[BLacklWf]

Well, this is interesting. But I want to know for shure, if it does the same thing (probably it does, I will try it).

Here is a link to HQ player. Their trial policy is pretty good.
http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html
To my knowledge, anything says XTR are their best filters mimicking Dave. If you try, please share with us your findings. For the volume, I usually set mine: min value -2db and max value -2db in order to reduce clipping.

 

[zhgutov]

If I remember correctly it also allows to use a digital volume control without any loss of useful bits.

This may be true for 16 bit source, because they make everything 24 bit. In this case you have 8 bits to truncate. But this is not because of resampling.

 

[zhgutov]

Here is a link to HQ player. Their trial policy is pretty good.
http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html
To my knowledge, anything says XTR are their best filters mimicking Dave. If you try, please share with us your findings. For the volume, I usually set mine: min value -2db and max value -2db in order to reduce clipping.

From brief listening XTR sounds different than the filter inside RS 05.
But it is hard to decide which one is better (or maybe just different?).
I think I need more time for this, will write more later, thank you for suggestion.

 

[BLacklWf]

Great to know. I had a sense if there is anything that can beat those XTR filters that that will be RS-05 or Chord. I use XTR MP filters by the way.

 

[zhgutov]

Well, I had some time to listen and compare sharp-like filter of RS 05, XTR filter, and closed-form filter (HQPlayer).
Since I made some experiments with self-developed filters, it was interesting and important to me to research this and get strong opinion.

Listening impressions.
For me all filters have virtually the same amount of detail.
XTR filter makes everything slightly more smooth and forward, with less depth.
RS 05 has more pronounced transients, makes instruments more "tactile", it is slightly laid back in comparison, and have best depth.
Closed-form filter makes an accent to high frequencies, in other aspects it is close to RS 05, but lacks the "tactile" effect (probably because of accentuated high frequencies).

For 44 kHz XTR makes 3-6 kHz region slightly more smooth and sometimes more pleasant/flowing. It also removes some energy from that region.
For 96 kHz it makes the similar thing with higher frequencies, but in this case it is closer to other filters.
This sounds more like coloration, and probably this is because of massive ringing (if I understand it correctly).
Other filters sound the same @ 96 kHz.

This is funny, but personally I always return to sharp-like filters finally.
This was with my experiments, the same thing happened with TEAC UD-501.
And the same thing happened in this case.
For me sharp-like filters sound more natural, and this is the filter which I definitely will choose for reference equipment for mixing, mastering etc.
For some reason I always choose this kind of sound, but I can understand why someone may tell one filter is more detailed, another has better soundstage, etc.
Finally, I think this is very subjective. Now I want to know how/if it is related to Chord devices.

 

[BLacklWf]

Well, I had some time to listen and compare sharp-like filter of RS 05, XTR filter, and closed-form filter (HQPlayer).
Since I made some experiments with self-developed filters, it was interesting and important to me to research this and get strong opinion.

Listening impressions.
For me all filters have virtually the same amount of detail.
XTR filter makes everything slightly more smooth and forward, with less depth.
RS 05 has more pronounced transients, makes instruments more "tactile", it is slightly laid back in comparison, and have best depth.
Closed-form filter makes an accent to high frequencies, in other aspects it is close to RS 05, but lacks the "tactile" effect (probably because of accentuated high frequencies).

For 44 kHz XTR makes 3-6 kHz region slightly more smooth and sometimes more pleasant/flowing. It also removes some energy from that region.
For 96 kHz it makes the similar thing with higher frequencies, but in this case it is closer to other filters.
This sounds more like coloration, and probably this is because of massive ringing (if I understand it correctly).
Other filters sound the same @ 96 kHz.

This is funny, but personally I always return to sharp-like filters finally.
This was with my experiments, the same thing happened with TEAC UD-501.
And the same thing happened in this case.
For me sharp-like filters sound more natural, and this is the filter which I definitely will choose for reference equipment for mixing, mastering etc.
For some reason I always choose this kind of sound, but I can understand why someone may tell one filter is more detailed, another has better soundstage, etc.
Finally, I think this is very subjective. Now I want to know how/if it is related to Chord devices.

Thanks for sharing your findings! Sounds like if I have RS-05 then I don't have to use HQ Player anymore. It's impressive that such a device can beat an relative new intel i7 processor at calculating better digital filters. Have you tried 192 kHz or XTR MP filters? XTR MP filter is what I'm currently using and I generally like sharp-like filters as well.

 

[BLacklWf]

...
Concerning the "3.5 dB high headroom DSP" from Benchmark I can´t tell you something about.
Also there is no explanation to find on the web.
For me 0 dBFs is the maximum you can achieve as there are no positive dB values with digital data.
So the question is what this headroom is good for. Maybe John Siau will explain some day.
...

Sorry for revising an old discussion, but my uneducated guess is that John Siau built in extra 3.5db of headroom in order to prevent clipping when oversampling. Fried - if I read it correctly before, you are also a believer in oversampling right? I'm hoping one day you will marry RS-05 into a DAC. That will be my dream DAC.

 

[zhgutov]

Thanks for sharing your findings! Sounds like if I have RS-05 then I don't have to use HQ Player anymore. It's impressive that such a device can beat an relative new intel i7 processor at calculating better digital filters. Have you tried 192 kHz or XTR MP filters? XTR MP filter is what I'm currently using and I generally like sharp-like filters as well.

Unfortunately, I cannot use 192 kHz now, because TENOR USB input is not working on High Sierra.
But I think for 192 kHz there will be no any audible difference for all that filters.
I think there is a difference for XTR and 96 kHz only because it alters the sound in the areas it should not.

And I think, it is possible that you will still like XTR more with RS 05.
There are more things which may change everything, like other equipment, headphones, your personal preferences etc.
I can even imagine that with other equipment I can consider XTR more natural/better sounding filter.

 

[BLacklWf]

Unfortunately, I cannot use 192 kHz now, because TENOR USB input is not working on High Sierra.
But I think for 192 kHz there will be no any audible difference for all that filters.
I think there is a difference for XTR and 96 kHz only because it alters the sound in the areas it should not.

And I think, it is possible that you will still like XTR more with RS 05.
There are more things which may change everything, like other equipment, headphones, your personal preferences etc.
I can even imagine that with other equipment I can consider XTR more natural/better sounding filter.

I'm using 50% processing power of 8 cores to achieve something similar to RS-05. That machine is impressive.

 

[zhgutov]

I'm using 50% processing power of 8 cores to achieve something similar to RS-05. That machine is impressive.

Oh, I mean 192 kHz source files. Not the 44.1 kHz.
For 44.1 kHz source there should be no audible difference for 96 and 192 kHz outputs,
if the filter is implemented correctly and everything else work the same for these sample rates.

 

[BLacklWf]

Oh, I mean 192 kHz source files. Not the 44.1 kHz.
For 44.1 kHz source there should be no audible difference for 96 and 192 kHz outputs,
if the filter is implemented correctly and everything else work the same for these sample rates.

Oh, you are using 96 kHz source files. For me, pretty much all my files are 44.1 kHz. And, I've been using poly-sinc-xtr-mp to oversample to either 192 kHz (Emotiva) or DSD 256 (Oppo HA-2 SE). With my set up, it sounds substantially different/better to my ears using that filter. I wouldn't call it more detailed, but the soundstage is better layered and bass is more defined/extended. Perhaps, I gain a little rhythmic drive as well but that may be just my imagination. Poly-sinc-xtr was more natural to my ears, but I liked 'mp' for my taste. The other filters were on and off for me.

Anyway, I was more interested in the oversampling capability of RS-05 compared to HQ player. When you have a chance, do you mind running a couple tests oversampling 44.1 through RS-05 vs HQ Player direct to DAC? Thanks!

 

[zhgutov]

Oh, you are using 96 kHz source files. For me, pretty much all my files are 44.1 kHz. And, I've been using poly-sinc-xtr-mp to oversample to either 192 kHz (Emotiva) or DSD 256 (Oppo HA-2 SE). With my set up, it sounds substantially different/better to my ears using that filter. I wouldn't call it more detailed, but the soundstage is better layered and bass is more defined/extended. Perhaps, I gain a little rhythmic drive as well but that may be just my imagination. Poly-sinc-xtr was more natural to my ears, but I liked 'mp' for my taste. The other filters were on and off for me.

Anyway, I was more interested in the oversampling capability of RS-05 compared to HQ player. When you have a chance, do you mind running a couple tests oversampling 44.1 through RS-05 vs HQ Player direct to DAC? Thanks!

In my first post, when I talked about 44 and 96 kHz I mean source sample rates. So, I tested this with both 44 and 96 source files. But the output was set to 96 kHz (88.2 for closed-form filter).
Resampling itself in RS 05 does not affect the sound, it is transparent. SoX (try it!), for example, is transparent too.
With the exception when you downsample something from higher sampling rate to 44.1 kHz.
But the unit has excellent clock, this can get more than the filters (IMO), if you can use external clock in your DAC.

 

[BLacklWf]

In my first post, when I talked about 44 and 96 kHz I mean source sample rates. So, I tested this with both 44 and 96 source files. But the output was set to 96 kHz (88.2 for closed-form filter).
Resampling itself in RS 05 does not affect the sound, it is transparent. SoX (try it!), for example, is transparent too.
With the exception when you downsample something from higher sampling rate to 44.1 kHz.
But the unit has excellent clock, this can get more than the filters (IMO), if you can use external clock in your DAC.

Can I ask you an unrelated question? I was going to wait for V900 whenever it may be released but my patience is running thin.. So, contemplating RS-06 by itself without USB to save some money since I maybe tempted to upgrade if V900 is release next year. Do you hear any difference between coax vs USB? Also, I wonder if Roon or HQ player will recognize it thru coax or not. Thanks!

 

[zhgutov]

Can I ask you an unrelated question? I was going to wait for V900 whenever it may be released but my patience is running thin.. So, contemplating RS-06 by itself without USB to save some money since I maybe tempted to upgrade if V900 is release next year. Do you hear any difference between coax vs USB? Also, I wonder if Roon or HQ player will recognize it thru coax or not. Thanks!

I have not seen any information about V900. This looks more like rumors produced by community
RS 06 has its own clock reconstruction circuitry (like the RS 05, but with different clock). It is active when the resampling is turned on.
In this case the input does not matter. This is true for V800, for example. All inputs sound the same.

I think that you need something with digital outputs to use it without USB.
Do you have such device? For example, MacBook Pro has TOSLINK (optical) outputs via headphone jack.

 

[BLacklWf]

I have not seen any information about V900. This looks more like rumors produced by community
RS 06 has its own clock reconstruction circuitry (like the RS 05, but with different clock). It is active when the resampling is turned on.
In this case the input does not matter. This is true for V800, for example. All inputs sound the same.

I think that you need something with digital outputs to use it without USB.
Do you have such device? For example, MacBook Pro has TOSLINK (optical) outputs via headphone jack.

My desktop computer has coax out. I haven't test tried it, but I should try it with my Emotiva during my break.