New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIP and DSP: upsampling revealed - Page 2

post #16 of 29

Re: rickfri

Originally posted by Orpheus
oh, by the way, rick, it doesn't matter what aes/ebu cable you get. as long as they meet the standards posted by the aes/ebu commitee, any cable, no matter the price, will conduct perfect digital transfer to any component. this is assuming that you have a normal electrical environment. if you were to have many cables, and we're talking much much much more than a home system would ever have, electromagnetic interference may become an issue. also, if your cable run is much longer than say 20ft (i'm not sure what the posted aes/ebu standard is)... then signal degredation might make a difference too. but like i said, in a normal audiophile/home studio environment, you do not have any of these issues.

thus, any cable will do.

.......and i know there are plenty of people that think that expensive spdif/toslink/aesebu cables make a difference. they absolutely do not. i can prove it to you if you wish. use any cd player with a digital output... then take a cable and connect to a a good pro computer interface. then record to 2-track. make sure to have your program start automatic recording when a signal is detected.... most pro software will do this. do this for as many cables as you wish. now, use a byte by byte comparison program to compare each audio file to each other. if given that the recording started at exactly the same time for each cable.... EVERY file will be identical up to the shortest recording's ending.

don't bother saying that your ears can hear the difference until you do the experiment. if the files are identical, then clearly there never was any difference!

post #17 of 29


just giving practical advice... though i know it won't be popular advice here. but i figured some people might want to know.

i have a recording studio. my producer friend and I are going to open a new revolutionary studio soon... more info later. if you were wondering where i get my facts...

post #18 of 29

Re: k

Originally posted by Orpheus
i have a recording studio. my producer friend and I are going to open a new revolutionary studio soon... more info later. if you were wondering where i get my facts...
Actually, I'm still wondering where you get your facts. Your answer to the following question will help clear that up: Digital cables aside, do you think that speaker cables can make a difference to sound quality?
post #19 of 29

speaker cables

i think that different materials and constructions can have various effects on the signal itself. personally, i think that any decent calbe made out of decent copper should not have a discernable difference in sound compared to other quality cables. but i cannot argue this cause the only way i can is to demonstrate by blind-testing.

however, what i have written about digital cables are entirely FACTS. they are not opinions. tha fact that digital converters (DACs or ADCs) output less than their reported bit width is entirely true. again... you can measuere with an oscilloscope. the physics and simple calculus used to describe converters was reported in one of my scientific/professional magazines... but it's beyond the scope of this discussion... and also i did not entriely undestand it myself. if you wish, i can find out the date and issue for you.... but i'd have to find it.

anyway... there are only a couple companies in the world that make digital coverter chips... or at least only a couple major companies. the top chips are used in Apogee's... that's why i recommend it... and also since all the people who make the records you lsiten to also use apogees. why not use what the pros use?... if you can afford it that is. i believe the apogee 8000 series costs more than $6000. the rosetta is much more reasonable.... closer to $1500 new i think. but i've seen one for $700 on ebay before.

anyway.... secondly, what i said about the digital cables is true too. just try it. if you doubt me... all you have to do is try it.

think about it this way: the cables connecting your hard drive to your computer carry much more information than an audio cable. have you ever heard of a silver ultanium whatever super duper shielded utra pure cable for hard drives? what if i told you that i could hear the difference in the MP3 i make using that cable? absurd right? it's the same thing with digital cables. any decent cable that meets the standards set by the people who invented the digital standard should be fine.

if you don't believe me... do the experiment i told you. then you shall see.

post #20 of 29

Re: better converter

Originally posted by Orpheus
If you REALLY want the best converter money can poossibly buy... forget all those audiophile converters or the cheap Art unit. no matter how much money you spend, you cannot get better than an Apogee PSX-100SE. or the AD-8000SE if you want 8 channels of conversion.
Recently compared the modded Art DIO to the Apogee psx-100 based Cello 8.1 DAC on a Melos/Krell/Apogee Acoustics(as in ribbon speakers not the pro audio co) setup... The Cello was not superior, it had good qualities like a very well defined mids, but the ART was a bit more refined overall... Though this was not quite a "direct" comparison since the cables used were different... The Art had the all Acoustic Zen cable setup and the Cello a Straightwire IC/Transparent digital cable setup.
post #21 of 29
Thread Starter 

Re: k

Originally posted by Orpheus
just giving practical advice... though i know it won't be popular advice here. but i figured some people might want to know.
The problem is that your advice is wrong. Unfortunately, that's something that you don't want to know, so there's no real point in debating it.
post #22 of 29
I also replaced my Monarchy Dip with the GW Labs Dsp in front of my EVS Millenium 1B Dac.I tried putting the Dip before the Dsp.In my case, it muffled the sound slightly so I removed it.I use 2 Zcable Duets with Great results!!!!!! Arrowmark
post #23 of 29

Re: speaker cables

Originally posted by Orpheus
personally, i think that any decent calbe made out of decent copper should not have a discernable difference in sound compared to other quality cables. but i cannot argue this cause the only way i can is to demonstrate by blind-testing.
You're not being really specific here, but I think you've posted enough for me to know where you are coming from--so that I can afford to dismiss your comments on cables entirely. I've heard enormous differences between 'decent' copper cable and low-gauge silver cable, and I'm a comparative audio neophyte. Anyone who cannot hear these differences either has insufficient experience, a poor-quality system or--quite possibly--cannot or will not hear.
post #24 of 29


hmm. that's very interesting. well, then if you like the sound of the Art more, by all means use it.

the "sound" of a unit is subjective. but just know that the the last 4 bits of the Art "24-bit" DAC is outputing noise. this is a fact of all converters: there are none that can convert precisely to their reported bit rate. now, i am assuming that the Art uses an inferior DAC only based on its price, which i believe is a safe assumption. i do not know the exact chipset used in the Art, but anything less than $1000 should be outputting about 4 bits worth of noise.

but anyway... you should use whatever unit sounds best. and if you like the Art, heck... save yourself a couple grand then. but every well-known recording engineer in the world would disagree with you... including the ones that made most your CDs.

but again, i want to make clear, I am not saying you wouldn't like the sound of the Art.... some people like turntable records too, compared to CDs.

post #25 of 29


and no Hirsch.... I would like very much to hear what you have to say. that's why i poseted what i did.

if you wish you can email me at

let me know why I am wrong. i have not included any opiinions as far as i know... only facts. if you wish to tell my how facts are wrong, then go ahead. if you want to tell me something "sounds" better.... which might very well be true, then you can't argue about that.

but please tell me how i'm wrong.

...let me point out now that the article on DACs and ADCs was printed in a very good magazine, though it is very technical, and i wouldn't be able to describe to you the specifics, but i can tell you where to find it and you can read it yourself. or perhaps i can send you a scan of what it says.

...secondly, i do represent the professional community's opinion: but the fact is, none of your records used an Art unit to do conversion... probably close to 90% used Apogee converters, if they use Digidesign ProTools. Art actually is not a very highly regarded brand in the professional community. it's what they call "prosumer" equipment.

so, Hirsch... please don't say that i don't want to hear so you there's no point... if you have something to say, then say it.

post #26 of 29

absolute facts

okay... i found the mag: "surround prefessional" issue six, page 60. you can find their website at

you are right Hirsch... i have made some errors. i read this article long time ago:

1. there aren't just a few converter chips... they simply only listed the best converters. sorry.
2. their data is based on the dynamic range of the chips, compared to "dynamic range with TPDF, white-noise dither and perfect quantizer."
3. it would seem even the pro chips do not approach 24 bit resolution. the best chips are by Prism Sound and Troisi, but only report a 115 unweighted dynamic range.
4. manufacturers thus improve on the dunamic range by running these converters in parallel. i quote: "By summing the outputs of the converters together, the contribution of the signal grows faster (twice as much signal is 6 dB) than the contribution of the noise (twice as much noise is 3 db, so long as the noises being added are uncoreelated), so noise is reduced compared to the signal and dynamic range is increased." so, in short... that's how manufacturers can get closer to 24 bits. i must note that any converter that runs 8 chips in parallel is already outlandishly expensive.
5. even with paralleling chips, only a signal to noise ratio of 121 db (about 21 bit resolution) can be achieved at a practical price (8 chips in parallel). if you wish to have real 24 bit resolution, you would need 512 chips in parallel (140+ db dynamic range).... and only Bill Gates can afford to buy that.
6. so, it would seem, not only does the Art use inferior chips, it uses less chips.

i hope this clarifies things. sorry for the misinformation.

post #27 of 29
It would be nice if everyone posting in this thread would keep in mind the title of the thread -- "DIP and DSP: upsampling revealed." It's talking abou tthe effect of digital processors between transport and DAC, not the effects of digital cables or what DACs recording engineers use. Please try to create new threads if you'd like to discuss an aspect of posts that is wholly unrelated to the thread's primary discussion. Thank you.
post #28 of 29


sorry, was taking advantage of the opportunity to discuss.

i apologize.

post #29 of 29

Re: DIP and DSP: upsampling revealed

Originally posted by Hirsch
First off, the Monarchy and GW Labs in series work better even at 44.1 for jitter reduction. The high end is cleaner, and everything is a bit more detailed. But when the 24/96 mode is engaged, things change. It's as though a layer of noise disappears. The sense of depth increases. Going back to 16/44, it sounds like instruments are starting to smear. As I A/B, it sounds as though the upsampling is taking elements of the sound, and putting them together to make a more coherent whole.

Apparently, by reducing jitter in the incoming signal with the DIP first, the DSP's own jitter reduction and reclocking are having a much more dramatic effect on the sound.

Thanks Hirsh...just when I thought that MY wallet might have a chance to heal a bit. Looks like it's due for another beating.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: