I can't detect any major differences between my Modi Multibit and a Centrance DACmini CX which uses a DS chip on 16/44.1 material. Very close match, any subtle differences there are may well be due to the analog section. You maybe confusing NOS vs. oversampling DACs.
No, I am not confusing anything in regards to my comments. Just because you can't detect any differences does not mean they are not there. I have a friend that can't tell the difference between his MacBook's on board DAC, a Modi Multibit, or an Yggdrasil. In some ways he is fortunate. His music budget will be less than mine....
No, I am not confusing anything in regards to my comments. Just because you can't detect any differences does not mean they are not there. I have a friend that can't tell the difference between his MacBook's on board DAC, a Modi Multibit, or an Yggdrasil. In some ways he is fortunate. His music budget will be less than mine....
They are there and I can detect them, but they are so subtle they don't matter and may well be due to the differences in the analog section. A well done DS DAC, and DACMini CX is a well implemented DAC, should be no worse than a multibit.
And that is a DAC implementation not "analog portion after the DAC chip itself" - I am not aware of TFT commonly being used in the analog sections of audio DACs, I guess I would have expected the mention of FETs (or BJTs) for analog audio rather than TFTs specifically.
Still ... whatever (?)
Yes you are right that the TFT's are usually before the analog section but you get the point. You can debate specifics all day but it doesnt change the facts.
No, I am not confusing anything in regards to my comments. Just because you can't detect any differences does not mean they are not there. I have a friend that can't tell the difference between his MacBook's on board DAC, a Modi Multibit, or an Yggdrasil. In some ways he is fortunate. His music budget will be less than mine....
No, they do sound different, but typically not because R2R vs DS, which is what your original statement was. Neutral DACs should sound similar, and I gave an example.
No, they do sound different, but typically not because R2R vs DS, which is what your original statement was. Neutral DACs should sound similar, and I gave an example.
Exactly.
Most DAC's sound different due to implementation and the analog segments.
Not due to resolving capabilities, which is more the way DACs used to be.
I have a fairly resolving desktop system with a tube amp and Klipsch speakers. I have/had several mid-range DACs and they all sound different, but the 2 I mentioned are the most close sounding despite being R2R and DS designs.
I have a fairly resolving desktop system with a tube amp and Klipsch speakers. I have/had several mid-range DACs and they all sound different, but the 2 I mentioned are the most close sounding despite being R2R and DS designs.
Yes exactly, but its about resolution quality not the overall sound.
I think that most brands try to sound different or "distinct" in some way because people start to "like" the house and then buy more of their products in time.
You see brands like Oppo and Shanling doing this, while chinese brands like Topping / SMSL are not doing this type of stuff. Especially not SMSL as they have DAC/Amps based on every possible design from Cirrus / Wolfson to ESS & Ti & AKM... hell they even have a few DAC's from brands I haven't heard of either and they mix them with integrated headphone amplifiers, external amplifiers for speakers and headphones and just straight DAC's.
Topping on the other hand seems to be going for clean sounding and simple products with really great price tags that are also hand tested / tuned. But from what I see across their lineup, its alot smaller and uses only a few designs.
I think that FiiO has been pretty consistent in the budget sector, but now they are building a flagship Q7 I think it is and its going to be portable with dual AKM DAC chips so I think that is quite a bit different from their previous designs.
Schiit here is doing the same thing with the AKM DAC's across the boards, they are developing their own "house sound" but honestly I think they provide great products especially in the different price tiers especially considering that they are building/engineering in the USA.
You can't set anything in the Mimby. The Mimby will upsample any source below 24/176.4 to 24/176.4 or 24/192. Any source that is 24/176.4 or 24/192 will not be upsampled.
For example, Red Book source material (16/44.1) is upsampled to 24/176.4. 24/96 source material would be upsampled to 24/192. 24/192 source material would not be upsampled at all.
If you wanted to bypass the onboard upsampling of Mimby, you would have your player software upsample to 24/176.4 or 24/192. I prefer letting Mimby do the upsampling but others prefer doing it in software.
i can choose sampling rate from apple music preferences and from windows panel in the schiit mimby section...
i put 16/44 in both, am i right?? sorry for my english
You can't set anything in the Mimby. The Mimby will upsample any source below 24/176.4 to 24/176.4 or 24/192. Any source that is 24/176.4 or 24/192 will not be upsampled.
For example, Red Book source material (16/44.1) is upsampled to 24/176.4. 24/96 source material would be upsampled to 24/192. 24/192 source material would not be upsampled at all.
If you wanted to bypass the onboard upsampling of Mimby, you would have your player software upsample to 24/176.4 or 24/192. I prefer letting Mimby do the upsampling but others prefer doing it in software.
I'm a bit confused since I've seen diametrically conflicting advice on setting the sample rate in Windows. My primary music source is Tidal HiFi and the vast majority of material there is 16/44.1. However, Tidal is adding Master versions of some albums, which are generally 24/96. Would the best option be to leave the Windows setting at 16/44.1 and leave it to the Mimby to upsample material at higher resolution? (This is the option I am currently using.)
I'm a bit confused since I've seen diametrically conflicting advice on setting the sample rate in Windows. My primary music source is Tidal HiFi and the vast majority of material there is 16/44.1. However, Tidal is adding Master versions of some albums, which are generally 24/96. Would the best option be to leave the Windows setting at 16/44.1 and leave it to the Mimby to upsample material at higher resolution? (This is the option I am currently using.)
the windows panel let you choose frequency range up to the level that the dac you are using supports...
i try to explain... when i had mojo i could choose up to 384khz or something.. with fulla 2 only up to 96... so i think that from windows you can choose the frequency that the dac will us eventually upsampling the source.
is that right? some nerd advice would be needed....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
