Tír Na HiFi

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 3.39/3.40. think there is more insight into the detail, 3.40 uses the same code that Aleg said sounded like it was under water, but thought I'd try it again as technically it is more correct.

was that the 3.39avx2 i liked before that noone could get to work properely

no this is a new 3.39 avx that no one can play, think it's better than 3.40, anyway.

I have posted a few designs on my blog

I find cat6 solid twisted cores work extremely well, and sound superior to silver core USB cables
Cat6 has an impedence of 100ohm so very close to the 90ohm USB standard requirement

On the flip side I much prefer solid silver spdif cables over copper variants
Best USB sound comes from implementing a y spilt linear power inject cable design
Can sound "much" better than a stock USB

However on the flip side a well modded standard a to b USB lead with linear power injection also sounds excellent for little investment

In regards to the PCI sound card
I'm not sure theory always indicates how something will sound
I always like to test and listen

If you goggle Asus xonar stx stereophole review for example you will see the card has minimal affect from sitting inside the PC

To be honest I think my puc2 will sound better
But I would prefer if the PCI sound card did
Removing chains of connection is always my preference

2channelaudio wrote: ...
If you goggle Asus xonar stx stereophole review for example you will see the card has minimal affect from sitting inside the PC
...

i have stx. it does get interference from my graphic card below it.
i can reduce interference by shielding the soundcard with metals.

the interference is about the same as plugin a bad mouse into the PC.

STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

jesuscheung wrote: ...
STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

but then i must confess, i was never impressed with any DAC from cheap to expensive.

the expensive DACs seem to have tricks to make sound better.

if the original audio stream is already in great form originating from software player/OS, i believe all these tricks are simply bottlenecks.

jesuscheung wrote:

2channelaudio wrote: ...
If you goggle Asus xonar stx stereophole review for example you will see the card has minimal affect from sitting inside the PC
...

i have stx. it does get interference from my graphic card below it.
i can reduce interference by shielding the soundcard with metals.

the interference is about the same as plugin a bad mouse into the PC.

STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

very bad mouse

worse offenders for interference is cpu, and ram
would have thought gfx would be as bad

would you not be better to take your gfx card out and use the intel integrated?

jesuscheung wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: ...
STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

but then i must confess, i was never impressed with any DAC from cheap to expensive.

the expensive DACs seem to have tricks to make sound better.

if the original audio stream is already in great form originating from software player/OS, i believe all these tricks are simply bottlenecks.

Rubbish.

DACs don't do tricks to the bits of your audiostream.
The DAC on your mobo is one of the worst possible forms of DAC and locations for a DAC.
The best location for a DAC is off-board, where it is much more easy to avoid all the pollution and distortion that is happening on your onboard DAC, but which introduce new issues to be taken care off. Some DDCs / DACs / Cables do a better job at that than others.

jesuscheung wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: ...
STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

but then i must confess, i was never impressed with any DAC from cheap to expensive.

the expensive DACs seem to have tricks to make sound better.

if the original audio stream is already in great form originating from software player/OS, i believe all these tricks are simply bottlenecks.

probably testing the wrong expensive dacs,
usb dacs will have a certain amount of complications/bottlenecks which are mostly overcome by certain tricks
but the problems of a pcie soundcard would outweigh problems from a well implemented usb dac

think a pcie dac could be very good dac if done well
but thats another days work

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: ...
STX reports every single digital jitter as it is. i don't see how anyone can like the sound of it with their terrible OS + foobar/winamp/itune/whatever.

but then i must confess, i was never impressed with any DAC from cheap to expensive.

the expensive DACs seem to have tricks to make sound better.

if the original audio stream is already in great form originating from software player/OS, i believe all these tricks are simply bottlenecks.

Rubbish.

DACs don't do tricks to the bits of your audiostream.
The DAC on your mobo is one of the worst possible forms of DAC and locations for a DAC.
The best location for a DAC is off-board, where it is much more easy to avoid all the pollution and distortion that is happening on your onboard DAC, but which introduce new issues to be taken care off. Some DDCs / DACs / Cables do a better job at that than others.

how about the buffering of chord DAC?

read hdd -> buffer
software read -> buffer
software player -> buffer
wasapi -> buffer
cpu cache -> buffer
DAC driver -> buffer
usb driver -> buffer
etc...

don't you think there is enough buffering already?
i see buffering as a trick.

another example, a ST soundcard has a filter after the clock. makes sound crystal clear
another trick.

Big comments JC.
I'm sure I could think of many DAC's I would like to own, given deep enough pockets. ;)
How about the new Berkley Alpha DAC/reference Dac (which is about to be released) for instance?
Anyone got circa $14k US?! nice kit.... I'm sure it sounds absolutely stunning.
You can see this on the Berkely website - homepage.

Berkley do some really interesting board designs which are focused on reducing ground loops and interference, quite interesting to read. There's a thread on DIY detailing this.

I do agree that in the world of high end, you don't really get close to your money's worth.
In fact many products which are given rave reviews do seem to disappoint more often than not.

That's why I sometimes sway towards DIY and pro gear for better value and fidelity.

JC, do yourself a favour and listen to a DAC with an excellent implementation of the TDA1541a dac chip.
To my ear it is a world class conversion..... so musical and detailed. its crazy to think this chip was produced between circa 1985-89!! An excellent TDA1541a DIY kit with tube output should only cost about $500 AUD + say $60-80 AUD for an excellent NOS 6922 valve.... you should find this option will give many $6-10k AUD dacs a run for their money, and even shame quite a few.

While we are on the topic of dac's has anyone here heard the Berkley dac2? I am curious about trying a dac with internal volume control, to bypass my preamp stage. They seem to get good reviews.
http://www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com/products.html

I have previously tried the NAD m51 dac (which is obviously cheaper..... and also supports internal digital volume control) but found it not to my liking.

2channelaudio wrote:Big comments JC.
I'm sure I could think of many DAC's I would like to own, given deep enough pockets. ;)
How about the new Berkley Alpha DAC/reference Dac (which is about to be released) for instance?
Anyone got circa $14k US?! nice kit.... I'm sure it sounds absolutely stunning.
You can see this on the Berkely website - homepage.

Berkley do some really interesting board designs which are focused on reducing ground loops and interference, quite interesting to read. There's a thread on DIY detailing this.

I do agree that in the world of high end, you don't really get close to your money's worth.
In fact many products which are given rave reviews do seem to disappoint more often than not.

That's why I sometimes sway towards DIY and pro gear for better value and fidelity.

JC, do yourself a favour and listen to a DAC with an excellent implementation of the TDA1541a dac chip.
To my ear it is a world class conversion..... so musical and detailed. its crazy to think this chip was produced between circa 1985-89!! An excellent TDA1541a DIY kit with tube output should only cost about $500 AUD + say $60-80 AUD for an excellent NOS 6922 valve.... you should find this option will give many $6-10k AUD dacs a run for their money, and even shame quite a few.

While we are on the topic of dac's has anyone hear heard the Berkley dac2? I am curious about trying a dac with internal volume control, to bypass my preamp stage. They seem to get good reviews.
http://www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com/products.html

I have previously tried the NAD m51 dac (which is obviously cheaper..... and also supports internal digital volume control) but found it not to my liking.

yea, am off topic.
just trying to say, if mqn+OS is providing best possible audio stream, than DAC needs no tricks.

would love to try this chip.

over here in china, they mostly only sell high profit margin DAC. like music fidelity, cambridge audio...

my experience of DAC is limited to these big brands.