Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

This is PC audio?

93.109.97.50

Posted on June 29, 2017 at 22:16:19
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Quote:

Holy crap! I'd plugged in nine devices just to get my file to the DAC. But I had to admit that the sound and musical connection this Rube Goldberg playback chain provided was immensely better than what was possible with a laptop or even most dedicated servers connected directly to the DAC.

Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/holo-spring-dac-level-1#thpoDqEIUmtUTu82.99

unquote

Trolls need not post in response as they will further expose themselves.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
"further expose themselves." Hey, It's Nice Out. I think I'll leave it out. , posted on June 29, 2017 at 22:20:04
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
Hmmm, reminds me of a classic Seinfeld Episode!

 

RE: "further expose themselves." Hey, It's Nice Out. I think I'll leave it out. , posted on June 30, 2017 at 08:48:10
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002


 

Looks like No Pants Friday..., posted on June 30, 2017 at 12:00:33
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
The episode where Elaine goes on a Blind Date, and he
"Took it out."

 

Yes, and a great way to "further expose themselves.", posted on June 30, 2017 at 14:26:17
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

Happy Friday!

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on June 30, 2017 at 14:54:32
BubbaMike
Audiophile

Posts: 650
Location: Left Coast of the USA
Joined: January 4, 2002
Get back to me when you learn how to post a link.




When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on June 30, 2017 at 22:02:15
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
When you have a grudge against Buffalo, do it elsewhere.

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 1, 2017 at 09:01:26
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002


 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 1, 2017 at 10:21:04
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
If PC audio is such a problem for you, why are you still here?

my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 1, 2017 at 11:32:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
And why are you here making no contribution to the topic?

 

Let me introduce you, posted on July 1, 2017 at 13:29:06
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37609
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
to Mr. Congeniality. :)

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 1, 2017 at 16:05:43
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002


- There is nothing to contribute because your post itself is seen as nothing but a troll.





 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 2, 2017 at 02:57:01
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
I know I am going to regret responding to this. Yes, this review is very much computer audio.

 

Yes Trolls have, posted on July 2, 2017 at 04:45:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
indeed exposed themselves.

This one complains more about the English (no American) of web literature more than discuss the merits of audio technology!

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 2, 2017 at 04:52:44
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Having look fairly carefully at the descriptions behind the resistance compensation technique, I am intrigued by how this is done (apparently digitally).

They say they use the same batch of resistors to combat aging but this seems not to be a cast iron approach.

Seriously though, if one sticks nine gadgets in front of it to get 'good' sound, then one is not really listening to the dac, but to some modified input stream of unknown property.

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 2, 2017 at 05:42:25
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
I agree that Alex could have described his setup a little more completely. And yes, an ISO REGEN will modify the sound in a significant way as I have found. So I guess I do agree with what you are saying.

I did feel that Alex wrote a very nice review.

 

RE: This is PC audio?, posted on July 2, 2017 at 07:05:12
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
I actually fancy trying one. I am not surprised that the Regen made a difference as this is to be expected. But the other 8 things to make the dac sing?

I may try to listen and or buy one when I am in Asia. I won't buy from the US because of the high cost of postal returns and duty/VAT for import into Europe.

 

Those 9 things..., posted on July 2, 2017 at 09:43:07
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002
"Holy crap! I'd plugged in nine devices just to get my file to the DAC. But I had to admit that the sound and musical connection this Rube Goldberg playback chain provided was immensely better than what was possible with a laptop or even most dedicated servers connected directly to the DAC."

Interesting review. Sounds like this could be a good DAC although I'm not sure how "transformational" it is. Good to have acknowledgement that "hi-res" is not all that it's sold to be over the years.

Now as for the "9 devices". I wonder what the designer thinks about this. Regardless of whether those devices do anything of benefit, I don't see why the company and the designer of the DAC would be impressed with reviews that attached all that stuff in front of it.

If the review is positive, the readership might be put off because there's the impression that those doohickeys may be "needed" to make it sound good, and that perhaps the DAC's digital input is somehow not good enough to be linked up directly.

If the review has negative comments, then the astute readership again doesn't know if maybe there could be incompatibilities with that "Rube Goldberg Machine". Alternatively the negative comments could be construed directly as evidence that the DAC is poor; but what if it really was because of the reviewer's bizarre set-up?

IMO, unless there is evidence that putting ANYTHING in front of a DAC makes a difference and can be accounted for (or if the manufacturer believes a specific device is recommended), I see no benefit for reviewers to get fancy. Putting too many variables into the mix simply weakens the opinion; especially when just based on subjective opinions with no clear objective context.


-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

RE: Those 9 things..., posted on July 3, 2017 at 08:57:34
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
There is some interesting descriptions by the designer of how the dac works and many measurements underpinning the claims.

I suspect that the dac is limited by the XMOS board that Chinese manufacturers use, without including the Theyscon CPL's full features (ie latency adjustment), and by the lesser clocks (X)s) that some of them use in converting the usb stream into good I2S streams. Hence some of the 9 'things'.

I'd like to listen to one, if only because the compensation scheme must add additional processing in the dac's operation and because of the innovative approach toward R2R operation.

 

OT...., posted on July 4, 2017 at 07:16:33
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
You guys seem to like R-R ladder DACs, have you ever reviewed any of King-Wa's Audio-GD line?

OK, not discrete R-R and not for long either as he no longer has a supply of PCM1704's available to built with.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Those 9 things..., posted on July 5, 2017 at 09:22:12
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002
Sure fmak,
Maybe there is a difference, maybe there isn't. I would just like to see if someone can demonstrate objectively what improvement *any* of these USB optimizations will have on a good modern asynchronous USB DAC.

Does it affect XMOS microcontrollers? How about the inexpensive Microchip devices? CMedia?

There are so many "possible" effects but as yet, there is no fact-based objective demonstration at all that this whole "industry" of USB add-ons make a whiff of difference... Much less a reviewer chaining 9 of them together somehow should be used with the product; all the while potentially making the USB transmission *worse* just as much as they could improve something.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

Audio experince is sugjective and cannot be objective, posted on July 5, 2017 at 11:44:19
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
as is in the case of community noise and noise and vibration rating and classification. There is no rigid objective means of determination, just guidelines and empirical data.

Objective measurements in audio are useful only for screening purposes and gear that measures well may not sound good. Those who cannot discern differences are just groups of individuals who cannot detect subtle or very subtle changes in temporal and special renditions of musical performances.

One so called 'objective' and well known criterion is the Fletcher and Munson loudness contours which were obtained by playing sine waves at different frequencies to audiences. Common sense tells us that no one would willingly listen to sine waves in musical reproduction.

 

Page processed in 0.033 seconds.