New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Meitner MA-1 - Page 3

post #31 of 51
8/29/11 at 5:00am


not silence alone, but a number of pecular aspects, including the disappearing website, as you had mentioned in your post; its the combination of events or the non-occurance of certain events that suggests something is note quite write in the Meitner land.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post




I find this to be very strange that silence = broken product, especially when its a near $7K product that few have access to. Admittedly it is a little bit weird that the Meitner website seems to have disappeared, and the address now just takes you to EMM.



 

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #32 of 51
8/29/11 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossback View Post

if you've ever heard native 2xDSD (6.1Mhz DSD) from a Korg MR-1000 where it's either been used to record a live mic feed or direct from analog 15ips master tape, you would have heard the ultimate digital format. i have a number of times. it's the only digital format that actually challenges analog tape or vinyl at the highest level.

 

the problem has been that even though the Korg is not that expensive (around $2k) how does 'everyman' have an opportunity to record directly or get access to master tapes?  so it's not been any sort of consumer format. with the Playback Designs that has now changed. there is already delivery systems for hi-rez downloads. a very good friend of mine does a significant portion of hirez downloads in the USA for multiple record labels. he already has 24/384khz PCM and 6.1Mhz DSD files for many of these recordings. it's really just a matter of the labels deciding to offer them. and that will be happening very soon.

 

the bottom line; for the digital audio lover aspiring to the highest fidelity spending north of $5k on a server dac right now it would be a mistake to not have this feature set in any product they buy.

 

btw, MSB might be able to do beyond 24/192khz PCM, but i don't think they can do DSD at 2.6Mhz or 6.1Mhz. and while 24/384khz PCM is better than 24/192, there is a significant gap in performance to even 2.6Mhz DSD, and 6.1Mhz is in another world.


You are joking right? I thought "High-End" forum meant high end quality, not low quality. The highest fidelity audio format currently in existence for the consumer is 24/88.2 or 24/96. 24/192 is less hi-rez than 24/96 and 24/384 is less hi-rez than 24/192. Look at the EMM Labs link for the professional converter (ADC8) notice the highest rate available is 24/96. Same with most of the highest end professional converters (Lavry, Prism). That's because 24/96 is the best available, higher is worse, you get more noise and distortion. Now maybe you like higher noise and distortion (which is obviously the case if you like 15ips tape) and that is fine, I've no problem with you liking whatever you want. But, you can't say that 24/192 (or even worse 24/384) is better or higher fidelity than 24/96 because that is factually incorrect, they are lower fidelity.

I just had a look at the link to the Playback Designs product page listed above, some pretty serious misinformation and lying going on there.

G
Reply
post #33 of 51
8/29/11 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post

I just had a look at the link to the Playback Designs product page listed above, some pretty serious misinformation and lying going on there.

G
Elucidate the above, please! smily_headphones1.gif
Reply
post #34 of 51
8/29/11 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brat View Post

Elucidate the above, please! smily_headphones1.gif

OK.

"Another unique feature of the MPD-3 is its ability to playback super high resolution files of up to 24/384kHz PCM": - Resolution in digital audio is defined by bit depth, 24/384 has exactly the same resolution as 24/192 and 24/94. All that higher sample rates allow for is the theoretical recording of higher frequencies. So, 384kHz sample rate allows for the theoretical recording of frequencies twice as high as a 192kHz sample rate but at the same resolution. I say theoretical recording because no studio microphone can record frequencies so high and no sound is produced by instruments so high. So 24/384 is not super high resolution. In fact fidelity is poorer at sample rates of 192kHz and higher. This is not only accepted in science but by manufacturers themselves (Apogee, Benchmark, Lavry, Prism).

"This is 32 times the resolution of players with the ability to playback 192kHz high resolution files.": - This is a lie. As explained above sample rate is not resolution, bit depth is. The truth of the matter is that this DAC is not even able to resolve 24bit, no DAC in the world is, as 24bit resolution is beyond the laws of physics to resolve in any real world circuit.

"Apodizing filters are special upsampling filters that compensate for some of the ringing effects caused by brickwall filters in the Analog to Digital Converters (A/D) used during recording.": - Filter ringing in ADC filters is very old history and was effectively eliminated in professional ADCs many years ago.

"Depending on the recordings apodizing filters can provide audible improvements.": - Misleading, the digital audio recordings would probably have to be roughly 20 years old for you to stand a chance of audible improvements using an apodizing filter.

"Since brickwalls in A/D converters are akin to edges on dish antennas the same principle holds for digital audio and similar filters can be used in DACs with noticeable improvements." : - That's a strange coincidence because my ADC looks just like an antenna dish (not)! Filter ringing has been virtually eliminated at recording rates of 24/96. Even if there was a whole boat load of ringing, it would occur at about 40kHz, at least two times higher than any adult human can hear. So how you could hear "noticeable improvements" in a frequency range so far outside of human hearing must be some kind of magic.

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/29/11 at 12:00pm
Reply
post #35 of 51
8/29/11 at 12:27pm
biggrin.gif Nice. That's why I'm reading such forums.
Reply
post #36 of 51
8/29/11 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post




Based on what evidence?

 

    
   In my experience, audiophiles can't wait to share impressions of their new toys( especially if they are fantastic).If the unit is a disappointment I can understand why owners aren't posting about it( as it would decrease the resale value).  There hasn't been one single impression anywhere on the web about this dac, not one( it has been out for several months now).

 The website has also disappeared which is always a bad sign in my books but perhaps not in yours.

   I base my decision not to go near this dac( for the time being) based on these observations.

  I do intend to look at this dac at a later point but right now my gut tells me to steer clear. I am most likely going to try the Invicta dac. It came out very recently but has had very favorable reviews.They have a functioning website. I have also been in contact with them and each email has been answered( always a good sign). Is it a great dac? I don't know, I have often heard heavenly claims which only led to disappointment.

 

Reply
post #37 of 51
8/29/11 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post



You are joking right? I thought "High-End" forum meant high end quality, not low quality. The highest fidelity audio format currently in existence for the consumer is 24/88.2 or 24/96. 24/192 is less hi-rez than 24/96 and 24/384 is less hi-rez than 24/192. Look at the EMM Labs link for the professional converter (ADC8) notice the highest rate available is 24/96. Same with most of the highest end professional converters (Lavry, Prism). That's because 24/96 is the best available, higher is worse, you get more noise and distortion. Now maybe you like higher noise and distortion (which is obviously the case if you like 15ips tape) and that is fine, I've no problem with you liking whatever you want. But, you can't say that 24/192 (or even worse 24/384) is better or higher fidelity than 24/96 because that is factually incorrect, they are lower fidelity.

I just had a look at the link to the Playback Designs product page listed above, some pretty serious misinformation and lying going on there.

G
 


I don't think I buy that 24/96 is the best available, and that 24/192 is worse because of additional noise and whatnot. IIRC Dan Lavry has been quoted as saying that anything above 24/96 is "unnecessary" but I don't think he said "sounds worse" at least as far as a recording is concerned. There's a big difference between something like Reference Recordings' 24/176.4 high-res recordings, and a DAC that takes a 24/96 recording and upsamples it to 24/192. There are very legitimate arguments for not using that type of asynchronous upsampling.

 

I think there is an argument for at least 176.4 - RR knows what they are doing. Higher than that though with PCM starts to get silly, especially with nonsense like 32/384. Albums at that size would have to be on Blu-ray discs just to handle the ridiculous file sizes. Switching to PDM (DSD) though is very scientifically sound, and its a direction that I hope the industry moves towards once we are able to finally free ourselves from the CD.

 

Reply
post #38 of 51
8/29/11 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Quote:


I don't think I buy that 24/96 is the best available, and that 24/192 is worse because of additional noise and whatnot. IIRC Dan Lavry has been quoted as saying that anything above 24/96 is "unnecessary" but I don't think he said "sounds worse" at least as far as a recording is concerned...

 


he actually states that 88.2 khz is the ideal sampling rate; 96/24 is a compromise, albeit a small one necessitated by industry standards; and that anything above is a marketing gimmick, and does more harm to the signal than it does good.

 

Reply
post #39 of 51
8/29/11 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhaedrusX View Post




he actually states that 88.2 khz is the ideal sampling rate; 96/24 is a compromise, albeit a small one necessitated by industry standards; and that anything above is a marketing gimmick, and does more harm to the signal than it does good.

 

 

       Funny, I was talking to a longtime recording engineer just the other day and he said exactly the same thing.
 

 

Reply
post #40 of 51
8/30/11 at 1:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Quote:


I don't think I buy that 24/96 is the best available, and that 24/192 is worse because of additional noise and whatnot. IIRC Dan Lavry has been quoted as saying that anything above 24/96 is "unnecessary" but I don't think he said "sounds worse" at least as far as a recording is concerned. There's a big difference between something like Reference Recordings' 24/176.4 high-res recordings, and a DAC that takes a 24/96 recording and upsamples it to 24/192. There are very legitimate arguments for not using that type of asynchronous upsampling.

 

I think there is an argument for at least 176.4 - RR knows what they are doing. Higher than that though with PCM starts to get silly, especially with nonsense like 32/384. Albums at that size would have to be on Blu-ray discs just to handle the ridiculous file sizes. Switching to PDM (DSD) though is very scientifically sound, and its a direction that I hope the industry moves towards once we are able to finally free ourselves from the CD.

 


Yes, you are correct, there is a very good and compelling reason and argument for 176.4 and 192. They are bigger numbers than 96 and with a bit of truth bending (or outright lies) can easily be marketed to those who know little about how digital audio works as higher resolution or somehow better quality. The simple fact is that 192 requires double the processing in half the time, just to get you back to where you were with 96. 384 requires 4 times the amount of processing in a quarter of the time (IE. 16 times the processing). With the speed of these sample rates and the amount of processing required on each sample (filters, etc.) we are butting up against the laws of physics (not just available computing power), The only solution is to do less processing on each sample, thus compromising audio quality for the benefit of a new marketing opportunity!

So please, stop referring to 176.4, 192 and 384 as high res or reference recordings, they are not, you are just regurgitating marketing hype!

Read this easy to understand statement by the VP of Benchmark.

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/30/11 at 2:03am
Reply
post #41 of 51
8/30/11 at 5:54am
Thread Starter 

Gregorio,

 

Your point of view is interesting / refreshing, as it made me realize how much I got brainwashed into thinking higher sample rate must be better. Assuming the benefit is only to get the reconstruction filter outside of the audio band and low order, I agree there is little point to go much beyond 96kHz. But, somehow, although people don't actually consciously hear anything above 16-20k, I read that subjectively people could actually discern differences between two recording with one including ultrasonic content. I read that in  aDAC user guide - the Indicta or whatever the name of this new DAC from the guys behind Sabre chip - so it could very well be just hogwash, but some AES reference is provided at least. I guess my point is that there is still very little known about our hearing so things might be happening that defy rationality, magic like you or someone said ;) ...

 

Actually, reason why I am posting is a question that came to me when you mentioned about breaking the laws of physics when trying to code / decode in realtime at say 382kHz (your post below). Can you provide a reference for this? I am total noob in electronics, but somehow I cannot get my head around this when I see I am surrounded by computer devices and other wireless communication devices running into the GHz. 382kHz 2ch audio and the smooth reconstruction filters seem very very mundane in lights of this, so I want to hear more about it from you.

 

cheers,

arnaud

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post



Yes, you are correct, there is a very good and compelling reason and argument for 176.4 and 192. They are bigger numbers than 96 and with a bit of truth bending (or outright lies) can easily be marketed to those who know little about how digital audio works as higher resolution or somehow better quality. The simple fact is that 192 requires double the processing in half the time, just to get you back to where you were with 96. 384 requires 4 times the amount of processing in a quarter of the time (IE. 16 times the processing). With the speed of these sample rates and the amount of processing required on each sample (filters, etc.) we are butting up against the laws of physics (not just available computing power), The only solution is to do less processing on each sample, thus compromising audio quality for the benefit of a new marketing opportunity!

So please, stop referring to 176.4, 192 and 384 as high res or reference recordings, they are not, you are just regurgitating marketing hype!

Read this easy to understand statement by the VP of Benchmark.

G


 

Reply
post #42 of 51
8/30/11 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

 Your point of view is interesting / refreshing, as it made me realize how much I got brainwashed into thinking higher sample rate must be better. Assuming the benefit is only to get the reconstruction filter outside of the audio band and low order, I agree there is little point to go much beyond 96kHz. But, somehow, although people don't actually consciously hear anything above 16-20k, I read that subjectively people could actually discern differences between two recording with one including ultrasonic content. I read that in  aDAC user guide - the Indicta or whatever the name of this new DAC from the guys behind Sabre chip - so it could very well be just hogwash, but some AES reference is provided at least. I guess my point is that there is still very little known about our hearing so things might be happening that defy rationality, magic like you or someone said wink.gif ...

 

Actually, reason why I am posting is a question that came to me when you mentioned about breaking the laws of physics when trying to code / decode in realtime at say 382kHz (your post below). Can you provide a reference for this? I am total noob in electronics, but somehow I cannot get my head around this when I see I am surrounded by computer devices and other wireless communication devices running into the GHz. 382kHz 2ch audio and the smooth reconstruction filters seem very very mundane in lights of this, so I want to hear more about it from you.

 

cheers,

arnaud


All the various AES tests prove that adult humans cannot hear above 20kHz but regardless, 96kHz sampling frequency allows recording of frequencies up to 48kHz, more than double the highest frequency possible for a human to hear and actually higher than a dog can hear.

Have a read of this: White Paper

The paper gets a little technical but it's worth persevering. In Electronic Engineering the basic axiom is: the faster you go the lower the accuracy possible. Yes, communications equipment can run at GHz speeds but at a resolution of only a few bits. To produce smooth filters at 384kHz (for example) is not mundane. To produce a smooth filters without artefacts requires a considerable number of coefficients and the higher the sample rate, the more coefficients needed but less amount of time is available. In the case of 384kHz, four times the number of calculations are required in a quarter of the time compared to 96kHz. and 96kHz is already slightly faster than optimal for 24bit accuracy. The only solution is to cut corners and make the computations less complex so they can execute more quickly and this compromises the efficiency of the filters and ultimately therefore compromises sound quality. As corroborated by the link to the Benchmark statement in the link I supplied previously.

The marketing hype is getting to truly ridiculous proportions and not just with sample rates. 16bit already provides about 1000 times more dynamic range than just about any commercially released recording in history, so what's the point of 24bit? And 32bit is outrageous, if it were possible to actually resolve 32bits of dynamic range it would kill you instantly!

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/30/11 at 8:10am
Reply
post #43 of 51
8/30/11 at 1:56pm

 

    It seems there were in fact issues with it as I had suspected.

 

Submitted by The Computer Au... on Tue, 08/30/2011 - 13:51.  Joined: 11/28/2007 .:. Online .:. Comments: 8049

Hi Guys - My review of the

Hi Guys - My review of the MA-1 is forthcoming. I will publish a review of the Olive O6HD first followed by the Meitner DAC.

The reason the review is taking so long is that I use nearly ten different sources to connect to a DAC. When the MA-1 first arrived it had an issue with a couple of my sources, one is my Pyramix machine with Mykerinos card, at 4x sample rates. Meitner had to relax the very tight tolerance on the inputs. Since I got the unit back it has worked just fine. This is one very good DAC. Much more to come in the review :~)

__________________

Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile


Edited by canuck525 - 8/30/11 at 1:58pm
Reply
post #44 of 51
8/30/11 at 1:57pm

   Hopefully they get the bugs ironed out.

Reply
post #45 of 51
8/30/11 at 11:12pm

> some1x

Did you have some problems with the DAC as well. Have you sent it back to Meitner?

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum

Head-Fi's Best Sellers