[marcus1]

Thanks for your reply.  The reason I asked is that I normally use my Micro in line direct mode to feed my stereo amp and had never bothered with the digital filters as I couldn't hear much difference between them but I recently did a 'tweak' on my Uptone Regen (replaced the 5v power supply with a LiFePO4 battery) and this upgrade (to the Regen) was amazing.  
 
I was testing the tweaked Regen (listening with headphones) and was playing around with the filters and now could hear distinct differences with different filters selected so that's why I was asking about the filters being active in line direct mode.
 
My media player is the Foobar 2K and I have the SACD plugin installed so everything is converted to DSD. I haven't put the Micro back into my stereo system yet but at the moment I prefer the DSD 'Extended' filter selection (I'm assuming that in the DSD Extreme/Extended/Standard (analogue) range filter selection that the 'Extended' selection equates to the 'Minimum-Phase' selection written on the Micro).
 
 
Quote:

What do you mean by 'digital filters'?

A lot of folks are getting confused and thinking that XBASS and 3D must be DSP. They are not and they are not active in direct mode.

If you mean the digital filters in the DAC - standard, minimum phase and bit perfect - these are always active.

 

[gr8soundz]

I'm assuming that in the DSD Extreme/Extended/Standard (analogue) range filter selection that the 'Extended' selection equates to the 'Minimum-Phase' selection written on the Micro.

 
Correct.
 

 

[GraveNoX]

Just got Nano iDSD and I'm blown away by how much more detailed my music it is now. Old DAC was really detailed, but this one, takes my music to another new level. I'm missing a lot by not going with Micro iDSD ? The difference is marginal or it is night and day ? I'm using Audio Technica MSR7 and JBL LSR 305. I care mainly about DAC section and amount of details (specially on mids, treble and highs).

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Just got Nano iDSD and I'm blown away by how much more detailed my music it is now. Old DAC was really detailed, but this one, takes my music to another new level. I'm missing a lot by not going with Micro iDSD ? The difference is marginal or it is night and day ? I'm using Audio Technica MSR7 and JBL LSR 305. I care mainly about DAC section and amount of details (specially on mids, treble and highs).

IME the improvement from nano idsd to idac2 is already huge and same story goes for idac 2 to idsd micro

 

[Sonic Defender]

IME the improvement from nano idsd to idac2 is already huge and same story goes for idac 2 to idsd micro

How different are the DAC sections between the iDAC2 and the Micro?

 

[bflat]

  How different are the DAC sections between the iDAC2 and the Micro?

Technically it's night and day difference:
 
iDSD has 2 DAC chips for each channel, plus uses femto clock. iDAC is single DAC chip, no femto clock.
 
Whether all this makes any sonic difference, it will depend on your source music files and the rest of your chain. Personally, if I didn't see the iDSD on sale at Adorama, I would have gone with iDAC since I was looking to spend less than $400 for my office setup.
 
BTW, I have the iDSD paired with a Lyr 2 amp and it's a nice combo with the benefit of tube rolling.

 

[bluesaint]

How different are the DAC sections between the iDAC2 and the Micro?

Single bb chip DAC vs dual.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I doubt dual DAC chips make even .5% of an audible difference, and I also doubt anybody can hear differences in clocks unless one of them was defective. I owned the Micro and loved it, but I would bet as a DAC alone the two are transparent to the user, IMO only of course.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Being an engineer I couldn't care less about the number of DAC chip because yep it's transparent to the user. In terms of sound, the iDSD Micro sound more neutral and natural while the iDAC2 has the warmer BB signature. High-mids on the iDAC2 was a bit too shouty and though everything else was quite good, as a whole it doesn't come close to the iDSD. I think the difference is most obvious on Vocals track where the iDAC2 come very close to what I'd call "glaring" mids. I got the iDSD for quite cheap (used) so I love it much more than other people.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I guess my concern/question is that the DAC sections should be transparent, which you seem to mostly agree with. I can't imagine there is much of a difference in the DAC implementation between the two devices, so bypassing the Micro's amp, what really could make the DAC sections sound different?

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

I was talking about the DAC section only. I have my Little Dot I+ And these 2 were also used with my power speakers system

 

[Sonic Defender]

I was talking about the DAC section only. I have my Little Dot I+ And these 2 were also used with my power speakers system

That is my point of inquiry then, what about the DAC sections would cause the sound to be so different? Now I don't know this, I'm speculating here, but not without some reasonable basis to build on. So if the DAC chip is the same, just one as opposed to 2 chips, and we know that companies want to reuse as much as they can rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm making the assumption that the DAC sections between the two devices should be pretty darn transparent to the user and ultimately similar in design. So as an engineer, if you look at the two DAC architectures, is there really any differences in the two DACs that should make one sound significantly different, let alone better than the other? I'm actually asking, I don't know the answer. I will admit my assumption is there is no significant difference, but I will also admit I could be completely wrong about this and I'm very open to learning.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Well I'm next to ignorant about sound equipment engineering but I don't think implementing 2 dac chips would be simple as opening a new channel and "split" the digital input into 2. In my imagination it might be as complicated to do low-level (machine level) coding on dual cores as opposed to on a single cpu core. It's a damn mess of threads and processes and other stuffs that an app developer would not want to get into.
However I do think that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that the implementation will affect the sound more than the dac chip itself. I think it's the reason the idac2 is already different than the idsd nano, the xDuoo is different from any AK DAP that uses the same chip or some Sabre don't display the infamous "glare" at all. I was pleasantly surprised when I found that the iDsd Micro don't have that warm-ish BB signature sound but still very natural and enjoyable.

 

[bluesaint]

  That is my point of inquiry then, what about the DAC sections would cause the sound to be so different? Now I don't know this, I'm speculating here, but not without some reasonable basis to build on. So if the DAC chip is the same, just one as opposed to 2 chips, and we know that companies want to reuse as much as they can rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm making the assumption that the DAC sections between the two devices should be pretty darn transparent to the user and ultimately similar in design. So as an engineer, if you look at the two DAC architectures, is there really any differences in the two DACs that should make one sound significantly different, let alone better than the other? I'm actually asking, I don't know the answer. I will admit my assumption is there is no significant difference, but I will also admit I could be completely wrong about this and I'm very open to learning.

Main reason IFI used 2 chips for the Micro was to achieve DSD512.  A single BB chip can only do DSD256. 

 

[The Walrus]

Quick question: When I'm listening to music and working on my desktop PC, how can I get  Micro to play only from Windows Media Player? I hear all the system sounds from Windows, it's very annoying...