Just in case anyone is interested. Explanation of MQA:
btw, I’m not a fan of MQA.
btw, I’m not a fan of MQA.
Coming back to this post, Rob, I was wondering if Xilinx has miraculously delivered an FPGA that you can work with for xMS?Yes when I saw that announcement last month (I was just starting my 10km morning hike) I got very excited with the possibilities of 1200 dsp cores and much lower power. But when I got back and downloaded the data sheets, I was in for a disappointment; it may have 1200 cores, but has very slightly less memory than the 200T (the M scaler FPGA). So it will be memory limited. Also, given Xilinx track record, and the current severe problems with supply from silicon, it will be unobtainable for several (perhaps many) years. And probably expensive...
So my needs are simple and probably similar to others - more on chip memory, more dsp cores, more fabric, and much lower power - and lower cost! All of which together is not looking possible or probable.
If you've never heard state of the art digital room correction, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Needs to be experienced.
Of course if you have the perfect room acoustics already, then possibly not required.
I apologize that I missed it, but what is this solution you are speaking of?
There is no such thing as perfect solution.
There was a debate on Audiophile Style a month or so ago. “Qualified experts“ needs to be considered within their field of expertise. Their experiences may not account for many of the qualities Rob thinks are important for music to come to life.There's a few out there, considered 'state of the art' by the qualified experts in the field. I'm just a dumb end user though, not an expert.
The same can be said of Rob's opinions.There was a debate on Audiophile Style a month or so ago. “Qualified experts“ needs to be considered within their field of expertise. Their experiences may not account for many of the qualities Rob thinks are important for music to come to life.
@Rob Watts thanks a lot for the suggestions. Will pass that one to the electrician.
Using a battery could be the answer as well, I just don’t fancy invalidating the warranty as the M scaler is still covered.
and duly noted regarding the Dave BNC, will defer from that route!
Does the leakage current in the M Scaler affect SQ? And leakage current in general?
Coming back to this post, Rob, I was wondering if Xilinx has miraculously delivered an FPGA that you can work with for xMS?
Am I right in saying that the original 16FS WTA1 FPGA algorithm e.g. in DAVE, depends mostly on DSP cores and doesn't have a requirement for "lots of memory"? My understanding is that the WTA1 FPGA algorithm in HMS consumes lots of memory in order to fit into the number of available DSP cores. I seem to remember that you had to completely re-do the form of the FPGA algorithm to achieve 1 million taps and in doing so the memory consumption went up substantially.
I'm wondering if it's possible to return to the older algorithm to solve the problem with having too little memory, even if there's enough DSP cores?
If that were true, then maybe that's how you're able to contemplate building xMS. Otherwise, it seems as if you would be stuck using multiple FPGA devices and networking them together.
Another thing I've been wondering is relating to the final noise shaper in DAVE, just before the pulse array modulator. In theory with the DX power amp you can build a noise shaper that's higher than the 17th order seen in DAVE, presumably because you will have loads of FPGA capacity since the DX amps will not have a WTA1.
I'm also wondering whether future DACs could have a switchable noise shaper just before the final stage. If the DAC is being fed by a 16FS signal, then the DAC's WTA1 algorithm can be removed and the noise shaper could be "upgraded", using more of the FPGA.
There was a debate on Audiophile Style a month or so ago. “Qualified experts“ needs to be considered within their field of expertise. Their experiences may not account for many of the qualities Rob thinks are important for music to come to life.
The same can be said of Rob's opinions.
His gear measures superbly but there is other stuff out there too... so Rob is hardly the only D to A expert on planet earth...
For the APx555 measurements Rob shows for various products, there are other products with as good or better APx555 plots...
Talking about analogue outputs not the digital domain simulations...
People need to be open to looking at other products though. Some are iron fisted and loyal to Rob and that's fine. It's made him very rich so kudos to him
I love my Hugo2 btw but I enjoy and appreciate other gear out there too.
You responded to arguments I didn't make and ignored the ones that I did make.People need to be open to looking at other products though. Some are iron fisted and loyal to Rob and that's fine. It's made him very rich so kudos to him
Exactly, Rob. I also don't think they use gear that's up to the level you choose to use.Particularly when these "experts" never conduct carefully controlled objective listening tests. They would have very different opinions if they did...
I would like to see these so called plots that have better APx 555 measurements than Dave or TT2.
If JA's Audio Precision SYS2722 didn't show differences, then one could fairly say his AP is not sensitive enough / lacks resolution, and then we need to go to the APx555 right?So where are these APx 555 plots that show better performance?
Reminds me of the year or so I spent building state of the art matrix-matrix and matrix-vector multiplication software for a graphics processor:so it's a bit of an art to get optimum performance from a given device, as you may be constrained by routing, DSP or memory, or all three!