RME HDSP 9632 vs. E-mu 1212m
Jun 3, 2004 at 8:08 AM Post #2 of 46
I'm affraid HDSP 9632 is nothing more than DIGI96/8 PAD sound-wise.. same DAC and opamps and most likely same oscilators too..

16/44.1 RMAA results are not the best when it comes to comparing cards.. the format itself limits the results, but anyway, look at E-MU, way better distortion figures.. (although that might be due to the ADC used)
 
Jun 3, 2004 at 9:58 AM Post #4 of 46
Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman
I'm affraid HDSP 9632 is nothing more than DIGI96/8 PAD sound-wise.. same DAC and opamps and most likely same oscilators too..


I know that both supposedly use AD1852 for the DAC. What OpAmps do PAD and HDSP 9632 use, do you know?

I know the ADC parts are different and so is the board design and the clock.

I think one person here at Head-Fi has briefly compared PAD and HDSP 9632 (headphones connected to their analog outs) and didn't find them to be very different.

regards,
halcyon
 
Jun 3, 2004 at 10:10 AM Post #5 of 46
I have high res pictures of the 9632 at photobucket (link in sig). I think you can make out the chips in those.
 
Jun 3, 2004 at 11:54 AM Post #6 of 46
Jun 3, 2004 at 12:07 PM Post #7 of 46
Zemo,

is that your card? Can you tell us what is the PCB revision number on it?

Also, have you checked the DigiCheck utility for RME cards?

It's really nice as it allows you to monitor bit-accuracy of other sound cards, do spectral analysis, etc.
 
Jun 3, 2004 at 12:12 PM Post #8 of 46
No, it's not my soundcard. This testing was done by a buddy of mine, as he's the one who currently owns the card. If there's other specific tests you'd like me to ask him to run, I can do that.

-Z
 
Jun 3, 2004 at 1:41 PM Post #9 of 46
He could do the 96/24 and 192/24 tests as well (in RMAA).

Also, if he could run the IMD tests at higher frequencies (e.g .F1: 12kHz, F2: 19.5 kHz from Test Options/Test Signals).

Thanks!

cheers,
halcyon
 
Jun 4, 2004 at 6:13 AM Post #12 of 46
I found the best sound out of the digi96/8 PAD was by bypassing the analog output stage altogether. So if the 9632 has the same DAC as the PAD, then they would sound the same if the analog stage is bypassed.

Now this is presuming their power stages are the same. Which does not look like either has anything substantial.

-Ed
 
Jun 4, 2004 at 6:16 AM Post #13 of 46
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zemo
It seems like the E-mu wins in every category except frequency response....how will this translate into sound, I wonder?

-Z


The RME PAD's DAC is very dynamic. The E-MU in stock form is very laid back in comparison. Particularly in the Bass department.

Although, it is apparently greatly improved with abour $140 worth of mods.

The costs of which make it significantly less than the 9632.

Will be interesting to compare these cards at the SoCal meet.

-Ed
 
Jun 4, 2004 at 6:56 AM Post #14 of 46
Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon
I know that both supposedly use AD1852 for the DAC. What OpAmps do PAD and HDSP 9632 use, do you know?

I know the ADC parts are different and so is the board design and the clock.

I think one person here at Head-Fi has briefly compared PAD and HDSP 9632 (headphones connected to their analog outs) and didn't find them to be very different.

regards,
halcyon


NJM4580.. and you say clocks are different? maybe, but analog output circuitry is pretty much the same as DIGI96/8 PAD..
 
Jun 4, 2004 at 6:58 AM Post #15 of 46
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zemo
Glassman - you're saying the 9632 sounds exactly like a 96/8? what support do you have of this?

I'm interested in more opinions!

I hope I get the chance to listen to both side by side....

-Z


I woulnd't say exactly per se, but provided they have the same chips and are from the same designers I'd be very surprised if there were any significant difference..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top