Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Senior Member Mnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vństerňs Sweden
    Posts
    16,159
    Sadly this kind of product works very well with the audiophile mindset , you could also have a twiddly knob that did not do anything at all . ( placebo twiddly knob anyone ? ) this one does subtle things that or may not be audible , but thanks to sighted testing etc the imagined part is much bigger than the real part .

    The engaged users feels involved now that he can tweak the product +1 and probably do this during the whole "burn in period" aka when you psychologically adjust to the new thing , ( the only that gets burned in is you ) and you can probably share your revelations trough a forum that product xyz with setting abc finally lifted the last veil and got you blacker places and more air between the instruments ....

    I having nothing really agianst this feature but the implications gets blown out of proportion .
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
    Bedroom/Office: Boom
    Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
    Misc use: Radio (with battery)
    iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
    (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
    server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

    http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,007
    I have a mytek DAC with such options. Upsampling on/off, filter sharp/slow. Can't say, thus far, that I've noted any difference between them. Perhaps I've not fed it any material that tickles the ultrasonic, or jitter is not too bad in my system, or my tweeters behave well in the presence of ultrasonics, or.. I'm just too old to hear anything that high up..
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  3. #13
    Senior Member ralphpnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern NJ, USA
    Posts
    2,643
    Quote Originally Posted by drmatt View Post
    I have a mytek DAC with such options. Upsampling on/off, filter sharp/slow. Can't say, thus far, that I've noted any difference between them. Perhaps I've not fed it any material that tickles the ultrasonic, or jitter is not too bad in my system, or my tweeters behave well in the presence of ultrasonics, or.. I'm just too old to hear anything that high up..
    Or maybe it's just that you happen to be human rather than SUPER-human or an electronic measuring device and so are physically unable to hear ultrasonic frequencies and pico second jitter.
    Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub
    Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
    Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub
    Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
    Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
    Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
    Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
    Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos
    Last.fm

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,293
    The reconstruction filters used in up-sampling are anti-imaging (anti-aliasing filters are used in down-sampling, ADCs etc).

    In theory, no filter should make an audible difference if the transition band (the curved bit of the graph) is above audible frequencies.

    In practice, distortion could be generated by content above audible frequencies and leak into the audible band. I believe this the only route for images, ringing etc to become audible. The most likely source of this would be tweeters rather than electronics.

    See here for an interesting discussion: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/s...13#post3040013.
    Last edited by darrenyeats; 2017-02-19 at 06:14.
    Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

    SB Touch

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by ralphpnj View Post
    How are these "filters" different from a simple graphic equalizer or simple DSP or even, god forbid, tone controls?
    When the sampling rate is increased, "images" of the original signal are created at higher frequencies - the up-sampling (anti-imaging) filters are intended to remove these. Any filter placed after the DAC up-sampling stage could do a similar job in principle. In fact NOS DACs rely on the fact that amps, speakers, ears - all after the DAC output - are natural filters. And even up-sampling DACs use a combination of digital and analogue anti-imaging filters.

    But if the filter is applied (e.g. with equaliser in a computer player) before up-sampling, it won't be doing the same job.

    You can up-sample and filter on a computer, and pass the music at the higher sample rate to the DAC. This could avoid a stage of up-sampling and filtering in a typical DAC (but with typical DACs there is more than one stage).
    Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

    SB Touch

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,007
    Quote Originally Posted by ralphpnj View Post
    Or maybe it's just that you happen to be human rather than SUPER-human or an electronic measuring device and so are physically unable to hear ultrasonic frequencies and pico second jitter.
    Nah, can't be that..
    --
    Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0
    Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums..

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Archimago View Post
    Yup... Good points all.

    Bottom line: The Industry needs us to believe the filters are a "big deal". After all, how else to differentiate digital audio of which essentially any decent DAC over the last 20 years has sounded very good already!? Maintaining this sense of wonder and belief in claims underpins many of the advertised benefits for companies as disparate as PS Audio, Ayre / Pono, Meridian, T+A, Chord all the way to MQA and its promise of "revolutionary" sound quality.

    What the audiophile world truly needs to evolve and "revolve" is a realization of the objective mindset in terms of adjudicating the engineering around devices and file "formats". Time for the pendulum to swing back to objectivity... A long time coming but I remain hopeful that we can all contribute to making an impact.

    Begs the question - how much would audio technology progrss if so much time, capital, and intellect were applied to things that actually mattered. I found a list of commercially-available DACs and it had about 400 items on it. This is truely amazing to me, partically because I know from practical experience that upwards of 90% of those products are not audibly different in any practical way. As I recall the list did not include other products that incorporated DACs as critical components such as AVRrs, equalizers, and PCs so the actual number of alternatives in this field add up to thousand's of redundant products. All of that redundant engineering, marketing, sales, labor and capital flushed down the porcelain convenience!
    Last edited by arnyk; 2017-02-21 at 04:27.

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    29
    If manufacturers are serious about providing a compelling reason for buying their products I don't understand why more of them don't incorporate a usable DSP for example for speaker/room correction into their products. The difference between a ú30 raspi dac and a ú2K dac is pretty marginal in my experience, but sorting out dodgy peaks makes a massive difference when listening to music. I guess it boils down to marketing...

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by foxesden View Post
    If manufacturers are serious about providing a compelling reason for buying their products I don't understand why more of them don't incorporate a usable DSP for example for speaker/room correction into their products. The difference between a ú30 raspi dac and a ú2K dac is pretty marginal in my experience, but sorting out dodgy peaks makes a massive difference when listening to music. I guess it boils down to marketing...

    This product comes pretty close to what you seem to be talking about: https://www.minidsp.com/products/min...ox/minidsp-2x4

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenyeats View Post
    When the sampling rate is increased, "images" of the original signal are created at higher frequencies - the up-sampling (anti-imaging) filters are intended to remove these. Any filter placed after the DAC up-sampling stage could do a similar job in principle. In fact NOS DACs rely on the fact that amps, speakers, ears - all after the DAC output - are natural filters. And even up-sampling DACs use a combination of digital and analogue anti-imaging filters.

    But if the filter is applied (e.g. with equaliser in a computer player) before up-sampling, it won't be doing the same job.

    You can up-sample and filter on a computer, and pass the music at the higher sample rate to the DAC. This could avoid a stage of up-sampling and filtering in a typical DAC (but with typical DACs there is more than one stage).
    This is conditionally and not uncommonly false. If the DAC is operating with an excessively high sample rate as is common with audiophiles, say 96 KHz and above, then an anti-imaging filter further down the signal chain operating at a more sane design frequency such as 44 KHz can still remove any audible imaging.

    However, upsampling is generally just superstitious audiophile wheel-spinning. Once certain kinds of mistakes are made, they cannot be fixed with subsequent processing. Audiophiles have proven their inability to hear what they claim as shown by their willing acceptance and adulation for so-called high resolution recordings (SACD and DVD-A). As of about 2008 about half of them or more had low resolution recordings in their provenance, and the inherent audible problems with resolution and bandpass built into in them cannot be overcome with post-processing. No audiophile or audiophile reviewer that I know of reported thins in the usual Golden Ear publications.

    If one of the so-caled NOS DACs is followed by a properly-designed reconstruction filter, the intentional design error that they embody, which is the elimination of said filter, can be overcome.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •