[LucyWu]

@GoldenOne or any others, with newest HQP 5.3, is the current thinking for DSD feed into DAC200 that if I have some CPU constraints, should I go with ASDM7ECv3 @ DSD256 or ASDM7EC-super 512+fs @ DSD512? And any new consensus on oversamping 1x and Nx settings? Thank you.

I'd be inclined to go with whatever settings yield stable results @DSD512. I am using the newest hybrid modulators rather than the ASDM/EC settings now and these are working very nicely with both DSD512 and DSD1024.

 

[TonyNewman]

I'd be inclined to go with whatever settings yield stable results @DSD512. I am using the newest hybrid modulators rather than the ASDM/EC settings now and these are working very nicely with both DSD512 and DSD1024.

Do you find these new hybrid modulators give better results than ASDM7ECv3? Could you please let me know which options these entries are in the HQP drop-down menu? I am using version 5.3.0 of HQP and the new hybrid settings are not obvious to me.

 

[Soundguy123]

I find anything OTHER than pure sinc function filters sound too harsh and with incorrect timbre on redbook 44.1 to DSD256 on DAC200. No problem to use Poly-sinc-gaus-hires-lp on 176KHz material - that still sounds great although Sinc-L is still better. So it appears the first upsampling is a quite critical part of the reconstruction in terms of audible artifacts - at least in my setup. I am using rather ruthlessly resolving gear, so on other systems the results may be different.

Anyone found a hybrid filter that doesn’t flatten soundstage depth and cause significant change in transients (sound overly punchy and unnatural)?

I am very happy with ASDM7EC-super as a modulator pcm => DSD256 on DAC200 - very spacious and deep and accurate soundstage.


I know this maybe controversial but I can hear that the reconstruction from hybrid or anything other than a pure sinc filter (longer is better) is not as accurate in terms of fidelity. Mathematics supports my observations - theoretically the only way to accurately reconstruct the original audio is with an infinitely long sinc filter…anything other than a maximum length pure filter is going to change the sound of transients, soundstage and timbre.

 

[GoldenSound]

Anyone found a hybrid

Hybrid as in intermediate phase or something else?

The 'poly-sinc' filters are still sinc. The 'poly' just indicates that they're polyphase which means they can work with non-integer upsampling. ie: can go from 44.1khz to 768khz whereas sinc-L and sinc-M for instance must upsample to an integer multiple, 44.1khz to 705.6khz and 48khz to 768khz etc.

Usually not being polyphase isn't an issue, it's only in situations where either your output cannot adjust sample rate (if you are inputting to Dirac for example) or if you are upsampling to DSD and your DAC doesn't support 48khz DSD base rates

 

[Soundguy123]

Hybrid as in intermediate phase or something else?

The 'poly-sinc' filters are still sinc. The 'poly' just indicates that they're polyphase which means they can work with non-integer upsampling. ie: can go from 44.1khz to 768khz whereas sinc-L and sinc-M for instance must upsample to an integer multiple, 44.1khz to 705.6khz and 48khz to 768khz etc.

Usually not being polyphase isn't an issue, it's only in situations where either your output cannot adjust sample rate (if you are inputting to Dirac for example) or if you are upsampling to DSD and your DAC doesn't support 48khz DSD base rates

Yes hybrid to me includes apodizing like a Gaussian window or and anything other than linear phase with pure sinc function.

and above I meant the gaussian version - Poly-sinc-gauss-hires-lp is not sounding to my taste

 

[REXNFX]

Wouldn't you guys just prefer buying a DAC that works out of the box?

 

[ardbeg1975]

Wouldn't you guys just prefer buying a DAC that works out of the box?

For me, less about “working” per se and more about tuning / optimizing. My tube amps “work out of the box” with stock tubes but the can sound even better with rolling.

 

[REXNFX]

For me, less about “working” per se and more about tuning / optimizing. My tube amps “work out of the box” with stock tubes but the can sound even better with rolling.

I would like a DAC that converts digital to analogue perfectly, according to Aavik, their new DAC does this. If they are right (unlikely but you never know) there will be no need for upsampling.

 

[GoldenSound]

I've posted my review of the T+A DAC200!

 

[ThanatosVI]

Wouldn't you guys just prefer buying a DAC that works out of the box?

Maybe I missed a reference, but the DAC200 works out of thr Box.

 

[Soundguy123]

Wouldn't you guys just prefer buying a DAC that works out of the box?

You mean as amazingly good as the DSD DAC in the T+A D200 sounds?

This would have been my view a few years ago and prior to hearing the T+A DAC200 true 1 bit SDM discrete DAC play Redbook that has been upsampled to DSD256 on a PC. So I understand where you are coming from completely.

There are already thousands of DACs that “work out of the box” - the problem is after hearing the DAC200 in the optimal configuration these ordinary DACs will all sound similarly bad. If a “one box that just works“ mediocrity is what you value most then you have thousands of options….lucky you!

As far as I know, the Holo May is the only other DAC at the same/similar sound quality level as the DAC200 ……and the bad news is that Holo May needs a PC to upsample audio files to sound its very best too! So folks, there is a pattern here. There is a fundamental industry problem with upsampling/filtering on 99.9% of “single box DAC’s” and once you hear the better sound, there is no going back because the difference is mind blowing.

The good news for those of you who don’t have $5000+ to spend on a Holo May or T+A DAC200 is this: Upsampling redbook on a PC can make most DAC’s sound a bit better because the first 2x upsample seems to be the most critical or fundamental step as it is the first calculation that any SDM chip DAC will do.

From a technical perspective, I suspect equiripple and the resulting pre-echos from basic low latency filters are a major part of the problem. Simply stated, getting a DAC chip to do all the processing required for upsampling on a chip (even a fast FPGA) at very low latency (0.001 sec as required for studio work or synchronization to video etc) leads to audible degradation of the reconstruction. A mass produced PC (very cheap as sold in millions) can do a much more precise job of reconstruction and give audibly superior sound, provided you don’t care about some added latency (the latest PC’s tend to sound best with at least 0.1 sec or more latency)

 

[REXNFX]

You mean as amazingly good as the DSD DAC in the T+A D200 sounds?

This would have been my view a few years ago and prior to hearing the T+A DAC200 true 1 bit SDM discrete DAC play Redbook that has been upsampled to DSD256 on a PC. So I understand where you are coming from completely.

There are already thousands of DACs that “work out of the box” - the problem is after hearing the DAC200 in the optimal configuration these ordinary DACs will all sound similarly bad. If a “one box that just works“ mediocrity is what you value most then you have thousands of options….lucky you!

As far as I know, the Holo May is the only other DAC at the same/similar sound quality level as the DAC200 ……and the bad news is that Holo May needs a PC to upsample audio files to sound its very best too! So folks, there is a pattern here. There is a fundamental industry problem with upsampling/filtering on 99.9% of “single box DAC’s” and once you hear the better sound, there is no going back because the difference is mind blowing.

The good news for those of you who don’t have $5000+ to spend on a Holo May or T+A DAC200 is this: Upsampling redbook on a PC can make most DAC’s sound a bit better because the first 2x upsample seems to be the most critical or fundamental step as it is the first calculation that any SDM chip DAC will do.

Would be great if you could record your system playback and post it on YouTube so that we can have a clue as to what you mean?

 

[GoldenSound]

Would be great if you could record your system playback and post it on YouTube so that we can have a clue as to what you mean?

You won't be able to hear the improvements of a DAC through an ADC, then youtube compression, then another DAC

 

[Soundguy123]

Would be great if you could record your system playback and post it on YouTube so that we can have a clue as to what you mean?

Unfortunately, this level of sound quality doesn’t translate easily on lossy formats such as YouTube and the recording process itself would involve conversion/filters at least as significant in their effect on sound quality, as what one is listening for.

 

[REXNFX]

You won't be able to hear the improvements of a DAC through an ADC, then youtube compression, then another DAC

Yes i will