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 56

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 #826 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiRobot View Post



But I want to use Spotify. To your defence I haven't got Android USB Audio working with Spotify on any Android Phone (tried S4, G2, Z1 Compact) or with any DAC. But hoping to find support for this in the future.

 



Hi,

You can use Sony Xperia Z2 with all other music apps through usb otg cable, except for picking up call.
I am personally using the Z2 with the IDSD Nano listening to music from TTPod and walkman.

This feature currently seems to be be limited to the Z2 and MAYBE the new flagships from Samsung, HTC and LG. smily_headphones1.gif
post #827 of 2390

Hi ifi,

 

Thank you for sharing info of the micro iDSD! I own a nano iDSD and I am very satisfied with it. My question is, according to the PCB photo, the micro iDSD utilizes two BB DSD1793 DACs (in dual mono mode), the same as the nano iDSD, why don't you use a higher end model, such as PCM1792/1794/1795? At least those models have better specs, and are more widely used. 

post #828 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post
 

Hi ifi,

 

Thank you for sharing info of the micro iDSD! I own a nano iDSD and I am very satisfied with it. My question is, according to the PCB photo, the micro iDSD utilizes two BB DSD1793 DACs (in dual mono mode), the same as the nano iDSD, why don't you use a higher end model, such as PCM1792/1794/1795? At least those models have better specs, and are more widely used. 

not sure what the exact answer is, but i think iFi mentioned in a post somewhere that they tried a whole bunch of different chips and the one they settled on was the one they thought sounded the best. so specs are one thing, but sound is another...

post #829 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzmonster View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiRobot View Post



But I want to use Spotify. To your defence I haven't got Android USB Audio working with Spotify on any Android Phone (tried S4, G2, Z1 Compact) or with any DAC. But hoping to find support for this in the future.

 



Hi,

You can use Sony Xperia Z2 with all other music apps through usb otg cable, except for picking up call.
I am personally using the Z2 with the IDSD Nano listening to music from TTPod and walkman.

This feature currently seems to be be limited to the Z2 and MAYBE the new flagships from Samsung, HTC and LG. smily_headphones1.gif

Hi thanks for the info. Just tried iDSD Nano with Galaxy S5 (4.4.2), USB Audio out and Spotify. And it works, awesome! :beerchug:

So hopefully iDSD Micro will support this as well. Looks like it is going to be a killer product.

post #830 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post

Hi ifi,

Thank you for sharing info of the micro iDSD! I own a nano iDSD and I am very satisfied with it. My question is, according to the PCB photo, the micro iDSD utilizes two BB DSD1793 DACs (in dual mono mode), the same as the nano iDSD, why don't you use a higher end model, such as PCM1792/1794/1795? At least those models have better specs, and are more widely used. 

There's a lot more to the sound of a DAC than just which DAC chip is used.

The chosen chip plays PCM natively and also plays DSD natively.

What do you mean by better specs? 32 bit perhaps? This is only relevant if you want to implement digital volume control. The iDSD uses an analogue stepped attenuator so a 32 bit DAC is not needed. 24 bits is plenty given that the performance of the analogue circuitry rarely exceeds 20 bits anyway.

What has 'widely used' got to do with it?
post #831 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFi audio View Post
 

This was a popular Crowd-Design feature. So we hope you like it.

 

Super Duper features 1.8

 

The 3.5mm analogue input

Background

On occasion, one may wish to directly use the headphone amp section of the micro iDSD.

 

Maybe demo to a friend, or just grabbing another portable music player, no issue, they all have a 3.5mm output.

 

Explanation

Smart device 3.5mm > 3.5mm input auto bypasses the digital circuitry.

 

There are also RCA > 3.5mm cables so even a high-end source can be used.

 

How this benefits the listener

Unrivalled flexibility and simplicity, can lend to friends for them to try just using their 3.5mm out or when certain occasions call for it.

i hope that "3.5mm" label will be changed for we americans...what the heck is a mm anyway? 

post #832 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear View Post


There's a lot more to the sound of a DAC than just which DAC chip is used.

The chosen chip plays PCM natively and also plays DSD natively.

What do you mean by better specs? 32 bit perhaps? This is only relevant if you want to implement digital volume control. The iDSD uses an analogue stepped attenuator so a 32 bit DAC is not needed. 24 bits is plenty given that the performance of the analogue circuitry rarely exceeds 20 bits anyway.

What has 'widely used' got to do with it?

 

As for the "better specs", I mean those chips have better SNR, dynamic range, THD+N, etc. 

 

If some chips are widely used by high-end devices, I think they are proven to have decent sound. I might be wrong.

post #833 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear View Post


There's a lot more to the sound of a DAC than just which DAC chip is used.

The chosen chip plays PCM natively and also plays DSD natively.

What do you mean by better specs? 32 bit perhaps? This is only relevant if you want to implement digital volume control. The iDSD uses an analogue stepped attenuator so a 32 bit DAC is not needed. 24 bits is plenty given that the performance of the analogue circuitry rarely exceeds 20 bits anyway.

What has 'widely used' got to do with it?

 

What do you mean by natively? All the DACs I mentioned are advanced segment DAC with DSD/PCM interface. There is no difference between DSD1793 (PCM1793) and PCM1792 in their functional block diagrams, except the latter have better dynamic range (113dB vs 132dB), lower THD+N (0.001% vs 0.0004%) and so on.

post #834 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post

What do you mean by natively? All the DACs I mentioned are advanced segment DAC with DSD/PCM interface. There is no difference between DSD1793 (PCM1793) and PCM1792 in their functional block diagrams, except the latter have better dynamic range (113dB vs 132dB), lower THD+N (0.001% vs 0.0004%) and so on.

By 'natively' I mean bit perfect without upsampling or conversion.

You got your distortion figures back to front there. The DSD1793 is lowest at .0004%.

Thorsten explains it better than I ever could:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-crowd-design-super-duper-1-8-the-3-5mm-input-page-54/60#post_10404689

cool.gif
post #835 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear View Post


By 'natively' I mean bit perfect without upsampling or conversion.

You got your distortion figures back to front there. The DSD1793 is lowest at .0004%.

Thorsten explains it better than I ever could:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-crowd-design-super-duper-1-8-the-3-5mm-input-page-54/60#post_10404689

cool.gif

 

My mistake, sorry.

 

But I still don't believe DSD can handle both formats natively. The datasheet shows there is still a up-sampling module involved.

 

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/dsd1793.pdf

post #836 of 2390

Nope, the datasheet saying over-sampling filter not up-sampling. Two different things.

post #837 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear View Post

By 'natively' I mean bit perfect without upsampling or conversion.


You got your distortion figures back to front there. The DSD1793 is lowest at .0004%.


Thorsten explains it better than I ever could:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-crowd-design-super-duper-1-8-the-3-5mm-input-page-54/60#post_10404689

cool.gif

My mistake, sorry.

But I still don't believe DSD can handle both formats natively. The datasheet shows there is still a up-sampling module involved.

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/dsd1793.pdf

The datasheet shows that the chip contains an upsampling digital filter module.

The datasheet also shows that there is an interface for external upsampling and filtering.

Guess which one iFi uses wink.gif

On THD+N, the datasheet says 0.001% but the TI website says 0.0004%. Seems like the TI media cannot be relied upon here. Of course, 0.001% is still a very good figure.

Without wishing to patronise, I suggest searching out and reading all the iFi postings in this thread as there is a lot more information given about the choices of chips and of the digital filtering or lack thereof.

Michael Lavorgna of AudioStream did a great interview with Thorsten which contains a lot more info about iFi's technology choices:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-thorsten-loesch-amrifi

cool.gif
post #838 of 2390
Thread Starter 

The recent discussion about chipsets and what constitutes what prompted us to bring in part 4 of the Software Design Notes. (also the AudioStream interview is quite heavy going as Thorsten does like the details).

 

Software Design Notes (4)

 

DSD – No ordinary DSD

 

There is DSD playback and DSD by iFi which we believe is different.

 

Normal DSD:

iFi DSD

 

 

 

 

We are really pleased with our DSD implementation - it really is quite one of the most original DSD implementations out there. At the core, no data conversion and manipulation is done INSIDE this chip, so the DSD data is preserved Bit-Perfectly. An analogue filter is applied to the DSD data before it is sent to the output stage.

 

For us, "doing digital" means keeping the signal path original as much as possible; ideally from the ADC being DSD kept through to DAC being DSD (the same of course goes for PCm which we will cover later).

 

But in the case of the nano iDSD and micro iDSD, we have this:

Therefore, when playing back an originally-recorded DSD file through this Burr-Brown chipset on the iDSD, the listener has ensured that the WHOLE ADC > DAC path has remained native” in its DSD format. Like this:

 

The DSD chip we use is under full software control in order to gain access to many “undocumented features” (yes, they all have them).  What are those “undocumented features”, we will announce them (a few should be a world’s first) closer to when we officially launch the micro iDSD.

 

Compared to the lion’s share of DSD-capable chips out there, most of them perform data conversion and manipulation of the DSD data and hence are no longer Bit-Perfect. This maybe the designer's choice, which is very much their prerogative but for us, we just about make it our mission to avoid such conversion processes.

 

Why? - conversion from one format to another is lossy. Hence to us, this is best avoided as much as possible.

 

What is the giveaway?  If they do digital volume control on the DSD stream, this is very likely to convert the DSD data into NON-DSD data (does not necessary mean that they are converting into PCM, but converting into something non-DSD at the very least).

 

Even Pro Audio Studios use DAWs that convert

Pyramix do not even pretend to use DSD, in their DAW any processing means the DSD signal is converted to DXD (24Bit/352.8KHz) and processed as this, then converted back to DSD. 

 

 

And Sonoma converts to DSD wide (aka PCM narrow), then applies a 24Bit scaling factor, ending up with 32PCM which is then converted back to DSD (remodulated from PCM).

 

 

It means that any processing of DSD in either Sonoma or Pyramix converts DSD to a form of PCM. Only "Tape Splice" (this refers to physically cutting the old magnetic tape and splicing two different tapes together) style edits can be done while retaining DSD.

 

If these VERY expensive DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) music recording/production packages cannot fade/volume control DSD without turning it to PCM, this begs the question of how come mainstream and far less costly commodity DAC's chipsets can?

 

This comes full circle back to why we selected the Burr-Brown chipset AND central to this why we use an analogue volume control (which yes, also has its issues but to us, these are far less sonically-damaging).


Edited by iFi audio - 6/17/14 at 10:13am
post #839 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFi audio View Post
 

The recent discussion about chipsets and what constitutes what prompted us to bring in part 4 of the Software Design Notes. (also the AudioStream interview is quite heavy going as Thorsten does like the details).

 

Software Design Notes (4)

 

DSD – No ordinary DSD

 

 

But in the case of the nano iDSD and micro iDSD, we have this:

Therefore, when playing back an originally-recorded DSD file through this Burr-Brown chipset on the iDSD, the listener has ensured that the WHOLE ADC > DAC path has remained native” in its DSD format. Like this:

 

The DSD chip we use is under full software control in order to gain access to many “undocumented features” (yes, they all have them).  What are those “undocumented features”, we will announce them (a few should be a world’s first) closer to when we officially launch the micro iDSD.

 

Mr. iFi audio,

 

Can you please help me understand how the timing is handled in block two of the first image and in the DAC conversion section within the second image?  Is a single clock used?  Multiple clocks for DSD and PCM?  What about multiples of 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz?

 

My apologies if this has all been answered already in this thread.  Thank you.

post #840 of 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear View Post


Without wishing to patronise, I suggest searching out and reading all the iFi postings in this thread as there is a lot more information given about the choices of chips and of the digital filtering or lack thereof.

I'm trying to put all tech info we got from iFi in one doc.
Can I post it here then (kind of attachment?)
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).