 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.116.16
Ok, you guys have graciously helped me figure out how to put together a silent PC to transport music from my external hard drive to my external Havana DAC. I would very much like to have the potential to purchase/download and playback music of ultimate high resolution. But, is this going to require a mega bucks external DAC to get the job done, or are there internal sound cards that actually sound extreemely good and do not cost an arm and a leg? Any advice and recommendations are greatly appreciated.
Lance
Follow Ups:
Don't forget to check out the RME firewire stuff too. I have the RME 800, but the RME 400 does 24/192 (I forget now why I spent the extra bucks on the 800, but it probably wasn't worth it hehe).
see link below.
Vista64prem http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021 >WAV/CUE files on HDDs via fW400;[XXHE player Q1 4 Q2 26 Q3 26 Q4 0 Q5 0 processor appt.#3;player priority normal;thread priority realtime];>pci FW800>FireFace800>StelloDAC
EMU 0404 USB external DAC. $199, 24/192 and every sample rate below. 24/96 through SPDIF though. Regardless, I'd put it up against anything out there right now, period:
Regards,
Joel
The EMU is great for the money and some more, but, I'm sorry to say, it is not in the same sonic league as an Apogee Mini-Dac (~$1000), far below an Apogee Rosetta 200, and absolutely inferior to a Prism DAC.
I would not normally chime in such as this, but to aver that a $200 DAC is competitive with "anything out there right now, period" is really outrageous.
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Wish you could have been there when we carefully level matched and compared the EMU to the others in real time back and forth. Try it sometime if you haven't. The differences are subtle and do not justify upwards of $5k price differential.
Regards,
Joel
Hi Joel,
We agree on the facts: "The differences are subtle..."
We simply value those differences differently. You feel they "do not justify upwards of $5k price differential", and I am convinced that not only is the additional expenditure worthwhile, but necessary for digital sound to provide a similar level of musical enjoyment to that which I get from analog.
Otherwise, digital would sit unused.
I probably should have said: the differences are REALLY REALLY subtle. In that particular shootout, it sure was. My friend who's system we did the shootout on recently bought the little EMU himself because he couldn't believe how good it was.
With a quality converter like the EMU 0404 decoding HRx material, digital not only can be used, but will be some of the best sound you have heard---digital, analog, whatever, period.
Have fun chasing the expensive gear though. Been there, done that.
Regards,
Joel
I suppose it's been covered, somewhere. But how well does it's A/D work? Good enough to digitize records?
Thanks, Rick
I use the 0404USB for record digitization and for location concert recording. I've used several different devices for this in the past (all of which cost many times more $) and the 0404USB is by far the best.
John S.
A to D is great. I've begun capturing lp's and open reel tapes to 24/192. Sounds damn near identical to the source. All the software you need to make this happen comes with the EMU.
Regards,
Joel
Thanks for the recommendation.
I'm slowly getting ready to do mine and this looks like a viable alternative cost-wise if I can't get satisfying results from the gear I have. And potentially being able to use for listening afterward is a big plus.
Rick
If that's "anything with USB interface at $200 and below", then I totally in agreement with you. If that's "any other USB interface" - then you probably have an argument, after upgrading power supply, and possibly doing some mods to it.
But if you REALLY mean "period" - then you probably want to educate yourself a little bit, and of course be prepared to spend more than $200 in the process of education.
Nope, has nothing to do with money. IMHO, its one of the best 24/192 Dac's PERIOD---power supply mods or not.
The EMU 0404 is a giant killer IMHO. Hell, even Stereophool mentioned the thing a few issues ago and for them to mention a piece of pro gear in their pages must mean its the second coming. Upon my comparions at my home and a friends-----It was one thing when it dusted the $1200 Benchmark; another still when it hung with a $3500 Apogee Rosetta/Big Ben combo. But when it took out the $5k Weiss Minerva? Well that was the last straw.
So we can avoid your next post, most A/B comparisons were done on a half-million dollar system that a local dealer friend of mine owns (see link). Anyone that thinks they have heard otherwise (i.e. the EMU 0404 NOT being as good at their "audiophile approved and expensive DAC") I would cordially invite over for a blind listening test versus their favorite DAC to disprove them. And even if you pick your ~5k USB or firewire DAC as being better by chance, you'll at least leave saying, "damn, that was way closer then it SHOULD have been versus a $199 piece of plastic":
Regards,
Joel
Just followed your link... and to add to the debate,
Well, if you listened to this on the Genesis, I had a pair of the Genesis 2s, had fun with the soundstage for awhile, then sold them. Reason was (and this was with CAT tube gear and a xover mod to 'help' the problem) they were too thin and bright... lacking upper bass/lower mids. Perhaps the EMU works best for that. I haven't heard it, so can't really say, but it is hard to believe it beat out the Minerva.
Vista64prem http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021 >WAV/CUE files on HDDs via fW400;[XXHE player Q1 4 Q2 26 Q3 26 Q4 0 Q5 0 processor appt.#3;player priority normal;thread priority realtime];>pci FW800>FireFace800>StelloDAC
OK, so now you are dogging 230k/pair speakers saying they are bright? Please.
I'm not gonna say they are good speakers due to their price (I've been to too many CES shows listening to horrible sounding flagship speakers to know better), but rest assured the 1.1's are plenty good to resolve the differences between a few computer DAC's.
Regards,
Joel
Hi Joel,
I agree with you that the E-Mu 0404 USB can sound very good, but I am wondering what your criteria is when you say it took out the Weiss Minerva. I haven't heard the Minerva. Can you let me know how it sounded better than the Minerva?
I really like the 0404 in comparison to some more expensive DACs I've heard, but to my ears its strengths are that it is smooth and non-fatiguing, but it achieves these qualities at the expense of detail retrieval. Some systems can benefit from that smoothness, but if you stick the 0404 into a system that already glosses over detail, then the sound can be comparatively dull.
I am not trying to short-change the engineering and sound quality of the 0404 USB, because I do think it can sound very good in the right system. However, there are other DACs that are as smooth, yet not at the expense of glossing over details. These are the DACs that I think are better than the USB 0404. The original poster already owns one of them.
Alan
Criteria was dynamics, tonal balance, detail, soundstage width and depth, deep bass response, treble extension and "airiness", and then things specific to good digital sound---i.e. non fatiguing, no "hardness and glare". All of these things can be easily heard and sorted through on the Genesis 1.1 loudspeaker system. HRx material at 24/176.4 was used in all comparisons made.
The Apogee 200/Big Ben combo was even better then the Weiss. And the EMU was just as good as the Apogee/Big Ben in all the areas above. The 0404 certainly was not "glossing over details" when we compared it. Far from that. Even SPECIFICALLY listening for subtle cues like a triangle ringing during certain passages and its decay and depth in the soundtage, I can tell you the EMU had tons of detail. The differences between the DAC's were slight, but there.
I'll never be able to convince you of the above, but I was there and heard it with my own ears----so you'll not be able to convince me otherwise either. We are all entitled to our own opinion.
Bottom line in all this??? FOR THE MONEY, you simply cannot beat the $200 0404. Maybe we can agree on that.
Regards,
Joel
I own the EMU0404, I owned both the Lavry DA10 and Benchmark DAC1, and listened a several others (also Apogee Ensemble). I have also listened to a friend’s Weiss DAC2 (equivalent to the Minerva) in my system for a week - There is no way the EMU0404 is even close to any of the them. Admitted the 0404 is a very nice DAC but it lacks the refinement, detail, soundstage, tonal balance to keep up with the Minerva or the others.
In fact, the Weiss Minerva/DAC2 is a quite a step above all of the mentioned DACs in terms of detail, balance, and refinement (and we took it through the paces in several systems). The difference was in fact that big that I sold my Benchmark within a few days of returning the Weiss DAC2 to my friend (so did the other 4 people present in all the sessions). Since then I have had to listen to the EMU0404, which is nice, but just not close - the EMU makes me want to listen to my analog setup instead.
Die gefährlichste Weltanschauung ist die Weltanschauung derjenigen, die die Welt nicht angeschaut haben.
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)
I am the original poster and must chime in here to sing the praises of one of my top three breakthrough/remarkable/biggest audio altering products since my 1975, when I started down this never ending journey.
First, all three have been within the past six years (Sorry, I forgot my venerable Chartwell LS3\5a. Did not find anything that I prefered for almost twenty years). 1.) Lowther PM2MKII's/Tone Tubby 12" Alnico Hemp cones in Open Baffles. 2.) Yamamoto A08-S fitted with EML solid plate 45's. 3.) The external Havana DAC mentioned above.
This DAC has totally emberassed my Sony XA77ES player (which aint bad in it's own right). I am not going to get into the typical audio descriptions of it's performane, like inner detail, liquidity, etc. This DAC has simply restored a since of involuntary emotional response to music that I have been chasing after since I sold my loaded Linn table 15 years ago. I don't know or care if the Havana is a "giant killer" in the DAC world. It has however helped restore my ability to emotionally reconnect to my, now computer based music collection.
So, then why am I here asking about High Resolution capable DAC's? Well, my maybe ignorant assumption is that MORE BITS MUST SOUND EVEN BETTER! Of course even I know that More bits from an inferior machine likely won't produce better sonic results. So, it's more than great to read all of your experiences with High Resolution capable Cards/Dacs. And even more exciting to hear someone has discovered a unit under $200.00 that may fill my needs! However, the big question that I should have already asked is, Will music (obviously higher res than capable through my Havana) definately sound BETTER than what the Havana has to offer? Or Am I "Ignorantly" expecting My Havana to be sonically outperformed just because of higher bit rates?
Lance
It all comes down to source material. Sometimes a redbook cd beats vinyl, sometimes the other way round. Same goes for hi-rez digital---more bits and sample rate USUALLY means better sound if its how the source was recorded.
Not always the case though----
I have a very good tube redbook cdp. It offers defeatable "upsampling". I know of nobody who uses the upsampling with my specific player as it sound lightyears better without it. So increasing the sample rate in "general terms" does not always mean it will sound better.
But man o man---if we are talking about how the ORIGINAL SOURCE WAS RECORDED---load up some 24/176.4 HRx discs (how they were originally recorded at 24/176.4) via the EMU 0404, and there is nothing in my home music source wise that can compete sonically, except excellent high speed open reel tapes---like the ones I have from The Tape Project.
And at that point you are comparing a 6k open reel deck hooked to a 1k external tube head amp playing a $500 tape as compared to a $200 hunk of plastic (EMU) hooked to a $1k laptop playing a $40 silver disc (HRx). Law of diminishing returns is in full-force here.....
Regards,
Joel
Chopper you have to keep in mind that subjective improvements to your system like from your favorite DAC may be completely unrelated to bit depth or sample rate or anything related to digital at all. For example the part that pleases you may be something in the reconstruction filter.
To really know what the differences are and to know whether a new piece of gear will bring this quality to your system is quite a bit more complicated than listening to a system with the gear installed and then trying to interpolate the results into your own gear.
In lieu of difficult and maybe even impossible task of laboring over books full of test results(which probably dont exist in the first place) which truly DO conmpletely characterize all the pieces of gear in question the best method to find out if you like something is surely to give it a try and see how it sounds. At ~$200 what have you got to lose?
Chopper you have to keep in mind that subjective improvements to your system like from your favorite DAC may be completely unrelated to bit depth or sample rate or anything related to digital at all. For example the part that pleases you may be something in the reconstruction filter.
""To really know what the differences are and to know whether a new piece of gear will bring this quality to your system is quite a bit more complicated than listening to a system with the gear installed and then trying to interpolate the results into your own gear.
In lieu of difficult and maybe even impossible task of laboring over books full of test results(which probably dont exist in the first place) which truly DO conmpletely characterize all the pieces of gear in question the best method to find out if you like something is surely to give it a try and see how it sounds. At ~$200 what have you got to lose?""
I agree with your logic, however, I must have some trust that if (with variouis dacs) all things are equal then maybe, just maybe higher resolution "potential" design may offer better sound. Then again, maybe not.
""EMU 0404 USB external DAC. $199, 24/192 and every sample rate below. 24/96 through SPDIF though. Regardless, I'd put it up against anything out there right now, period:""
Wait a minute. I thought that USB did not transfer anything higher than 24/96? And you state that this dac is only capable of receiving 24/96 max from SPDIF out???? So, how does this dac get 24/192 digital material? I must certainly be missing something.
Lance
Hi Lance,
on the USB front here is a little background.
There are two sets of USB numbers which can get confusing. There is the USB spec (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) and the audio class spec (1.0 and 2.0). The USB spec 1.0 and 1.1 specified low speed and full speed. Audio class 1.0 used full speed and could go up to 24/96. A couple years later USB spec 2.0 came out, it had a high speed mode that was 40 times faster than full speed. This could easily handle 24/192, BUT no new audio spec had been released. Because there was no new audio spec designed to work with high speed mode the OS vendors (Microsoft etc) were not writing USB drivers that would do audio over high speed mode.
This is the way things stood for many years. If you wanted to do 24/192 you had to write your own drivers for whatever OS you wanted to run on. Several "pro" companies did this, but its a large amount of effort to write the drivers and support them. Most high end companies simply don't have the resources to do that. So high end USB devices went up to 24/96, that way they could use the drivers built into the OS.
There IS now an audio class spec 2.0 which does officially support 24/192 over high speed mode, but only Apple has written drivers for this so there still is not much in the way of high end hardware that will use USB at 24/192. IF Microsoft has audio 2.0 drivers in Win7 then we might start seeing high end devices using 24/192 over USB.
The EMU 0404USB is one of those devices that run 24/192 over high speed USB, BUT it has its own special drivers in order to do so. It has internal DACs that will do 24/192, but its S/PDIF outs will only go up to 24/96.
I hope that helps.
John S.
John S,
What a detailed, thorough and plain English explaination of this confusing issue. Thanks a bunch.
Lance
Just a few more things.
When you hear someone say a DAC runs at USB2.0 they usually mean that it runs using high speed mode. Its a bit of a misnomer since USB spec 2.0 covers all three speeds.
USB 2.0 is supposed to be backwards compatible with 1.1, thus a 2.0 device plugged into a 1.1 port should still work, but only at full speed. Similarly a 1.1 device plugged into a 2.0 port will work but only at full speed.
The 0404USB is a bit unusual in this regard, it ONLY runs at high speed, so if you plug it into a 1.1 port (there are still a few out there) it will not connect because the 1.1 port cannot support the speed it needs.
John S.
Yep, you're missing something. 24/192 is possible over USB. Very few know how to do it. EMU and Edirol are two of the companies that know how to do it right. The high end is years behind on this matter. Plow through the world record posts on the forum I linked. That will answer that question and every other under the sun!
How it gets 24/192 material is by downloading it or playing it. You're gonna need to use the EMU's analog outputs to get the 192kHz output; and a PC. You got analog inputs laying around anywhere to make this happen? ;)
Regards,
Joel
""Yep, you're missing something. 24/192 is possible over USB. Very few know how to do it. EMU and Edirol are two of the companies that know how to do it right. The high end is years behind on this matter. Plow through the world record posts on the forum I linked. That will answer that question and every other under the sun!
How it gets 24/192 material is by downloading it or playing it. You're gonna need to use the EMU's analog outputs to get the 192kHz output; and a PC. You got analog inputs laying around anywhere to make this happen? ;)
Regards,
Joel""
Joel,
This is good stuff. I'm not quite sure I fully get exactly what my setup would look like to make the EMU setup work properly. Let me tell you what I do have and let you draw me a picture of what I need to have/do.
I have a PC equipped with PCI slots etc, but no sound card presently. I am currently using the MOBOs' USB out to my Havana DAC.
I am thinking that I would use USB out to the EMU and the EMU's rca outs (if it has them) to my passive preamplifier.
Joel, I can see you shaking your head at just how wrong I must be. Well, please be gentle and draw me a verbal template of exactly I need to do and that is exactly what I will do. Thank you so much for your patience.
Lance
Hi Lance,
You are about to learn that I have too much gear, as I also have an E-Mu 0404 USB. I use it for recording acoustic guitar onto my laptop. The E-Mu does have amazing sound quality for the price. However, I would advise against Joel's advice regarding selling the Havana, because in my opinion the Havana sounds quite a bit better than the E-Mu.
The E-Mu can give a smooth, not fatiguing, musical sound. However, it does not retrieve detail like both the Havana and the Lynx. Would you be happy with the E-Mu? Probably, but it is not a replacement for the Havana.
You would use the E-Mu in your system exactly as you are using your Havana, but the E-Mu has 1/4 inch balanced TRS outputs, so you would need TRS to RCA interconnects or adapters for the E-Mu. You would load special drivers onto your computer. In my opinion, the driver's don't work that well under Vista, but they are fine under XP. The E-Mu will work under Linux without any special driver's but I don't know if all sampling rates are supported.
Alan
The 0404USB runs all its sample rates under linux, BUT you can't change rates from linux. You have to connect it to Windows or Mac and set the sample rate there, then use that sample rate under linux.
If my understanding is correct this is being worked on right now, I've heard rumors that it might already be fixed, but the fix is not in any distributions yet.
John S.
Alan,
My whole issue here has been maybe a simple case of ignorance? I was under the impression that High Resolution Digital automatically trumps Redbook sonically even if the High Res DAC is not of stae of the art. I have been thoroughly impressed with my new Havana DAC during the short time that I have owned it, but, I ASUMMED if this dac (redbook only) could emberrass My Sony XA77ES (with every redbook cd), then substantially higher bit rate would be waaaay better yet. You know, a bigger engine is always going to make a vehicle faster than one with a smaller engine, given equal weight.
Maybe 16/44.1 is good enough with the right DAC???
Lance
Hi Lance,
You wrote: "I was under the impression that High Resolution Digital automatically trumps Redbook sonically even if the High Res DAC is not of state of the art."
I think this is a mistaken assumption. Does every SACD on your player always sound better than all other Redbook CDs? The resolution doesn't make a recording good as much as the skill of the recording and mastering engineers involved. I have some very good sounding redbook music, and some really crappy sounding SACDs.
Music sent to a bad sounding DAC will not sound good at any resolution. All things being equal, a higher resolution file sent to the same DAC should sound better, but it really depends on the DAC and the recording. Some DACs (not all DACs), even though capable of playing 24 bit 192 kHz files, don't perform as well at that sampling rate as lower rates. I think there a thread about this a few weeks back.
I would like to have high resolution versions of my favorite recordings and be able to play them back on a DAC that excels at high resolutions. Unfortunately, the music that I listen to doesn't really exist at high resolutions, and I don't let the sample rate determine my listening choices.
Alan
Alan,
Absolutely. But I think that you will agree that we should and probably will be able to have it all in the near future. More and more well engineered music and consistantly better sounding high resolution DACS. Maybe the Havana makers will get er done???? However, I think that the road block to a world filled with an abundance of woderful high res digital is the same as what has seriously stalled SACD, absolute demand for better than Redbook sound is very, very low. We Audiophiles just ain't worth much moneterily.
This is such a great place to learn. I promise to pay it forward in the future. Thanks guys.
Lance
I'm not familiar with what a MOBO usb is or a havana dac. But, if your pc has usb out somehow then that connects to the EMU. Then the EMU rca's (you will need adapters to make them rca's cause the EMU has balanced outs) connect to your preamp. Sell the Havana and you're done! FYI, The EMU can also be used as a stand-alone DAC, not even hooked up to a pc at all. It operates at up to 24/96 this way.
Before you do all this though, how old is that PC? And is the USB port 2.0? The EMU only passes above 24/96 with a USB 2.0 port. Plus it needs a lot of PC processing power and RAM to function correctly.
Regards,
Joel
Ok,
This sounds like a real potential winner. But, I currently only have SPDIF out capability through the Motherboards output connector. I have been told/educated that this is not sonically optimal, and I have experienced this to be factual when comparing the MOBO's USB and SPDIF out to my Havana DAC. USB wins hands down. So, does this mean that I will need to purchase an 24/192 SPDIF ouput capable sound card to get the digital to the EMU DAC? I am more than willing to do what needs to be done, just want to make sure I'm on the right page.
Lance
Chopper,
If you want 24/192 and your dac doesn't support it, then it is time for something new.
Many posters have bought the Lynx L22 for about $675 and find it to be a bargain at that price, and have replaced things like a modded Sony 777 with the Lynx. Its dacs are very good for the money.
Another option is the Juli@ at $130.
Both support 24/192.
Hi DR,
As you know, the Lynx 2 series supports 192 kHz on its internal DACs. However, it won't pass anything higher than 96 kHz through its digital output. I saw your post that Vincent thought it might, but I tried it the other day and it is limited to 96k.
P.S. The rain in northern New England finally subsided and I am back out on the court. One of my friends in town built a Har-True court in his back yard so my knees are now much happier.
I hope all is well,
Alan
Yes, Yes, I am definately looking for a reasonably priced method of being able to start downloading (purchasing) up to 24/192 music and playing it back. Are these sound cards/DAC's such as the Lynx very good sonically or just a stop gap on the way to an expensive boutique external high end dac? Are high resolution files definately the way to go? I mean, my Havana Dac easily outperforms my Sony XA777ES CD/SACD player playing REdbook and often SACD's as well. Is moving on to 24/193 capable equipment a no brainer or just sometimes better than Redbook done well?
Also, Very good warning that the Lynx's on board dacs play 24/192, but will not output higher than 96 for the future. I really would like to have both options moving forward. It is difficult for me to express my appreciation for all of your help in this matter. I am such a novice here, but learning.
Lance
Hi Lance,
I own the Lynx 2B. I also have owned the Havana for about a year, and would still own it if I didn't by a Cosecant, as I think it is a great sounding DAC with excellent low level resolution.
Do you like the Havana better than your Sony because of the Havana's midrange presence? If so, then I don't think you will find the Lynx to be satisfying. The Lynx, while a very good DAC, doesn't have the midrange and mid-bass presence of the Havana. I also think the Havana is better with low level dynamics. On the other hand, the Lynx does not roll off the deepest bass and the highest treble like an NOS DAC will.
So, while the Havana is limited to 16 bit and 96 kHz, I wouldn't be so quick to replace it unless you have a large collection of hi-rez files; especially if you like the Havana better than your SACD player in some circumstances.
""I own the Lynx 2B. I also have owned the Havana for about a year, and would still own it if I didn't by a Cosecant, as I think it is a great sounding DAC with excellent low level resolution.
Do you like the Havana better than your Sony because of the Havana's midrange presence? If so, then I don't think you will find the Lynx to be satisfying. The Lynx, while a very good DAC, doesn't have the midrange and mid-bass presence of the Havana. I also think the Havana is better with low level dynamics. On the other hand, the Lynx does not roll off the deepest bass and the highest treble like an NOS DAC will.
So, while the Havana is limited to 16 bit and 96 kHz, I wouldn't be so quick to replace it unless you have a large collection of hi-rez files; especially if you like the Havana better than your SACD player in some circumstances.""
Aljordan,
Wow! this information is so specific to my current setup. You have already done the comparisons that I could only speculate about, thank you. I love the way the Havana sounds, as you obviously do as well. But, I was under the (maybe mistaken) impression that High resolution digital music would automatically sound superior to the Havana with it's limited digital capacity. What alearning curve here, holy crap!
Lance
hey chopper et al !
I can only confirm that the lynx´sound quality is awesome and possibly amongst the very best on the market.
however, I´m using my lynx two B with 24/192 input via JACK and allocator and all connected software is running and displaying 24/192 resolution. also the cards own control panel is confirming this.....
I believe the limitation to 24/96 is purely in multi-card linked setups !
Yep Playmate 24/192 on the INTERNAL dacs. But if you want more than 24/96, the Lynx wont do it on the DIGITAL OUT.
Chopper is looking for BOTH, which I think leaves the Juli@
""Yep Playmate 24/192 on the INTERNAL dacs. But if you want more than 24/96, the Lynx wont do it on the DIGITAL OUT.
Chopper is looking for BOTH, which I think leaves the Juli@""
Dawnrazor,
Damn, this should be easier, should'nt it? Hell, you just learned me how to build a great silent PC, record to external hard drive via Exact Audio Copy, and play back through Foobar. No easy feat to get the software functioning smoothly. All this was to feed Redbook to a new Havana Redbook only external DAC. Man this setup can sound great!
As good as it is, it is obviously limited to making only my hard drive copies of regular cd's sound their best. Will an inexpensive 24/192 capable dac, like the Juli@ or the Lynx offer me a marked sonic upgrade when fed 24/192 digital? I have never been blown away by my SACD collection through my XA777ES, some are very good and some are forgettable. I have higher hopes for 24/192 stuff.
So, it looks like either, an EMU, Lynx, or Juli@. But you are absolutely correct, I would like to have the future potential to send 24/192 out to a potentially better external dac. However, if the Lynx is a superior sounding 24/192 dac straight up, then I would not buy the Juli@. I may upgrade later, but, I want the best sound I can get now. Thanks again.
Lance
Hey Lance,
The Lynx IMHO is one of the best values out there and you have to spend almost double to match it it seems. That said, it is a very neutral card and well some systems might not like that.
Alan I believe is familiar with both the Lynx sound and the Havana sound. At least I remember him having a Havana. Hopefully he will come along and give us some info.
Also DBB is a good one to chime in I think since he has the Lynx and also had a Sony 777 though it was modded. He records his SACDS using the Lynx analog ins and reports that he likes the recording better.
NOw if you question is: for the price of the Lynx can I think of a better sounding card, then the answer is NO. The M-audio firewire boxes could sound better in theory since they are firewire and supposedly use similar chips as the more expensive and highly regarded Weiss gear. But I have never seen a review or comparison.
If I read you right, then no the Juli@ is not a good choice because even though for the money it might be an even bigger bargain than the Lynx, I havent heard any report where the Juli@ sounded better than the Lynx.
Please avoid the emu. It is unfortunate because reports say that is a great sounding card, but the software is a big challenge. If you think computer audio has been a challenge so far do a search on their software here and read the accounts for yourself. It is called "Patchmix".
And a couple of things about the Lynx. Most users who give favorable reports are either running direct into the amps, or have a pre-amp that will take the higher pro level signals +4dbv. It isnt a must but keep it in mind. Also it has break out cables and they are only about 6ft long. These cables probably hurt some of its sound a bit. You can buy better ones or make some yourself, though it is not bad enough for me to have done it yet. If you use single ended connections you will need to get a balanced to rca adaptor. Lynx makes some for pretty cheap.
And, if you do run direct in to your amp, make sure the amp is last on and first off, otherwise there will be a turn on thump and a turn off thump, though putting your pc in standby will avoid this and allow you to leave the amp on continously.
hey dawnrazor
-sorry, but what´s the hazzle here ?
who wants the DAC to output a digital signal ?
if you run a SPDIF or USB out its limited to 24/96 anyhow, but f you want the lynx to perform a DAC it will operate @ 24/192 ????
what do I not get here ?
Hey Playmate,
Sorry for the "Hazzle" :)
Chopper in his post about good advice said this:
Also, Very good warning that the Lynx's on board dacs play 24/192, but will not output higher than 96 for the future. I really would like to have both options moving forward.
Having heard the Lynx I certainly don't see the need for the digital output, but you know I can see where people would want the ability to add a better dac when the money is available.
Though why not just get a firewire dac. I think M-audio has some in the 5-700 range that probably sound pretty good.
Here is another company that is good and have great value.
http://www.marian.de/en/products/trace_alpha
He is right DR, I had thought that I could pass higher than 24/96, but I was mistaken. Sorry about that, I was also working with the RME 96/32 at the time, which does allow for rates higher than 24/96. I recommend that you try RME cards, as they are very good.
What I don't get is that the sub $60 m-audio card can send 192k signals but the Lynx cant.
Oh well.
Man if I had friends with a court I would always wonder if it was rude to show up with other friends to play singles matches :)
Glad you are getting out.
I certainly could only get 96k from the card.
But in this case the OP would have to buy a dac that supports 192k. It doesn;t sound like that is what he wants to do, so the Lynx internal dacs are what I am recommending.
But I THINK the Juli@ WILL pass 192 on its digital outs, so maybe that is the way to go if a 192k dac is in the future.
I've had an HTPC for a while now, using the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 card. It was decent but I thought the card needed to get upgraded, so I very recently switched to the E-MU 1212m and I'm very pleased so far. I don't have a turntable but will get one soon and try recording some vinyl to 24/192.
When I bought the 24/96 I was only looking at cards with RCA outs because I didn't want to use an adapter for RCA. But now I realize that the benefits of a modern, high quality DAC/card with balanced outs outweighs any downsides of RCA adapters. The 1212m has TRS balanced outputs. I had bought the Monster Stereo 1/4 to RCA adapters from Fry's, thinking they would work fine, but they didn't (actually one did for a while, still don't know what one worked and the other didn't - I tried a second one and it didn't work either and gave up). So I ordered the mono version from Guitar Center - they don't stock them in the retail stores. I'm using some cheap Radio Shack adapters for now. With some break-in they sound OK, but there is high frequency roll off that should go away a bit, but what I heard from the Monster was very nice and clean in the highs and I want that again...
A few more music server tips: place the hard drives outside the box. I have two 1TB drives in eSATA enclosures, with the two internal SATA cables connecting to a SATA to eSATA bracket. And then by chance I had an adapter that let me route the power for the Blu-ray drive outside the box also. I keep it turned off unless I'm playing a Blu-ray disc.
What SQ improvements did you hear?
Where these 3.5" HDDs? Using 2.5 laptop drives I can hear no difference whether inside the box or outside as long as they are not powered by the mobo.
RayBan
Rayban,
The differences between the 2496 and 1212m were: transparency, high end, low end, solidity, less listener fatique, overall "rightness". My RMAA measurements of the 2496 gave a .0022 THD+N - and .0033 before I moved the drives out and added some ERS paper (not sure which made the most difference). I haven't measured the 1212m yet, but I hope to approach .0006 as spec'd.
The drives are 3.5" Samsungs. The main reason was power, but EMI and vibration was a secondary reason.
Dave
I have the MAudio 192 and I am very happy with that. Can you advise me please what player software do you use on the PC to play FLAC files?
There is a lot of debate about choice of player but mostly from people using an external DAC, I would appreciate the view of someone using an internal sound card for playback.
I currently use FOObar or winamp with a 92Khz plug in.
Thanks
Hey Dave,
There is a lot of debate about choice of player but mostly from people using an external DAC, I would appreciate the view of someone using an internal sound card for playback.
I use the dacs on my Lynx card and on my normal computer, the ones in my M-audio revolution.
I have tried many many players: winamp, foobar, xm player, acxo, media monkey, multistream asio player, wavelab, samplitude, and probably a few more.
I currently use cplay. It just sounds the best to me and by a wide margin. Give it a try keeping in mind that its gui is not the best when just used as a player. When used with cmp (Cics memory player) cplay just becomes a player and cmp is now the gui.
Anyhow, give it a try and post on the cplay thread if you have any questions on some of the settings. If you don't know what instruction set your computer supports, you can download the cpuid program and it will tell you, or just grab the sse2 version, though if you can support sse4, that is supposed to be the best.
hey chopper87
does the havana support 24/192 ?
from a quick look of it´s specs it doesn´t....
most players do accommodate hi-rez files, but if the DAC can´t handle it you´re set at redbook format 16/44.1.
lynx, RME, juli@ seem to be the most used high performance cards here in the asylum.
hi-rez files are often a bliss !
ASUS Xonar series (under $200 range) would be one of them. Not without some quirks though - major are inability to change sample rate on the fly, and lack of support for 88.2 and 176.4 KHz playback (these would be upsampled).Sound quality-wise - I preferred D2X over EMU 1212M, ESI Julia and couple of external interfaces (I'm talking SPDIF outs only, not internal DACs).
Edits: 07/16/09
I will second the Asus cards. I have an Xonar HDAV 1.3 Deluxe on a Blu-Ray/HD DVD HTPC connected in analog out (all channels) to a Denon AVR-5800. Two-channel performance has surprised me- particularly a noise floor much lower than I expected from an internal card and a non-fatiguing sound. Undownsampled DTS MA and TrueHD also sound awesome. It's components read more like hi-fi gear than computer gear with Burr-Brown PCM1796 24/192 DACs and National Semiconductor LM4562 op-amps (swappable). Even before its analog performance, it was built to bit-stream over HDMI (which I can't take advantage of with my "senior" receiver). As stated above, it does have some quirks though.
"There are number of cards that provide 24/192 over SPDIF (if that's what you're asking)."
Unless I'm missing something big here, I would still then need an external DAC to decode the 24/192 stuff. Right now Ive got a Sony XA777ES for SACD's and An external Havana dac for Redbook decodes from my PC Transport. Of course I can also flip a switch and use my Sony as a transport to the Havana as well, just sounds better from the Hard Drive. I was hoping that I would be able to find and purchase a sound card that would do a VERY good job of decoding up to 24/192 stuff. I mean hearing how good and which sound card is the best at SPDIF output is valuable, but not if I have no way of decoding (at 24/192) what comes out. Thanks.
Lance
Internal DACs in ASUS Essence STX and ST are pretty good, do 24/192, have standard RCA jacks, and swappable opamps. Search for posts by "mschneider" - he has STX.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
