or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Sponsor Announcements and Deals › iDSD micro Black Label. Tour details (page 147). Release info (page 153).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iDSD micro Black Label. Tour details (page 147). Release info (page 153). - Page 45

Poll Results: What % of your listening is Desktop vs Portable? (click on ONE answer please)

Poll expired: Apr 22, 2014  
  • 22% (30)
    Desktop (100%)
  • 36% (49)
    Desktop (75%) & Portable (25%)
  • 18% (25)
    Desktop (50%) & Portable (50%)
  • 17% (24)
    Desktop (25%) & Portable (75%)
  • 5% (7)
    Portable (100%)
135 Total Votes  
post #661 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by x838nwy View Post

How does the headphone out on the micro iDSD compare to the iCan? If there still s ned for a iCan still?

 

Hi

 

The micro iCAN will remain as a dedicated desktop headphone amplifier running in Class A etc.

 

The micro iDSD will show the convergence of DAC and headphone amplifiers, for portable as well as desktop use.

 

If you are thinking of buying the iCAN or similar, probably best to hang fire until you can try side by side.

 

Thanks.

post #662 of 2364

Does the iDSD micro accept DoP through coaxial?

post #663 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pekingduck View Post
 

Does the iDSD micro accept DoP through coaxial?

 

Hi,

 

We are not sure why you would wish to convert USB > SPDIF when you can go straight USB because any such conversion by nature is lossy.

 

DoP like this is not possible.

 

Instead, let the source to convert DSD to PCM.

 

Thanks.


Edited by iFi audio - 6/5/14 at 9:07am
post #664 of 2364

is there an updated date as to when the micro iDSD will be available? 

post #665 of 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFi audio View Post
 

 

Hi,

 

We are not sure why you would wish to convert USB > SPDIF when you can go straight USB because any such conversion by nature is lossy.

 

DoP like this is not possible.

 

Instead, et the source to convert DSD to PCM.

 

Thanks.

Let me clarify my question. I mean if I have a transport (not a computer) that can output DSD (DoP) via SPDIF, can the iDSD micro accept that?

post #666 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kugino View Post
 

is there an updated date as to when the micro iDSD will be available? 

 

Hi,

 

Global launch remains unchanged at early July (will set exact date soon) - on the respective day, North America, EU and Asia (in particular Japan) will all have their first shipment of micro iDSDs available in store.

 

In the worst case, there may be slippage of a week or so but not months.

 

Thanks.

post #667 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pekingduck View Post
 

Let me clarify my question. I mean if I have a transport (not a computer) that can output DSD (DoP) via SPDIF, can the iDSD micro accept that?

 

Hi,

 

We haven't come across an SACD transport/disk drive that reads a SACD disk and then puts out DSD or DoP via SPDIF.

 

If you are getting at DoP-Flac, we did not implement this feature, as it is really fringe of the fringe of the fringe.

 

Thanks.

post #668 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pekingduck View Post
 

Let me clarify my question. I mean if I have a transport (not a computer) that can output DSD (DoP) via SPDIF, can the iDSD micro accept that?

 

Hi,

 

DoP-Flac: we did not implement this feature as it is really fringe of the fringe of the fringe.

 

Thanks.

post #669 of 2364

Sorry if this has already been answered, but is there a set US price?

post #670 of 2364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mink70 View Post
 

Sorry if this has already been answered, but is there a set US price?

Hi,

 

Not a problem.

 

£475 (incl VAT) / US$499 (ex-taxes) and Euro$499 (incl VAT).

 

Thanks.

post #671 of 2364

Thank you!

 

One more quick question: I own a iDSD Nano. The new"direct DSD over ASIO" mode made possible with the new firmware is only possible under Windows, right? There's no similar option for OSX users? Or am I not understanding this right?

post #672 of 2364
Thread Starter 

Thorsten and gang have been a little quiet of late. We gave them a nudge and here is something they asked us to share with you.

 

 

Measurements Matter (Not!)  Part I of III – Hearing a fly fart at 20 feet

 

Noise. Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)

Our team has just spent some time running the complete and working prototype (after redesigning the PSU and that little hiccup with the J-Fet switching) of the iDSD micro through the Audio Precision 2.

 

The test bench.

 

The micro iDSD has actually turned in a more than respectable performance.

 

I hasten to add that up to now there is little proven link between audio measurement results and subjectively perceived sound quality. Most standardised measurements originated in advertising and were standardised to avoid excessive misuse (but not completely eradicated :tongue_smile:).

 

Many a designer who relies on measurements only, finds himself bothered, bewildered and thoroughly confused when many a listener prefers a better sounding product that measured distinctly poorer than his own.

 

That said, as some have already asked about measurements and it has never hurt to have respectable measured results, as long as the subjective listening results are also great

 

Well, here goes, the iDSD micro measured performance data. Please keep all these caveats in mind. The executive summary of the test results reads:

 

Line Out Level:        2.15V

SNR:                      117dB A-weighted

                 111dB unweighted

Line THD+N:           < 0.003% (@0dBFS)

HP THD+N:             < 0.008% HP (@0dBFS and 0.5W/16Ohm simulated headphone load)

Jitter:                     below AP System 2 measurement limit

 

The signal-noise ratio may seem "only very good" but what must be remembered is that we are running the line out at 2V (nominal, industry-standard) level and as usual, the analogue stage is the noise limit, not the DAC.

 

We could have boosted the SNR figure to make it look really sexy by choosing to set a higher line out level:

 

- for example setting the line out level to 4.25V would have produced a 6dB increase in SNR 117dB un-weighted and 123dB A-weighted*, which reads great but in the real world, this would have resulted in much less usable volume control range for anything we are driving. Even as it stands we are only 3dB (0.5 Bit) off a 20 Bit equivalent SNR**.

 

* The use of “A-weighting” is a long standing standard for dynamic range and SNR measurements in Digital Converters (ADC/DAC). All Datasheets nowadays quote the “A-weighted” number. Thus for consistency we always include A-weighted and unweighted SNR/DNR.

**  This is the true measure of any DAC’s or ADC’s resolution, also called ENOB (Equivalent Number Of Bit’s), for example a certain DAC that is promoted as “32 Bit/384KHz” actually shows a SNR of 100dB which is actually 16.5 Bit ENOB, despite all that 32 Bit stuff, so in analogue terms it has around halve the bits claimed…

 

 

For anyone who likes pretty graphs, we have oodles, this is the first of several select ones with short comments:

 

Graph 01 - iDSD micro White Noise Line 100k 1X 2X 4X 8X

 

This shows the frequency response of the iDSD micro using noise loading with different sample rates

48K (orange),

96K (red),

192K (purple) and

384k (blue)

plus the system noise floor at 384kHz.

 

- As the sample rate goes up we can see that the filtering of high frequencies is relaxed and by the time we are at 192kHz and above the filtering is very gentle, maximising time-domain (impulse) response fidelity.

- We could show a square wave, but it would look essentially perfect, so little point.

- The slight trade-off price is a little higher leakage of the ultrasonic images of the (noise) signal, however as most of it is 120dB down on full scale this is not very worrisome. I remember a professional recording engineer once describe -120dB as “Fly farts at 20 feet”…

 

We also take requests (for measurements) just ask. 

 

(to be cont’d.) Part II: Distortion 


Edited by iFi audio - 6/6/14 at 1:56am
post #673 of 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFi audio View Post
 

Thorsten and gang have been a little quiet of late. We gave them a nudge and here is something they asked us to share with you.

 

 

Measurements Matter (Not!)  Part I of III – Hearing a fly fart at 20 feet

 

Noise. Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)

Our team has just spent some time running the complete and working prototype (after redesigning the PSU and that little hiccup with the J-Fet switching) of the iDSD micro through the Audio Precision 2.

 

The test bench.

 

The micro iDSD has actually turned in a more than respectable performance.

 

I hasten to add that up to now there is little proven link between audio measurement results and subjectively perceived sound quality. Most standardised measurements originated in advertising and were standardised to avoid excessive misuse (but not completely eradicated :tongue_smile:).

 

Many a designer who relies on measurements only, finds himself bothered, bewildered and thoroughly confused when many a listener prefers a better sounding product that measured distinctly poorer than his own.

 

That said, as some have already asked about measurements and it has never hurt to have respectable measured results, as long as the subjective listening results are also great

 

Well, here goes, the iDSD micro measured performance data. Please keep all these caveats in mind. The executive summary of the test results reads:

 

Line Out Level:        2.15V

SNR:                      117dB A-weighted

                 111dB unweighted

Line THD+N:           < 0.003% (@0dBFS)

HP THD+N:             < 0.008% HP (@0dBFS and 0.5W/16Ohm simulated headphone load)

Jitter:                     below AP System 2 measurement limit

 

The signal-noise ratio may seem "only very good" but what must be remembered is that we are running the line out at 2V (nominal, industry-standard) level and as usual, the analogue stage is the noise limit, not the DAC.

 

We could have boosted the SNR figure to make it look really sexy by choosing to set a higher line out level:

 

- for example setting the line out level to 4.25V would have produced a 6dB increase in SNR 117dB un-weighted and 123dB A-weighted*, which reads great but in the real world, this would have resulted in much less usable volume control range for anything we are driving. Even as it stands we are only 3dB (0.5 Bit) off a 20 Bit equivalent SNR**.

 

* The use of “A-weighting” is a long standing standard for dynamic range and SNR measurements in Digital Converters (ADC/DAC). All Datasheets nowadays quote the “A-weighted” number. Thus for consistency we always include A-weighted and unweighted SNR/DNR.

**  This is the true measure of any DAC’s or ADC’s resolution, also called ENOB (Equivalent Number Of Bit’s), for example a certain DAC that is promoted as “32 Bit/384KHz” actually shows a SNR of 100dB which is actually 16.5 Bit ENOB, despite all that 32 Bit stuff, so in analogue terms it has around halve the bits claimed…

 

 

For anyone who likes pretty graphs, we have oodles, this is the first of several select ones with short comments:

 

Graph 01 - iDSD micro White Noise Line 100k 1X 2X 4X 8X

 

This shows the frequency response of the iDSD micro using noise loading with different sample rates

48K (orange),

96K (red),

192K (purple) and

384k (blue)

plus the system noise floor at 384kHz.

 

- As the sample rate goes up we can see that the filtering of high frequencies is relaxed and by the time we are at 192kHz and above the filtering is very gentle, maximising time-domain (impulse) response fidelity.

- We could show a square wave, but it would look essentially perfect, so little point.

- The slight trade-off price is a little higher leakage of the ultrasonic images of the (noise) signal, however as most of it is 120dB down on full scale this is not very worrisome. I remember a professional recording engineer once describe -120dB as “Fly farts at 20 feet”…

 

We also take requests (for measurements) just ask. 

 

(to be cont’d.) Part II: Distortion 

Please do show 1 kHz square wave response with all PCM and DSD resolutions/filter settings. For the 96 and up, you can use 6 kHz or 10 kHz square wave in order to show the superiority of DSD's pulse response. Intermodulation outside audio band measurements should also be presented; I do not agree with

 http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html  at all, but the arguments are valid and hirez equipment should be free of this kind of (mis)behaviour by default.

post #674 of 2364

can you get your hands on the iDSD Nano & make a comparison ?

post #675 of 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by potatoe94 View Post
 

can you get your hands on the iDSD Nano & make a comparison ?

Although the question was most probably meant for the ifi team, I do have iDSD Nano - on loan for a few (streeeetched for ? ) days. Still struggling with DSD players

( JRiver 19, HQPlayer, Foobar2000 ) on Win7 machine. All I could do is to post photos from square waves as displayed on analogue oscilloscope - better than digital storage display. I do not have spectrum and distortion analyzers.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sponsor Announcements and Deals
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Sponsor Announcements and Deals › iDSD micro Black Label. Tour details (page 147). Release info (page 153).