Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Metrum Acoustics Octave
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metrum Acoustics Octave - Page 42

post #616 of 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilch0md View Post

Thanks for this bit of research you posted in March of 2013, songmic!

I just ordered the MK1.

biggrin.gif

... which was listed as available, but turned out to be not in stock, so I've ordered the MKII, instead. tongue.gif

When it arrives, I'll write a gushing first impression guaranteed to be incredible.
Edited by zilch0md - 9/23/14 at 9:10pm
post #617 of 629
Do any of you Octave MK1 or MKII users upsample 44.1 to 88.2 in a PC before playing via this DAC?

If so, what are the benefits?

Thanks,

Mike
post #618 of 629
Yes I do. No hearable benefit for me but I didn't try serious comparison
post #619 of 629
Thanks! Do you upsample routinely or did you just try it as a casual test?

I've read of NOS fans doing this for the purpose of overcoming a 3dB fall-off to 20kHz when playing 44.1 files.

Was that your motivation? (I know I wouldn't be able to hear any difference that high.)
post #620 of 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilch0md View Post

Thanks! Do you upsample routinely or did you just try it as a casual test?

I've read of NOS fans doing this for the purpose of overcoming a 3dB fall-off to 20kHz when playing 44.1 files.

Was that your motivation? (I know I wouldn't be able to hear any difference that high.)

 

 

I upsample routinely. I'm using Linux and Pulseaudio so I configured pulse to generate a 24bits/96khz PCM ;)

 

My motivation was to avoid this treble roll off on order to be sure I don't alterate the neutrality of the dac.

post #621 of 629

I am unfamiliar with Pulseaudio - have you configured it to upsample on the fly, so to speak, or are you storing previously upsampled files?

 

Thanks very much for your replies.

post #622 of 629

On the fly. I have very few  HD files.

 

Funnily. I'm currently using antoher dac you had : the Bushmaster mkII ;) . Seems we're lurking around the same pieces of gear :beerchug:

post #623 of 629

Yes, there's no accounting for our excellent taste!   

:beerchug:

 

And I came very close to ordering a Sonnet 2, but decided to try tackling my HD800 with a good NOS DAC first, so my chain will still be more sterile than yours:

 

FiiO X5 Coaxial Out > Octave MKII > OPPO HA-1 amp, balanced out > unmodified HD800

 

---

 

Of interest to our discussion, above:  I received an email reply from Cees Ruijtenberg, having asked if there are any audible benefits to be enjoyed by using a PC to upsample from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz in advance of playing a file through the Octave MkII.

 

I don't want to quote him directly without asking his permission, but paraphrasing, it boils down to this (my summary):  

 

1) Depending on the software used, upsampling can create pre- and post-ringing.

2) Artifacts can be created that give the impression of more detail, but it's not genuine.

3) It's best to use the original files.

4) If you want to experiment, however, 44.1 should be upsampled to 88.2 or 176.4, not to 96 or 192.

 

In my original query, I hadn't mentioned anything about doing this to compensate the 3 dB at 20kHz attenuation that I've read some NOS DACs suffer.  I had only asked if there is any audible benefit to upsampling with something like dbPoweramp - for the Octave MkII.  Apparently, Cees feels it's best not to do so.

 

By the way, Cees responded very quickly to my email. It's great to have direct access to the designer. I'm humbled and impressed.

 

Mike

post #624 of 629

It's here!  

 


Edited by zilch0md - 9/26/14 at 6:03pm
post #625 of 629
^ Yes I've seen comment elsewhere on HF that there's good reason to use whole multiples of 2 when up-sampling. IIIRC Jason (Schiit) discussed it, among others.
post #626 of 629

Not quite two hours out of the box, the Octave MkII is already doing wonderful things with the unmodified HD800 on a neutral amp (OPPO HA-1 or even the DACmini CX with 1-Ohm output impedance mod). It has smooth yet still detailed treble, terrific separation, with everything sounding very natural. That's the part that's the biggest jaw-dropper. I'm listening to Jennifer Warnes at the moment. Dynamics are awesome. It is WAY nicer than the ESS9018 in the HA-1 > HD800 (for my tastes).  Me thinks I can actually listen to the HD800 for a few hours now, without fatigue, but that's just the half of it. Enough gushing, for now...

post #627 of 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilch0md View Post
 

Yes, there's no accounting for our excellent taste!   

:beerchug:

 

And I came very close to ordering a Sonnet 2, but decided to try tackling my HD800 with a good NOS DAC first, so my chain will still be more sterile than yours:

 

FiiO X5 Coaxial Out > Octave MKII > OPPO HA-1 amp, balanced out > unmodified HD800

 

---

 

Of interest to our discussion, above:  I received an email reply from Cees Ruijtenberg, having asked if there are any audible benefits to be enjoyed by using a PC to upsample from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz in advance of playing a file through the Octave MkII.

 

I don't want to quote him directly without asking his permission, but paraphrasing, it boils down to this (my summary):  

 

1) Depending on the software used, upsampling can create pre- and post-ringing.

2) Artifacts can be created that give the impression of more detail, but it's not genuine.

3) It's best to use the original files.

4) If you want to experiment, however, 44.1 should be upsampled to 88.2 or 176.4, not to 96 or 192.

 

In my original query, I hadn't mentioned anything about doing this to compensate the 3 dB at 20kHz attenuation that I've read some NOS DACs suffer.  I had only asked if there is any audible benefit to upsampling with something like dbPoweramp - for the Octave MkII.  Apparently, Cees feels it's best not to do so.

 

By the way, Cees responded very quickly to my email. It's great to have direct access to the designer. I'm humbled and impressed.

 

Mike

 

Yep.  I've read pages and pages about the subject. I often read that 88,2 upsampling is better . 

 

I know it's possible ti choose the resampling algorythm in Pulsaudio and the level of "quality" . but after talking with some people here or there , we all doubt that anybody could hear IRL the bad effect of even the worst level quality of upsampling. Maybe i'm wrong. so Ieft the default setting to keep my CPU consumption low enough.

 

For th treble roll off, it has been measured and charts are explicits here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/561674/metrum-acoustics-octave/165#post_8602241

 

So after many hesitations, Ive choosen to upsample.

 

That been said I think I'm splitting hairs :D . All these setting have no hearable effects I can detect :)

post #628 of 629

LOL

 

If you're like me, though, "knowing" that there's an advantage is enough for me to lock onto something, whether I can hear the advantage or not. ;)  

 

It's kind of like blind faith, but if there's a lot of evidence saying "this is better,"  I do it.  

 

Thanks for that link. If indeed the Metrum Octave MkII has so great a roll-off, I know from being tested by an audiologist less than a year ago, that I'm good up to 12k, where my loss only just starts to kick in - right on schedule for my age.  So that might be why I'm not "hearing" rolled-off highs.  Oddly, I have no tolerance for sibilance or otherwise "bad" treble - which suggests my hearing isn't all that bad.  After all, how much content actually resides at 15k or higher in most recordings?  

 

:smile:

 

Mike

post #629 of 629

I'm on the same boat. So I definitely can't advice to upsample or not. :)  At 43 years old I don't hear anything above 15 Khz so I really don't really care ;)

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