Getting a new wireless DAC - would like to know if XXHighEnd can help?

[rentaghost]

I am soon to receive a wireless DAC called a Consonance Wireless DAC 1.0, which is a TDA1543 non oversampling, no upsampling, design. I totally agree with your philosophy about letting the computer up or over sample then sending the manipulated stream to the DAC - I am hoping this basic DAC which uses a chip that does not have any internal computational algorithms will benefit from your XXHighEnd Player - is this likely to be the case do you think?

Information about it here: http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Consonance-Wireless-DAC-w-Linear-technology.html

[PeterSt]

Hi there,

The question is not so easy to answer;
The TDA1543 is one of the better of course, so nothing to say about that in itself. However, you must realize that just *because* it can take 48Khz max only (and 16 bits) you won't be able to upsample in (XXHighEnd) software either.
This means that you will be listening to sheer "NOS" which could be what you want, but I recall from your earlier posts that this may not be the case.

So, might you come to the conclusion "oops, yea, I wanted to upsample in software (like with Arc Prediction)" then the specs in that link apply. Well, sort of, because they can not be correct. I mean, no way that the distortion figure will be better than 0.12% over the whole frequency range since this is 30% at e.g. 18KHz. The given 0.5% on the frequency response is a bit more difficult to judge for me (because this should be about +/-dB and will be something like -12dB for genuine NOS in the higher regions) ... but my all means, please notice this all when you thought you could upsample which you can not.
So, when you can upsample, all the figures will be totally difference hence way (way) better.

Will XXHighEnd still help ? Oh, sure. Let's say everywhere where it is supposed to help for the better SQ, thinking about OS manipulation and what not. But not Arc Prediction - that can't work.
So to be clear : at one stage ever back Arc Prediction was developed and since then that has never changed. Thus, all the efforts for the better SQ since, went all into other departments, and those will still work as always. It is only that the higher THD (etc.) figures for this DAC should be quite overwhelming, while all those other improvements actually are not even measurable by normal means (like THD figures won't change because of those improvements).

Is it clear somewhat ?
Peter

[rentaghost]

OK, so because it's physically limited to 16 bit then upsampling beyond that will not be possible. What about upsampling "to" 16 bit from lower res files such as 320kb from Spotify?

Therefore, Spotify plays on the computer XXHighEnd upsamples Spotify playback to 16 bit, then the final output transmits to the Consonance receiver.

Or does it not work like that?

[rentaghost]

You can see also see that its possible using the Consonance as a bridge to output to another DAC - it is also possible to do 24/96 streams over this wireless which can pass through to any connected compatible DAC.

However, I don't really plan to do this - I will experience for the first time a NOS / filterless multibit DAC - supposed to sound very musical.

[PeterSt]

Nah, it is not about the 16 bit (well, too to some extend) but about the sample rate. And do notice that MP3 is 16/44100 although you did not expect that.
So does not help.

And btw, I did not read anything about digital output in 96KHz. The contrary (explicitly), but maybe I read wrongly ?

Peter

[rentaghost]

Its "rumoured" to work - I will try it for myself.

Anyway - you said XXHighEnd as a player could improve the sound coming from a PC - can you give me an example of a configuration that would help? Then I could give it a go.

One of the main reasons I wanted a wireless DAC was to keep the PC completely isolated from the DAC. Therefore no need to tweak the PC forever with quiet components at extra cost keeping the noise at bay (this process can go on forever with Audiophile Nervosa). Makes my life easier. However I accept there could be some software based improvements via players like yours.

So how?

[rentaghost]

Some more information for you - I'm using it right now and I can control the volume of the music from the PC so I guess that's not good news for ultimate sound quality (is it?).

But is very convenient for me seeing as this thing does not have a preamp.

It manifests itself as a USB Audio Device on the computer...

[PeterSt]

The isolation idea sure makes sense. But point here is that any of these means inherently deteriorate to begin with, so the solution is not really in that area. Of course, you might (or actually will) be able to eliminate anything the PC implies (for noise hence jitter) but now the jitter is so high that sound will be poor to begin with. But all is relative of course !

What still could be working is changing the buffer lengths. This is Q1, xQ1 and Device Buffer Size all together as a factor. But please keep in mind, if sound is too poor (never mind very good to your ears !) then this overwhelmes. So technical example : If you might be able to bring down RMS jitter from 100ps to 50ps by these buffer means, while in your DAC 800ps of jitter is there to begin with, this just can not help. Not technically, thus also not audibly.

But let me know your findings !

Peter

[rentaghost]

Well my findings so far are starting with seeing how this behaves without wrapping it up in any fancy software.

So to begin with, playing the Consonance Wireless DAC using the drivers that get auto-installed by Windows Vista work well with a good vivid sound produced.

I thought I would go further and plug the USB transmitter in a Lubuntu netbook - here again the drivers would install automatically by Lubuntu (a whole host of then to choose from however). But playback quality was much worse, and at a lower volume too. Some of the USB drivers installed cause the Consonance to play music at a significantly faster speed???

I honestly thought that if all it was doing was sending TCP/IP to the Consonance DAC, then all sound should sound the same. But in this case something more must be going on!

Why would the drivers in Linux act so differently than the drivers in Windows?