
See below, which as far as I know is the first 24 bit 192KHz DAC explicitly assembled for non oversampling and filterless mode. prankster
36 hours ago the champagne was opened because it produced sound for the first time.


Some technical insight for those interested :

- Balanced passive I/V conversion by means of two balanced DACs (PCM1704) per channel as the base;
- Balanced or RCA out;
- Output 1.5 VRMS (2 VRMS possible);
- Possibility for oversampling to 211KHz with 1.2ps RMS total jitter;
- Possibility for filtering (2 pole Bessel 100KHz);
- Drives long interlinks sufficiently to avoid a pre-amp or other means of buffer;
- S/PDIF connected, and due : directly Firewire connected without soundcard into I2S;
- Terminals for an external clock;
- The most stable shunt regulated power supply imagineable, both channels completely separated throuhgout;
- Everything operating in pure Class A;
- Housing : WxDxH : 43 x 26 x 8.5 cm = 17.2 x 10.4 x 3.4 " worth of 15Kgs weight;
- The various elements not designed by me, but chosen as *the* combination for the best DAC ever (so 1 % credit for me really innocent);
- Name I dedicated to this combination : NOS1.


You may ask yourself : Can I build this too ?
If you are like me, forget it. I drove various people to complete madness and received some burnouts myself. swoon
Anyway, it took me over a year thinking about it and "designing" various concepts, 7 weeks throughput of ordering modules and parts, three weeks of understanding, building and getting more parts, and occupuying the dinner table. The (programming of the) Firewire connection still to do.

Background

I didn't start this project well over a year ago to perceive better sound, and I was very happy with my current NOS 18 bit 96KHz DAC (the TwinDAC+). However, since the hires material is on the horizon closer and closer, including the *fact* that a pre-amp should be avoided encouraging for digital volume control - that by itself taking out bits, I got obessed of wanting more. Technically more.
Being a convict of non oversampling filterless DACs, I ran into a problem : 24 bit 192KHz DACs do not exist.
Many months of thinking and designing brought me the concept of a 32 bit 384KHz DAC completely software realtime controlled (yep, the firmware part), of which the hardware arrived May 2008. But after I squeezed out the first sines from it, I coulnd't find enough time for it. swoon

While I started this off thinking 32 bits would be needed for a proper digital volume control, underway I created the digital volume for XXHighEnd which very sufficiently operates at 18 bits or even 16 when the output voltage of the DAC isn't too high and the gain of the amplifier isn't too much. This brought me to again searching the internet and it came to me that the PCM1704 should theoretically be able to do the job, but nobody just made something out of it. Or ?
For over a month I had bookmarked a company which expressed specs that looked promising but kind of vague in the mean time. I kept on coming back to this because there wasn't anything else and in the end I started to send an email to that company ...

Ok Peter, why don't you mention the name of that company ?

This is a strange story, and possibly I can't even justify it 100%, but I have the feeling that right now this company shouldn't receive dozens of emails from you guys asking away because they just can't bear it. Maybe later, but not right now. This is all my fault and prices would double instantly ... blush1
People who know me, will know that the occasions I asked someone for help in my professional life can be counted on one hand. Until one month ago that was. Right now, some email boxes have been overflown, just because I started some DIY project with modules provided as kits and a withgoing FAQ that says all is for skilled people only. Hmm ...
Add to that this isn't about a "DAC kit" as such, but a couple of modules which makes it a DAC. Add to *that* again that I asked for modifications which were politely met, but that these functional modifications ended up in technical stuff beyond my knowledge, and no existing manual could explain to me how to deal with things. Just being honest here ... whistle

So even if you know what company this is about, please don't go there right now, and if you indeed know, you also know this is related to respect. I'm sure you will understand in a later stage ...

First listening impressions (with 0.9w-3 and which is theoratically not the best (thing to do))

Since rather many combinations of settings exist, all with their own merits, right now it is rather hard to determine what is the best setting. But no matter what setting I tried ... it is one big step ahead in audio playback. To mention a few things I definitely recognize (just 16/44K1) :

  • Enourmeously increased resolution.

    This is unrelated to the higher samplerate (because I'm just not using that right now) and also this is unrelated to the nos/filterless principle;
    It is related to the enormeous stability of the PSU, which, mind you, must deal with such small voltages (.0001 etc. mV). And, knowing that creating 1V of output here easily degrades the .0001mV output there, you will know what this is actually about, hence what I was after.
    Also, of course I know how accurately things were trimmed by me, but more importantly : how accurately they *can* be trimmed by design.

    Cymbals now receive an additional dimension, which I generally express as : now you can see the size of the cymbals much better. Also, compared to reality (live cymbals) it comes creapily close now.

  • A bass response of which I didn't think it was possible.

    For the first time in my life I "heard" a powerful bass response as how we all perceive the large heavy amplifier being able to produce good bass response. We all know that the latter is non-sense, since the class D and other 100g chipamp stuff can do it just the same. What I did not know is how a very good PSU for a DAC incurs for the same but in exponential form. But it can well be that it is the other way around from what I sad right above : the small voltage spikes needed for the higher frequencies won't tear down the more current eating bass waves (never mind this all occurs at micro levels). That the I/V (current to voltage) conversion occurs in a high current domain is another thing that for sure contributes.

    As everyone I use a bunch of test tracks and throughout the subwoofers speak where they did not before. This is the most occurring, because - apart from XXHighEnd anomalies as some may recall - usually this comes together with a more profound "just low bass" region (say 40-200 Hz) while right now there is no spur of this. Oh, the bass is more profound allright, but it doesn't incur for any colouration or the tempt to change the cross over. It is just all good good good.

  • Compared to hires it is now an apples with apples comparison.

    Since this DAC allows for NOS/Filterless at the higher resolutions, I now can compare 16/44K1 with 24/96 and 24/192 without having to hop over to a oversampling sigma delta DAC.
    I sure did not recognize any different nature at the higher resolutions (tried 192 as well), but I also did not perceive it as better. This latter is not meant to be related to the DAC but merely is a confirmation of what I already though before but couldn't prove (apples and oranges thing) : redbook (hence 16/44K1) seems to suffice and any higher samplerate plus bitdepth doesn't bring more to our brains. Something for another discussion !

  • There's an unary "experience" listening to my speakers now, and I don't know how to put it into words yet.

    It is not "black" as we often hear or experience, but in that area. An "emptyness" maybe. A being swallowed by the music, you being in that black hole. It's not a negative, but a strange one. Again things are happening in mid air (I talk about this more often), but now they more happen in 3D while not being able to point at it.
    It sprung to my mind that bass is more directive as ever (I use subwoofers in stereo setup) and besides that the veils from drums suck on you. The latter is again not a negative, but at trying to express what I feel, this has to be in the equation somehow. Hmm ... it could well be that absolute phase is wrong (just change it in XXHighEnd of course), which btw *is* very well possible because of the various taps which can be used, and each "stage" inverts the absolute phase.
    Anyway, it looks that the "boost" of music is more profound now, where boost becomes inverted boost (suck) when indeed the absolute phase is wrong.

  • Very good micro detail at the larger instruments.

    This may sound strange and also looks similar to the beforementioned higher resolution, but I am fairly sure this is about the inheritent speed of the DAC (about slew rates and such, possibly even feedback yes).
    Under "increased resolution" I talked about the other dimension in cymbals, and here I talk about yet another dimension : the attack of cymbals. Ok, maybe you must have the experience of holding a drum stick a couple of times, but when a drum stick hits a cymbal this doesn't need to be one surface touch. I mean : when a ride cymbal is "ridden" this *is* one touch only, but when a smash cymbal is hit, before the stick goes away the cymbal hits the stick again. It is this which just is audible now.

    Brushes, even more delicate and far worse to express properly as I found lately, can't avoid the "feedback" of a cymbal and snare (or tom). That too is audible now, though not exactly in the leage of the "larger instruments". I mean this opposite to the more commonly known detail like breath in a flute or sax. So it is not about this.
    Similar IMO is the wood of a bass becoming audible. I hear you say "man, I heard this long time". But no, I don't think you did. I know my abouts, and this is in another leage. This is about jitter (in good combination with the other virtues of this DAC);

    I don't know whether it is a world record, but the overall jitter of 1.2ps seems to incur for what I just described. Why do I think that ?
    Because this low jitter only can be achieved in oversampling mode of the DAC and it is there where this is happening. This is *not* because of the oversampling itself hence impeeding higher "resolution", because at least I claim to know that oversampling only degrades. And for sure it won't "create" the beauties I hear here. If that would be so, XXHighEnd could do it just the same, and it can't.

    All 'n all this subject is not really honest, because it uses oversampling mode which net I don't like. It colours the music, and all starts to sound similar because of it. Nothing different from what I was used to.
    But for the more or less solution, the direct Firewire connection comes into play, because that will incur for less jitter because of the I2S connection beind it. And to get the real merits of this : at non oversampling mode the DAC depends on the clock of the incoming data. At oversampling mode this is just unrelated ... secret



Might you want to know : none of the modules I used, emerged from more or less known DIY projects as known from e.g. DIYAudio. I can tell you that each single part was designed from highly qualified engineers and that the designs themselves testify high quality engineering. Not that "DIY engineering" wouldn't be any good or the engineers being out there are not trustworthy for their profession, but what I have here contains all the consistent knowledge of the most qualified people imagineable, for whom I make a deep bow. thankyou

This is not a matter of simple is less, and looking at the picture below I can tell you that the DAC (ok, SMD) comprises 1/25th of the total PCB surface. 24/25 comprises of PSU stuff and getting the output current from the DAC into the output terminals.
Oh, I didn't count all the switches needed for the various input and output settings.
13819  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your questions about the PC -> DAC route / Re: Newbie questions. on: November 30, 2008, 05:00:51 am
Hi twystd,

I'd say the 150 and 300 connection just can't matter to sound. Not that I have heard of and not that I can ever imagine how.

Be careful with the bluetooth keyboard, because again that is an ever "sending/receiving" thing full of interrupts. I would not do that, unless it was proven to be harmless (and not the other way around). This counts for every similar thing like infrared and wifi. E.g. I have wifi, but the access point certainly isn't connected to the audio PC (nor does that have a wifi connection itself).

Peter
13820  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Fireface drivers and firmware on: November 29, 2008, 08:47:35 am
Ah that ...
I never use that feature either, because it would be an out of control thing. So, back to the "old" one. Yeah, but which one was that ?
This nerd too saves everything himself. Now he can nicely pick too.
13821  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Fireface drivers and firmware on: November 28, 2008, 11:00:56 pm
Of course, why not ? If you can only find the previous version somewhere ...
13822  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Fireface drivers and firmware on: November 28, 2008, 06:32:58 pm
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_downloads.php?page=content/downloads/en_downloads_driver&subpage=content/downloads/en_downloads_driver_fireface

Yes, it can happen that SQ is influenced, although this is not the intention (I assume).
I'm using 2.89 myself.

Be careful that the latest version could use new firmware; which firmware a driver version needs is usually indicated in a with the driver withgoing txt file.

Good luck !
Peter

13823  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your questions about the PC -> DAC route / Re: Newbie questions. on: November 25, 2008, 05:43:36 pm
Quote
Do you think this is a good application, now that you know how I intend on using it?

No ... Happy
But for net result it is another thing of course. So net you may be better off now. Optimal is another thing. Otoh it is a kind of given fact for your setup (hence the DAC).
Just carefully listen to the pros and cons of each situation (with / without the extender).

It is all not *that* easy of course ! prankster

Peter
13824  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your questions about the PC -> DAC route / Re: Newbie questions. on: November 25, 2008, 03:06:32 pm
Well, first of all I am kind of specifically around to help out *anyone*, but this is not always an easy task and may require patience on "your" side. Also, while XXHighEnd started to be as simple as possible for everyone, it turned out into something which is now more complex than I want, but, for the good cause of better sound quality.
Anyway, don't be afraid to ask and don't dare to feel stupid about it !

Having said this, I don't see much wrong with your current setup, including the firewire connections to the hdds (instead of USB).
I don't know about that USB extender, and generally (!) devices like that do not make sound better.
Btw, you do know that USB length can be 10 meters easily ? as long as the DAC is not powered by it. And if so, you could provide your own power means.
Btw, what is the reason to use the extender anyway ? I suppose your PC is located near the audio equipment, and the 8" monitor is fed with the longer cable ? (can be 15 meters easily with the proper cable, and the USB connection you might need (touch) for that can be extended in many ways, as you will know).

The version of Vista doesn't matter, but if it does I didn't hear it from anyone in here.
One thing might come handy (sometime later) : Only business and ultimate allow for RDC (Remote Desktop Connection), meaning that you could have a small laptop on the coffee table with wifi connection to the main PC, and control everything (this connection is not audio related).
(I think I told this in an earlier post, twystd related).

Quote
Finally, do you think a person that has good Internet skills and a good understanding of XP, but knows nothing of programming, can utilize XXHighend successfully, and do you think the computer equipment is enough to fully utilize XXHighend?

Today I say yes, but tomorrow that may change. Many things are going on, and we keep on learning.
It works the other way around as well : requirements get less, like the memory which is allowed to be lower since the last version (0.9w-3).

Currently I advise to use 0.9v-7 which sounds better than above mentioned version. But I'm working on that.

Anything else ? ask away.
Peter
13825  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: V6a vs. W3 SQ on: November 25, 2008, 12:58:37 pm
Thanks very much Russ. I hope to have it ready soon.
13826  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Glitches on my Dell (Not XX related) on: November 24, 2008, 01:12:58 pm
Quote
I think I went for the option of 'run as administrator', but I will check.

If you are satisfied with that, it is as good. But generally it is more hustle, especially when you need more programs to behave the same (say, like what is needed for XXHighEnd).

Quote
If I uninstall a program and it turns out to be critical, I need a contingency. Is it possible to first transfer a copy of a program to an external hard drive for possible recovery if required.

Usually when you are as far as being able to uninstall the particular software, you'll know where it is on disk either and what starts it up.
It is suffcient to rename the program, or, say, all the EXEs in there (you could rename them to EXXs).
I'm not talking about the software which lists under "software" (via Control Panel), and I'm not even sure whether you will be able in an easy fashion to locate it (needed for copying or the renaming again for that matter).

Please note that when software is removed the unofficial way (like the renaming would incur for) you may receive errors (e.g. after booting) of other parts of software addressing the "removed" software. Don't be afraid of this, and or set the program back (rename back) or try to localize the software which addresses the now removed software and remove *that*. The latter is the better solution ofbviously, for software which you don't want in the first place. But keep in mind the possibility that you will be able to track all down to a certain extend, which leaves you with the errors (could be one or two after a boot) or you have to revert the removal of the whole chain.
In any case, administer what you are doing, which makes reverting -if necessary- easy.

Peter

13827  Ultimate Audio Playback / XXHighEnd Support / Re: Glitches on my Dell (Not XX related) on: November 24, 2008, 11:57:53 am
Hey Chris,

Regarding the things I can answer :

UAC can be found at Startbutton, Control Panel, User Accounts, Turn User Account Control (UAC !) on or off.
But you probably have done that long time ago because I created a topic about it back then.

Whether you have to remove programs from the PC depends on how persistent they are at restarting themselves at a next reboot. No general guidelines here, because it depends on the programs themselves. Especially laptops are prone to have lots of unnecessary stuff.

Btw, I would never go the route of installing a fresh Vista (if I were you) because each manufacturer adds his own propriatary drivers and things, and again with laptops this is excessive. This means that after such a fresh install (of a general Vista version ! -> otherwise it makes no sense in the firts place) you won't even have (e.g.) network access (propriatary ethernet driver is lacking) and you really have to be inventive to get all things, piece by piece, going. Note that everything will be downloadable from the internet, but *what* to download takes some experience (or name it skills). A good option would be to know in advance what you will need, which in the end may come down to saving the stuff concerned, in order to reload that as the first thing when something is running.
But nea better don't do it !

On the "Peter tweaks" Happy ... since I have the english version running now, I will redo the pictures in English. Ehh, sometime when I can find some spare time.

Be careful with "super anti spyware" and such, because ususally they work counterproductive (generate I/O's, stall the system). Besides that, you'll only know once you bought them and it makes hardly sense to listen to others because most people just can't judge it. I'd dare say though that if someone in here has an advise on this, it should be trustworthy.

Peter
13828  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: V6a vs. W3 SQ on: November 24, 2008, 09:59:58 am
Btw., whats with the parental text filter the site has going?

Hahaha, I installed that right in the beginning (May 2007 I think) being afraid of people shouting at me all over. dancing

I guess it can go with such a bunch of nice people ...
13829  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: V6a vs. W3 SQ on: November 24, 2008, 09:29:20 am
During the bad times I encountered the past weeks, I many times though of turning down my highs. But I know that would be a wrong thing to do, so I did not.
Same as that I wanted to turn down the bass. Didn't do that either.
I would be a wrong way of tweaking, knowing that these things have been good "always".

Right now the only thing which may come to mind is that the bass is not as tight as it can be. I'm sure this is caused by the high Q1 (it is just the nature of it).


I will do it. It gives me the better feeling, and once and for all I will have worked around stupid .NET memory management. yes
13830  Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: V6a vs. W3 SQ on: November 24, 2008, 08:52:00 am
Oh Dave, I forgot to mention it (once more). My Q1 needs to be at 14 or something like that ...

But nah, I will change the stuff back to how it was (but again, it is difficult).

Anyway, LydMekk is out of the way. Bwahahaha.

Thanks a lot Dave.
Peter
Pages: 1 ... 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 [922] 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 ... 1047
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.416 seconds with 12 queries.