Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › New Audiolab DAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Audiolab DAC - Page 41

post #601 of 857
I don't hear a difference with this firmware like some of the guys on PFM are reporting. I use the DAC with Paradigm S1 speakers which are very accurate.

Can't tell a difference between the filters either.

Being able to name the sources is pretty neat though.
post #602 of 857
Maybe it's just me but all these firmware updates and endless discussion on Pink Fish rather puts me off. I guess I just want the thing to sound good out of the box, that's why I'm not a valve guy, lol. Also I find PF unreadable so it's great to have it distilled here by Grumpy
post #603 of 857
Why do firmware updates make the M DAC sound different?

I thought the firmware updates just fixed operational bugs?
post #604 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

Why do firmware updates make the M DAC sound different?

I thought the firmware updates just fixed operational bugs?

Well, quite.  To be honest the whole thing feels a bit amateur hour to me...

post #605 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by avl06 View Post

Well, quite.  To be honest the whole thing feels a bit amateur hour to me...

LOL!

I've owned and used numerous oieces of Aaudiolab gear in the past.
It certainly is well build, very good sounding gear.
They are far from the only company who sends out patches for software glitches.
microsoft has been known to send out one or two or a few hundred......or more.

I've had a brief listen to the M-DAC. It certainly is an outstanding sounding DAC!
post #606 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

 
LOL!

I've owned and used numerous oieces of Aaudiolab gear in the past.
It certainly is well build, very good sounding gear.
They are far from the only company who sends out patches for software glitches.
microsoft has been known to send out one or two or a few hundred......or more.

I've had a brief listen to the M-DAC. It certainly is an outstanding sounding DAC!

I dont see how you can compare Microsoft updates such as Windows updates to a simple device like M-dac updates. M-dac has a simple task to convert digital audio to analog audio. Windows on the other hand is a huge operating system with millions of possible use cases. These updates also turned me off from buying a M-dac. There are numerous dacs out there such as Centrance dacmini  or Burson 160ds, Conductor etc. None of them seem to get frequent updates like M-dac because they just work out of the box. 


Edited by aras - 2/22/13 at 10:05am
post #607 of 857
Just use the first firmware and you will be happy - no need to update if you do not like any improvement
Edited by Hubert481 - 2/22/13 at 10:38am
post #608 of 857
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aras View Post

I dont see how you can compare Microsoft updates such as Windows updates to a simple device like M-dac updates. M-dac has a simple task to convert digital audio to analog audio. Windows on the other hand is a huge operating system with millions of possible use cases. These updates also turned me off from buying a M-dac. There are numerous dacs out there such as Centrance dacmini  or Burson 160ds, Conductor etc. None of them seem to get frequent updates like M-dac because they just work out of the box. 

I can see you've spent a lot of time designing hardware and software!
post #609 of 857

You don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. Like I said, comparable products like centrance dacmini and other dacs from well known manufacturers rarely need any firmware updates to work properly. I'm not saying by anyway this is a bad product but I honestly don't want to deal with firmware updates when comparable products work as they should out of the box.  Btw I'm senior engineer at a fortune 500 company if that is going to satisfy you. My everyday work consists of designing  electronic instruments.


Edited by aras - 2/22/13 at 5:21pm
post #610 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by aras View Post

You don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. Like I said, comparable products like centrance dacmini and other dacs from well known manufacturers rarely need any firmware updates to work properly. I'm not saying by anyway this is a bad product but I honestly don't want to deal with firmware updates when comparable products work as they should out of the box.  Btw I'm senior engineer at a fortune 500 company if that is going to satisfy you. My everyday work consists of designing  electronic instruments.

Fair enough.
Just had my fill of people commenting on Head Fi who seem to have no idea what they are talking about, but they usually hang out in the Sci Fi Forum.
I like the sound of the M-DAC.
By the time I get around to buying an M-DAC I'm sure all the bugs will be worked out.
They're not the only DAC manufacturer who had to issue firmware updates.

Not a big fan of MicroSoft by any means.
They seem to do a good job of releasing equipment before it's finished,
I work for a Fortune 500 company too, I work in Engineering, we design power distribution products.
post #611 of 857
The Burson might not have any firmware-update but...
Jump to #11
http://www.head-fi.org/t/600568/help-burson-ha-160ds-hum-noise-problem

As already mentioned, you do not have to update, the mdac is already great out of the box.
post #612 of 857
I used to own a pair of Sonic Frontiers vacuum tube power amps that hummed quite loudly thru the speakers until I sorted out the internal grounding.

The manufacturer told me to disconnect the ground pin on the AC cables which, for safety reasons, is something I will not do.
post #613 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by aras View Post

I dont see how you can compare Microsoft updates such as Windows updates to a simple device like M-dac updates. M-dac has a simple task to convert digital audio to analog audio. Windows on the other hand is a huge operating system with millions of possible use cases. These updates also turned me off from buying a M-dac. There are numerous dacs out there such as Centrance dacmini  or Burson 160ds, Conductor etc. None of them seem to get frequent updates like M-dac because they just work out of the box. 

Its not as simple as you think and i do believe you need to be a engineer in order to make comments like this, or at least have some basic understanding to know how difficult these sigma delta modulators work.

These are not ladder dacs and require some insane amount of knowledge from the engineers point of view, things like.

Sigma delta modulation

Noise Shaping

Jitter and Jitter correction with Phase Lock Loop, synchronous, Asynchronous.

 

Quick glance at your dac list and all seem to use ladder dacs and no sabre ones, If you can quite comfortably understand these things and how a Sigdel dac works then please come back and teach me as i have not even scratched the surface myself.

post #614 of 857

trust me delivering a bug free dac is quite easy compared delivering a bug free operating system such as Windows which has to play nice with millions of hardware and software components. I did not start this comparison myself however I think it is time we end this since they are completely different animals.


Edited by aras - 2/24/13 at 12:04am
post #615 of 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by aras View Post

You don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. Like I said, comparable products like centrance dacmini and other dacs from well known manufacturers rarely need any firmware updates to work properly. I'm not saying by anyway this is a bad product but I honestly don't want to deal with firmware updates when comparable products work as they should out of the box.  Btw I'm senior engineer at a fortune 500 company if that is going to satisfy you. My everyday work consists of designing  electronic instruments.

Many of my electronic instruments need a yearly recalibration for approval reasons. Any chance of designing instruments that are always perfect in their readings even after years of use?

over the

Not all DACs use a firmware, and those that do can have a simple to a very complex firmware. Designing electronic instruments is one part of the equation. A DAC is after all an electronic instrument of sorts. Complex firmware operation is full of dangers, and the increased use of SPI and I2C by the DAC chips is adding to the problem. How many people can understand SPI and I2C, let alone write a full set of software routines that are bomb proof?

 

Over simplification like in your comments demonstrates why so many of the untapped features in many DAC chipsets go unused. To access them requires software operation. Most DAC designers play it safe and just let you have the basic functions to play with. Things like the MDAC and a few others are taking a chance and offering additional functionalities that are possible with the chips. To talk down these efforts isn't helpful in any way. Don't forget that advances start to show up in the more expensive DACs, and eventually filter down the line till most of us have it as standard in even our cheaper DAC. A case in point is the multiple input option and selector circuit. Going back to the 90's only two DACs that I can think of had such options. And both cost more than U$2000 then. Now even a U$100 DAC has those options. The input select bugs have been ironed out over the years and nobody gives a 2nd though to how it is actually possible to change inputs without any noise etc. The same goes for new features. Today's designers are taking a chance to add more to a DAC. And we all should support that principle so that one day we can buy a DAC with the functionality of say the NAD or the MDAC for less than U$200 one day. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › New Audiolab DAC