|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.228.167.163
In Reply to: RE: Let the grenade throwing begin... posted by Charles Hansen on February 05, 2009 at 08:28:55
I would try it if there are inputs other than usb and if the dac is 192k capable. As it is, ine is limited to a box with one use.
Follow Ups:
Yes, the problem is that as you add more features the price goes up. We figured that most people using their computers for audio wouldn't also want to have additional digital sources. Time will tell if we made a good decision.
Then you are excluding the audio market and limiting resolution to 2496 aginst competition that does more.
I do know that 176.4/192k/dsd sdif3 sound considerably better.
Time will tell.
Currently the DAC is limited to 96/24 due to the limitations of the TAS1020B USB transceiver. It is only USB 1.1 compliant, while USB 2.0 is required to achieve the speeds required to reach 192/24.
Gordon is working on ways to get USB 2.0 working. It appears that it may require a hardware upgrade, but it is possible that it could be done with just a firmware upgrade. In either case, currently only Mac's OS supports those high sample rates with the native USB driver -- not Windows and not Linux.
In any event the unit will be upgradeable, as the DAC is modular. In the meantime, there isn't much software available at sample rates past 96/24. I think the main use for a higher sample rate would be if one were transferring a vinyl collection. The problem there is that there aren't that many great sounding A/D solutions currently available.
I guess the bottom line is that computer-based audio is still in flux. It will eventually reach a stable state, but all new things take time to mature.
I own a MAC Mini and it comes standard with the Intel High Definition Audio sound card 0x83847680 which does 192 kHz/32-bit quality for two channels, and 96 kHz/32-bit for up to eight channels.
As some mentioned Reference Recordings HRx's are 176.4kHz. I just did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini yesterday and 192kHz is better in many key area's (see linked post). I also downloaded a 192kHz 32 Bit music file. So I think to future proof your DAC you many need not only the capability of 192kHz but 32 Bit as well.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
This is something that we continue to look at. The biggest obstacle at the present time is lack of driver support from Windows and Linux. (Mac OS X will support 192 kHz, and I believe up to 32 bits.)
We always offered updates for our products and as the technology changes I'm sure that we'll be able to offer updates for the USB DAC also.
Hi Charles,
Just include the MAC mini in the package, it will increase the sales price of the DAC around 500USD, and that is peanuts in hi-end...
Fred,
The biggest problem right now is both Linux and Windows does not support Class 2.0 USB Audio. While it does support USB 2.0 devices, Class 2.0 is not supported but would be required for sampling rates above 24/96 without the use of drivers.
I am not against writing drivers. The up keep required for custom drivers is more than I want to take on at this point.
Charlie and I have a plan it is still brewing and when it's complete we will make sure the customer base is filled in and keep them satisfied.
The good news is we can work on Class 2.0 on the OSX platform and get it working.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
Get it working on one O/S and ship the product. This will shift the perception that the problem is with your products or with USB and move it to specific operating systems and their software support. People who buy your class of products can afford an inexpensive computer that runs the necessary O/S.
Just don't waste any time, otherwise USB might be permanently bypassed for hi-end audio playback.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Just as Tony Lauck said, don't wait too long to bring out 176.4/24 & 192/24 capability.
There are already a few companies offering true 176.4/24 or 192/24 recordings:
Reference recordings: http://www.referencerecordings.com/HRxORDER.asp
ACOUSENCE classics: http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/digital_cd_en.html
(Their 192/24 recordings are available via Linn: http://www.linnrecords.com/label-acousence-classics.aspx)
2L: http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/displayMerchandise.asp?id=381&aid=28633There are lots of companies offering true 88.2/24 or 96/24. The list is long and I can list only a few:
Linn records: http://www.linnrecords.com/index.aspx
HDTracks: http://www.hdtracks.com/(offers products from Chesky, RR, etc)
HDGiants: http://mgn.musicgiants.com/Albums.aspx?SUPERHD=TRUE)
Gimell records: http://www.gimell.com/catalogue.aspx?filter=Studio+Master+Pro
Unipheye Music: http://www.unipheyemusic.com/Results.cfm?category=6
ITrax: http://www.itrax.com/In a recent discussion about the quality master tape, DSD & PCM in the Hirez forum, producer Bruce Brown says he can't hear a difference between DSD & 352.8 kHz PCM but he can hear a difference when the PCM sample rate goes down to 96 kHz! 176.4 & 192 is somewhere in the middle.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=hirez&m=253074Good 192 kHz DACs will encourage this nascent market. Why don't you go one step ahead and offer 352.8 & 384 kHz sampling? Such resolution is already available!
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.htmlI'm not sure why you say "I think that we are pretty much on the cutting edge here" when sadly 96/24 is not cutting edge. Don't mistake me, I want Ayre to succeed since without such help 192/24 and 384/24 will not succeed.
Edits: 02/06/09
Thanks for the link to Acousense.
They have a free demo page that contains portions from their recording of Mahler's 6th symphony. These are available at 44.1, 96, and 192 kHz. The 192 kHz cuts show the presence of high frequency content (e.g. trumpet overtones) out to about 50 kHz, so these cuts should be good for demonstrating the advantages of the higher sampling rates.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks for the info; I have kjust ordered the 192k disc from Acousence at realistic prices including postage. Don't see why i shoudl save by downloading from Linn when I can get all resolutions and comparison kit(?).
HD Tracks supplies 96k resampled RR files only, not the 176.4k original recording sample rate.
I too find 96 k inferior to > 176.4k or dsd digital via the sdif3 interface.
"In the meantime, there isn't much software available at sample rates past 96/24."
This is a chicken and egg problem. With more equipment and more people using computer audio there will be more software. Very little extra work is required when mastering at one PCM rate to create versions for other sampling rates.
Don't wait too long to bring out 192 kHz capability or you will find that the world has moved on and the leading edge consumers are looking for 352.8 and 384 KHz. These data rates are well within the bounds of current computer technology and are presently in use at the best mastering facilities.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I have 20% genuine hirez material and I am converting one low power pc to 176.4k upsampled CD playback using Audition 3.0.1. Files just sound that much better, although they don't sound as good as the genuine hirez stuff.
Don't buy resampled 'hire' matwerial being offered; do it yourself to your own satifaction.
I think that we are pretty much on the cutting edge here. If you look around, there are only a handful of companies that match what we are doing now.
Arguably the only mainstream one to match us is dCS, but at over 10x the price. (They have recently announced an "asynchronous" USB and-on module that only works with their equipment due to the word-clock cable required for best performance.)
And the one company to surpass what we are doing as far as high sample rates the Linn at $20,000. I am told that it sounds very good, but that it only works with its own software which apparently is problematic.
So for a component with this level of performance and technology for less than $2,500 (price not finalized yet), I think we are offering technology that nobody else is (except Wavelength, of course) at a price point that nobody else is matching. We will continue to stay on the leading edge of things as they develop.
dCS pro gear is not athat expensive and works better in some ways (more controllable sttings). I have been using the upsampling and dsd playback features for 4 years. This is hardly cutting edge. The other company is EMM.
One sad thing about dCS is that, following reorganisation, they seem to have stopped developing their pro range with new cutting edge features such as DXD.
You have said elsewhere that the AES3 interface is broken. Look at how dCS does these and you see almost perfect wave transmissions; something that most others do not do well. The other thing they do well is the lack of thermal effects, using closed boxes that stabilise at 70 C.
It's the best technology available today.
When you buy a computer or an iPod or whatever, you know that next year or next month there will be a better one.
The difference is that at Ayre we have always had an incredible upgrade program. For example, if you bought an Ayre K-1 preamplifier in 1996, you could have it fully updated to the latest version for only about 5% more than the price has increased. And you could have been enjoying it for 13 years. And in it's current incarnation it is still one of the best preamps out there.
I don't think you can say that about any other product from any other industry.
Charles, I cannot believe you actually said, "It's the best technology available today."
Statements like these crack me up. You know it is absolutely not true and this is the typical thing that makes me mad about manufacturers like you. Unless you know every technology out there and exactly what everyone else is doing, you are lying.
I have been reading through this thread and it is filled with total inaccuracies. I do not know if you are truly naive and believe what you are saying or that you are intentionally trying to decieve. I would hope it is the former.
Jonathan,
This being said from someone who is offering a $15K dac and using 16bit 48KHz off the shelf USB technology.
I think for $2500 with 24/96 capabilities, async USB, ultra low jitter clocks, Custom FPGA digital filters with discrete output technology and no feedback is pretty damn impressive wouldn't you agree.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
....I've got a great Pro DAC that can play any file up to 24/192, without the need for custom after-market drivers or plug-ins to make it work, and its own low-jitter studio clock technology. With its word clock I/O's, I have the ability to add a reference-level studio master clock to gain even greater performance (which I've done). And all I use is an inexpensive firewire cable....pretty much plug-and-play.
So? Pretty damn impressive, wouldn't you agree?
Gordon,
What is this WWA tag team?
USB is just one connection and that is all it is. You guys act as if it is some breakthrough technology. If you want up to 24/192 use AES.
Give it a break!
Jonathan
Exactly.
This is the first way to get the audio out of your computer (Windows or Mac) and into your hi-fi while putting the fixed-frequency master audio clock 1" away from the DAC chip (right where it belongs for the lowest jitter) and doesn't require any custom software or special drivers.
So, yeah. It is a breakthrough.
nt
Like I said in the white paper, Firewire and Ethernet are both good possibilities for avoiding the jitter that is inherently added by S/PDIF (aka, AES/EBU,Toslink, etc.).
The problem with them is that they both require custom software to work -- at the very least custom device drivers. We made a decision that we would rather develop great new products than have to maintain computer software for all iterations of all operating systems on all hardware platforms.
Other people make different decisions. That is fine. If you find a Firewire DAC that meets your needs, then you should consider yourself happy. And for your sake, I hope that the manufacturer of your DAC continues to make the necessary device drivers for future operating systems, and that you can continue to find replacement computers that still have Firewire ports as you upgrade your hardware.
While I don't think that Firewire will disappear as fast as, say, an EISA slot (remember those?), it is clear that it is on the way out.
Like I said in the white paper, Firewire and Ethernet are both good possibilities for avoiding the jitter that is inherently added by S/PDIF (aka, AES/EBU,Toslink, etc.).
Glad you agree. My primary reason for choosing a firewire solution, besides the latency issue (or non-issue, as it were), was because I could have my cake and eat it too regarding hi-rez reproduction....I had no frequency limitations whatsoever.
The problem with them is that they both require custom software to work -- at the very least custom device drivers. We made a decision that we would rather develop great new products than have to maintain computer software for all iterations of all operating systems on all hardware platforms.
Charles....there's no problem. There are numerous pro companies that have been in business FOR YEARS, making highly reliable product. And their products have the necessary device drivers that make them reliable (in addition to their tried-and-true circuitry) and compatible for the various formats, or recording and mastering studios wouldn't be buying and operating them for these many years.
Other people make different decisions. That is fine. If you find a Firewire DAC that meets your needs, then you should consider yourself happy. And for your sake, I hope that the manufacturer of your DAC continues to make the necessary device drivers for future operating systems,
Re-read the above paragraph. Perhaps you are not as well-informed regarding the pro market, and the demands made by studios and live recording venues. The companies I'm referring to are among the best and most-respected in the industry. Some have created the technologies that must be bullet-proof in the field. No fly-by-nights, no start-ups, nor companies just entering the marketplace.
and that you can continue to find replacement computers that still have Firewire ports as you upgrade your hardware.
Now that's throwing up a straw man argument.
While I don't think that Firewire will disappear as fast as, say, an EISA slot (remember those?), it is clear that it is on the way out.
That wholly depends on who you talk to. I'll take my chances with tried-and-true pro companies, who have been around this block far longer, with proven technology. And you are overlooking the obvious....if the technology changes, you can be assured that pro companies will be at the forefront, not playing catchup with methodologies that are old hat.
I think the differences are just a matter of perspective.
The pro companies started working with computer audio many years ago, as it was a much cheaper way to do things than have dedicated, ground-up audio workstations. At that time, Firewire was being heavily promoted and people thought that USB was just for peripherals like mice and keyboards.
Apple was the main champion of Firewire, and they were about the only people that included it with their computers. If you were a professional audio person, having to buy a Mac instead of a PC in order to get Firewire wasn't a big deal. The computer only cost a small fraction of what ProTools or some of the other software packages did. So the whole pro industry focused on Macs and Firewire. That made complete sense given what was available and the needs of the pro industry.
But even Apple didn't think it was important enough to include support for Firewire audio devices, so the pro manufacturers were *forced* to write their own device drivers. (Not an easy task, but much easier than designing a complete computerized audio workstation from the ground up!)
But today is different, and we are designing for a different market. Most of our customers have PCs -- Apple still only has about a 10% market share, and even they are starting to drop Firewire from their products. So it doesn't really make sense for us to design something that has limited hardware support and requires custom device drivers. Not when we can design something that has universal hardware support and runs on the native drivers that come with the OS.
That doesn't mean that you should throw away your equipment and run out to buy new stuff. Obviously your equipment works great and there is no reason to change it. It's just that it wouldn't make sense for us to design a Firewire product in 2009.
I certainly don't question your business decisions, and your thorough explanation is completely sensible. I needed to point out that there are other very worthwhile solutions that already exist that exceed 24/96 (for those of us that wish to take advantage of the highest resolution files), are field-tested and proven, and manufactured by noteworthy pro companies. Their hardware and firmware was made for the long haul....recording and mastering studios will accept nothing less.I purchased what I purchased knowing I won't need to upgrade for perhaps a number of years. With over 2000 CD's, I have plenty of 16/44 material for years to come, but my setup (with pro-level mastering software) allows me to playback any hi-rez available up to 24/192, more of which will be coming in the not-too-distant future via download. In fact, more is coming out weekly.
As I stated earlier, I wanted my cake, etc. etc. That's why I waited as long as I did to make my purchases. If someone else is happy with the limitation of 24/96, or in the alternative, doesn't see that as a limitation, more power to them. There are many paths to Nirvana. The whole point is to enjoy the music, as Stevie R. always says.
But, I do take issue with this statement:
But even Apple didn't think it was important enough to include support for Firewire audio devices, so the pro manufacturers were *forced* to write their own device drivers. (Not an easy task, but much easier than designing a complete computerized audio workstation from the ground up!)
So?? And the pro manufacturers, stepped up and wrote those drivers....years ago. And they still operate easily and efficiently in a myriad of pro interfaces, many of which have implemented 24/192 for some time. And to them, 24/96 is already in the rear view mirror, with some product already being fazed out because of that limitation. State-of-the-art is now considered at 24/352.4K and 24/384K. Heck, Tim de Paravicini deduced the digital equivalent of the best analog reproduction at 24/384, perhaps 20 years ago. This ain't new information.
But in your view, what is the difference between what these manufacturers were required to do, so many years ago, and the hoops that Gordon has been jumping through (recently) to make USB work properly, at 24/96?
Edits: 02/07/09
You have produced a string of posts devoid of hard facts. Every one makes you seem less credible and your product less likely to be worthwhile.
Bill
The equipment is designed by Andreas Koch. He is a very sharp and talented designer who worked for several years with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs. The player has received good reports from those who have heard it, and I have no doubts that it is an excellent product.
The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Charles,You appear to be going out of your way to mislead and manipulate people here about things you have no knowledge of. I have tried to email you privately but you will not accept unsolicited emails so I am left to do this publically.
"The equipment is designed by Andreas Koch. He is a very sharp and talented designer who worked for several years with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs."
You have no idea who is or was involved with the design and production of the Playback Designs products. You are making assumptions that may be totally incorrect, partially incorrect or entirely correct. Since you do not know, you should not speak as you do. It is the same as lying.
"The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision."
Again, you state that there is a problem and also what you think that problem is. You also state that he contracted me out. How do you know such things? Would you swear to this as truth if your company and home depended on it? Where do you get your so-called facts? Why don't you acknowledge that you are making all of this up.
Your "compliment" toward Andreas is no such thing. It is a deliberate back door attack on me and you are out of line. Do not talk about my company again and I would suggest you be very careful as you proceed.
Edits: 02/07/09 02/07/09
Okie-dokie, Jonathan.
The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Have you read Andreas' background? He did a hell of a lot more than working "several years with Ed Meitner".
Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision. The same could be said for your decision to license Gordon's doo-dad, no? Not everyone thinks that Gordon is the sole repository of knowledge. There are many paths to digital Nirvana....Gordon's, Jonathan's, and yours being just 3 of them.
Charles said
> > The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore
> > contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing.
> > You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Alan replied
> Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision.
I didn't interpret what Charles said to be a slight on the designer. Rather it is a defence of him and the credibility of the product.
The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Bill
I appreciate that you "didn't interpret what Charles said to be a slight on the designer", and thank you for stating so. However, to a certain degree, I did. And others might.The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Echoing my response to Charles below, how do you know that Andreas "contracted out the sales and marketing"? To be fair, are you privy to Jonathan's and Andreas' business relationship?
Edits: 02/07/09
Bill said
> > The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Alan said
> Echoing my response to Charles below, how do you know that Andreas
> "contracted out the sales and marketing"? To be fair, are you privy to
> Jonathan's and Andreas' business relationship?
Alan earlier
> Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision. The same
> could be said for your decision to license Gordon's doo-dad, no? Not
> everyone thinks that Gordon is the sole repository of knowledge.
> There are many paths to digital Nirvana....Gordon's, Jonathan's,
> and yours being just 3 of them.
I was simply stating that Charles referred to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing. You appeared to interpret Charles reference to a decision to be another slight on Andreas and raised the question of Charles licensing Async mode firmware from Gordon.
Charles did not take a position on the wisdom of Andreas's decision to contract out sales and marketing. That isn't a technical decision and has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Andreas's approach.
My remarks clearly do not endorse Charles statement or draw any inference from it. They simply point out that my interpretation of what Charles said.
Bill
I'll try again. Old Listener said that with each of Jonathan Tinn's posts that the product was less likely to be worthwhile.
I was pointing out the fact that Jonathan Tinn did not design the unit. Andreas Koch did, and he is not making these posts.
The Playback Design player is what it is, regardless of whatever is posted about it. In other words, shoot the messenger if you must, but that doesn't mean that the product isn't worthwhile.
you can address 'direct' questions to you, about your prodcuts and/or, you can post to 'clear' up any misinformation about your products.
Engaging in generic, wholesale commentary about products you sell or market, or really engaging in talk about competitors' products is against our rules.
Thanks, Chris
Please re-read this sub-thread.
I am defending the Playback Designs unit as a great piece of equipment made by a talented designer.
Is there really a problem with that? Or is there a different specific post you have a complaint with?
.
absolutely agree.
This may be so for US users, but internationally one is left to the mercy of distributors or FedEx et al who not only charge for freight, but can TAX you as well. They even charge extra for liasion with tax authorities. No thanks.
Having seen some of the disgusting Wadia upgrades done at local level, I would rather not get involved.
dCS offers a prepaid mail service but this costs as well.
As a VERY happy K1x onwner I must say I hold back for an upgrade to e status on the pre because of the UPS and customs red tape/costs to the US and back from Europe. A 20kg. box costs money to shift around, plus the waiting time and risk of damage in the process.
I will listen to the new Ayre DAC when I have the chance to hear it in the European lowlands, its up against the Apogee miniDAC firewire version, that can run @192/24 over firewire, with native OSX support and integration, at a third of the cost I would guess.
Paul
Charles seems to have been seduced by this asynchronous usb business. As I said to him , I would not be tempted to buy an expensive one box device limiting me to 2496.
Other than commericial interest, I cannot see why some inmates are rubbishing Firewire jsut as others rubbish hirez pcm and dsd.
Very well said Fmak.
doesn't cost $2500 and a trip to the factory plus another $1000 for someone to plug in a new board.
It's a gentle means of planned obsolescence. At least you don't try to hide it, which is refreshing.
Let's say you bought a K-5x when it was introduced. Retail price was $3,000. When we brought out the "e" version a few years later, it cost $250 for the upgrade. And if you didn't want it, you didn't have to buy it.
I'd say that's the opposite of "planned obsolescence".
my CX-7 for a fraction of what a new unit would cost. That's VERY cool, thanks!
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: