 
|
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 |
99.60.179.224
I'm talking about the HRT Music Streamer II+. Any other comments or opinions on this 'dinky' DAC is appreciated. Somebody had a good idea and is making a fortune on this thing. DACs need not be big to sound great.
Follow Ups:
No really. Sometimes the audiophiles denigrate "Integrated circuits". This is an irrational prejudice. As in everything, it depends on the details.And the professional designers who work in substantial scale integrated circuit manufacturers are not at all going to make "boring" "sterile" "harsh solid-state" stuff.
As a consequence there are many fine components available now at an extraordinarily economical price/performance ratio, waiting for skilled integrators to use them without making any big blunders.
Also DACs are low voltage/low power applications and are excellent target for IC's.
(By the way, everybody who works in the chip companies are "objectivist" oriented first. )
Edits: 11/15/12 11/15/12
Opamps have been bashed around here in recent months, the ostensible problem being that they use negative feedback that creates high-order harmonic distortion which is always bad regardless of level.
But this is hard to believe when modern opamps have such astonishingly low total HD. For instance Texas Instruments' LME48720 whose HD is 0.00003%. So you can hear that but you can't hear 2% 2nd order??? Really? Well OK if you say so.
... MY FAVES: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Janachek, Bartok, Shostakovich, Carter
"LME48720 whose HD is 0.00003%."
Not what the curves in the spec sheet say at 20 kHz, which is as high as the curves are plotted.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So are you saying you can hear that? Or that it sounds better than 2.0% second order HD?
... MY FAVES: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Janachek, Bartok, Shostakovich, Carter
This shows that the device is not as perfect as you indicated. Don't go changing the subject.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Case in point:
When I was buying my current speakers (used), owner had them hooked to some tube monoblock amps, either Manley or VTL (don't remember), that had 3-position switch to regulate amount of NFB. The best sound BY FAR that these particular amps produced with these particular speakers was at the maximum setting - and it was nearly unlistenable at the minimum (none? - not sure) setting.
I use Class AB high-bias solid state amp WITH negative feedback, and the speakers sound great.
I was amazed by the sound quality of this SMSL DAC based on the AD1955 chip and a DIR9001 receiver = $100 including shipping.
I use mine with the coax and optical S/PDIF inputs, not the USB. Minor fine tuning can be achieved rolling the opamps. A high grade linear power supply might be an improvement but would add a lot to the cost relatively speaking.
Hey, I'm not saying that this simple little DAC is necessarily as good as $2000+ DACs, but it is very, very good.
... MY FAVES: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Janachek, Bartok, Shostakovich, Carter
Available as finished product from JDS Labs for $150, or somewhat less as a bare board. Have been using one for awhile and it's wonderful, lacking only in convenience features (multiple inputs, indicator lights, etc).
have no idea how it sounds but it's gotten good reviews. They spent a lot of time and money custom chips.
Thanks for the report.
Looks like we are getting more and more good, small, efficient, affordable, high-quality products. Perhaps we're swinging into a new golden-age...
Rick
> Looks like we are getting more and more good, small, efficient,
> affordable, high-quality products.
I agree. Good choices at various price levels. I can define my requirements in detail, calibrate my need for pricier sound quality and make an appropriate purchase.
> Perhaps we're swinging into a new golden-age...
It might even require less gold. Audiophile bragging rights may suffer though.
Bill
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Why not?
IMO DAC's sound more similar than different... Just borrow a few, including big buck ones and do some A/B comparison plugged into different inputs (use an SPL meter to make sure they're all set at the same volume) and maybe a couple of computers playing the same song synchronized so you can flip between inputs to hear the difference.
I've said here many times that there's almost no difference between standard oversampling DAC's unless they're so crappy that noise is leaking through or have aliasing / roll-off (eg. NOS).
Thing is, average consumer doesn't give a damn about them DACs-schmucks, and is perfectly happy with his iPod and HT receiver.
Vast majotiry of the people on this board, on the other hand, are WAY past discussions whether DACs sound different. I would be very concerned about overall performance of my system, and/or the state of my hearing, if I couldn't detect a difference in sound between DACs.
...there's almost no difference between standard oversampling DAC's
to hear that you find that to be true.
it's another matter to extend them beyond yourself....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I think hallucinatory drugs will do that for alot cheaper...
Personally, the thrill of the music itself on a decent system will do that. No need to obsess over the hardware.
my system has changed very little through the years.
After all, - this hobby, (and these boards), are about the gear that brings out the music. So, - you're going to get an amazing array of wondrous webs of different types of systems.
The average system of the members of these boards, costs around $20,000. And, at least half of the people here have two or more systems.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
to discern the differences.
Of course, in most systems that I really enjoy, - differences in DACs are readily apparent.
So your wild speculation that (most all) sound the same on the basis of your experiences, (however limited), is likely very questionable indeed.
But yet, you extrapolate on anyway...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I've been around the block and back with DAC's dude. Been playing with them for the last 20 years including high priced Weiss and Meitners. I stand by my experience when I 'extrapolate'.
BTW, I've done shootouts with audiophile friends in $$$ systems with treated rooms and various computer based systems / transports so it's not like this is without context to other folks & their systems.
If you re-read my post....
""BTW, I've done shootouts with audiophile friends in $$$ systems with treated rooms and various computer based systems / transports so it's not like this is without context to other folks & their systems.""
Well, you can understand why a number of people would have extreme doubts about your statement, - given that very few people here would assert anything approaching similar experiences. Either your testing methodology is flawed, or your experiences is highly limited to CRAP systems.
Very few, to no one, who swaps DACs in and out of resolving systems asserts that a wide variety of DACs sound even remotely similar...
FOR EXAMPLE: I've never heard of ANYONE here asserting that a WEISS DAC and a Benchmark DAC sound even remotely similar in anything approaching a resolving system. If you do, - then you have some excellent hallucinogens.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"it's another matter to extend them [your opinions about DAC's] beyond yourself.... "
"Either your testing methodology is flawed, or your experiences is highly limited to CRAP systems."
Ah, I see... your rules only apply to others.
Rick
Sordid's experiences with DACs is typical, IMO. I have used three DACs in my computer audio system over the past 7 years and they all sounded different.
My present DAC, the Mytek Stereo192-DSD has SPDIF, AES, USB 1.1, USB 2.0, and Firewire input. I've tried USB 2.0 and SPDIF and these sound different. In addition the DAC has lots of options. One of them is analog volume control vs. digital volume control. Another is a choice of filters for anti-imaging: slow vs. fast for PCM or 50us, 60us or 70us for DSD. There there is the question of format, e.g. PCM sampling rate, DSD64 or DSD128. Every one of these options sounds different in my system.
Another variable is if I perform certain "DAC" functions in the computer, e.g. upsampling to 176.4 or 192 as appropriate, or conversion to DSD 128. This choice also affects sound. The software I am presently using allows a wide range of choices in filtering to do this processing and each choice also affects the sound.
Just about the only thing that doesn't have much affect on the sound is whether I play FLAC or WAV files, at least that's the case when I am upsampling to DSD128. There may be a slight difference between WAV and FLAC when playing PCM directly, but I am not certain of this and this is just a suspicion on my part that I'm not inclined to investigate, given that I have already ascertained that upsampling to DSD128 works better than sending native PCM to the Mytek (but only if the room temperature is cool enough that I have to wear a sweater otherwise the CPU temperature increases and the CPU fan spins up to above 1500 RPMs and becomes audible at my listening chair).
BTW, I heard differences between DACs when I was using an amp and speakers that cost less than $500 and were purchased back in the 1980's.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
just reasonable testing methodology as performed under normal listening;& the probability of likely outcomes/scenarios....
""Ah, I see... your rules only apply to others.""
No, as I said, the MAJORITY of people here have had different experiences.
But hey man, whee-O.... go off on something else if you like...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 11/13/12
And, if in your experience DACs sound different - why would you have a problem with Sordidman's statements?
Don't you see a significant difference between 2 positions, in the sense which one leads to an improvement and advancement, and which - to mediocrity and stagnation:
- "all DACs sound the same to me, so they will most likely sound the same to you, and there's no need to spend time/money/effort on improving your system"
and
- "all DACs sound different to me, so they will most likely sound different to you, if you spend time/money/effort on improving your system"
?
"Don't you see a significant difference between 2 positions, in the sense which one leads to an improvement and advancement, and which - to mediocrity and stagnation:"
No. If you filter data based on either the desired outcome or a pre-established belief then that data is effectively lost. That sort of procedure is an anathema to good science and engineering. However I do often assign a conditional probability to observations including my own because doing so typically saves time, and if you know that you are doing it it carries little risk. But that certainly doesn't mean that the seeming outliers don't carry the day from time to time.
Your examples are actually limits, so I'd likely start out by giving them a low credibility because those usually reflect a belief or conclusion rather than actual observations.
Rick
Like, when I listen to 2 DACs in my system, and hear a difference, easily identifiable and very persistent - do I have to filter out the "data", coming from an anonymous poster on AudioAsylum, that there's actually no difference between DACs?
Or should I give it the same weight as my own observations?
Decisions, decisions...
"should I give it the same weight as my own observations?"
Actually you should give yours far more weight because they are likely to be much better correlated with your future experiences than those of a different listener with different tastes, gear and sensors.
"do I have to filter out the "data", coming from an anonymous poster"
No and you shouldn't. They are not mutually exclusive and you never know when knowing of other's differing experiences might be useful.
This is anything but a binary issue...
Rick
funny..
" If you filter data based on either the desired outcome or a pre-established belief then that data is effectively lost.""
It's great that that is rarely done here in this community.
And that is just one of the reasons why this good observational SCIENCE works well, and why the conclusions of rather substantial differences between DACS holds up pretty well, and have a high, substantiated, acceptance.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
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 ]
