[lan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Edwood I'll test the optical output of the RME to the optical input on the Grace. Guess I'll have to buy one of those nice glass toslink cables next. ARGH!!!!! How many cables do I have to buy?!!?

The madness continues for you. You are on a rampage. No stopping you! haha.

BTW, I have already tried coax vs. optical and optical won even though it's some cheap one I got years ago. I'm going to also get a glass toslinks.

 

[Edwood]

Heheh, I have the power end totally covered now.

Now my IC's are my system's weak point.

-Ed

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Edwood The RME PAD has balanced outputs? How do you get them? Is there a break out cable? Or a daughter card? Where to buy? -Ed

I believe he was referring to the balanced digital AES/EBU breakout cable. To reiterate, unfortunately, I know of no way to get balanced analog output from this card. Maybe you should email the company to find out for sure, since the expansion boards have 1/4" TRS jacks, which can support balanced, since they have 3 signal carriers (as does XLR), it's just a matter of whether they are wired to be used as only unbalanced, or can be configured as either.

 

[hottyson]

The RME Digi 96/8 PAD and RME Digi 96/8 PST differences and similarities that Ian and Wodgy had discussed have been addressed in this email from RME:
Quote:

Originally posted by George of RME Hi Tyson, The PAD and PST are virtually identical; the only difference is that the PST had coaxial spdif i/o only,while the PAD optionally supports AES/EBU as well as coaxial spdif.Note that AES/EBU and coaxial spdif inputs cannot be used at the same time.There is no difference between the cards in terms of performance.The only reason the PST was discontinued is that the two cards are basically redundant; a PAD without the AES/EBU option is essentially a PST. Regards, George

(Wodgy, I hope your reading this so you can say, "I told you guys!")

This leads me to worry about the capacitors used in the RME Digi 96/8 PAD. I hope that they are still not using two different types of capacitors for different batches of the cards as they had done with RME Digi 96/8 PST. Hopefully that was the true reason that the RME Digi 96/8 PST was discontinued. I will have to find this out before I spend my money on an RME card.

 

[emelius]

wonder how the rme pad'd compare to the new lynx card (AES16-XLR)...any thoughts?...i guess it's obvious how it compares pricewise, but i'm sure that that figure'll go down soon enough...

 

[lan]

How can you even tell what caps were used? They are so small, there's nothing to read on it.

Since many of these cards are expensive, hardly anybody can buy and compare them.

 

[hottyson]

Quote:

Originally posted by emelius wonder how the rme pad'd compare to the new lynx card (AES16-XLR)...any thoughts?...i guess it's obvious how it compares pricewise, but i'm sure that that figure'll go down soon enough...

Here is a very good read that compares it to many sound cards including the LynxTWO model B:
http://www.htpcgear.net/hifisound/

The author states, "LynxTWO-B analogue out vs. RME DIGI96/8 PAD analogue out. Started with four persons present. It took about an hour to get our ears tuned, as the differences were not so obvious to spot. The sound coming from both sources was absolutely trilling and definitely high-end. After a while we have started to notice minute difference and agreed our findings: we all give slight preference to the analogue out of RME DIGI96/8 PAD. The sound had more air and the clarity. The bass was more natural to occasional rumbling-like sound of LynxTWO-B."

The author concludes, “Considering the massive price differential of the components involved, our conclusion is that, for pure 2-channel listening, RME DIGI96/8 PAD presents unbeatable value for money.”

 

[hottyson]

Quote:

Originally posted by lan How can you even tell what caps were used? They are so small, there's nothing to read on it. Since many of these cards are expensive, hardly anybody can buy and compare them.

Good caps:

Bad caps:

 

[hottyson]

Here is what George at RME had to say about capacitors:
Quote:

Originally emailed by George from RME Hi Tyson, Apparently,the website is referring to an early revision PST that was originally manufactured for Steinberg.If you examine the card,you will see a sticker in the upper right corner that says "Digi 96/8 PST".This is definitely one of the early "Steinberg" cards.Most of these cards were modified by replacing the caps,but it's entirely possible that there are some non-USA market cards out there that weren't modified.The later PSTs and PADs do not have a sticker in this area,the info is silkscreened.Newer cards don't use the "bad" caps. Regards, George

 

[hottyson]

I would stay away from eBay on this one. Get a new card as eBay cards may be "bad" ones.

One thing that I can say is that RME has awsome customer service. George at RME answers emails VERY fast!

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

FYI mine has the "good caps," as they look the same as the round ones at the bottom of the upper picture (which aren't present on the lower picture).

 

[Edwood]

Well I guess when the caps leak or explode, we'll know for sure then.....

Til then, I'm gonna enjoy it.

I'm not too worried, though. In the scale of money spent on head-fi stuff, The RME PAD is one of the "cheaper" ones. Of course that's all relative......

-Ed

 

[emelius]

Quote:

Originally posted by hottyson Here is a very good read that compares it to many sound cards including the LynxTWO model B: http://www.htpcgear.net/hifisound/ The author states, "LynxTWO-B analogue out vs. RME DIGI96/8 PAD analogue out. Started with four persons present. It took about an hour to get our ears tuned, as the differences were not so obvious to spot. The sound coming from both sources was absolutely trilling and definitely high-end. After a while we have started to notice minute difference and agreed our findings: we all give slight preference to the analogue out of RME DIGI96/8 PAD. The sound had more air and the clarity. The bass was more natural to occasional rumbling-like sound of LynxTWO-B." The author concludes, “Considering the massive price differential of the components involved, our conclusion is that, for pure 2-channel listening, RME DIGI96/8 PAD presents unbeatable value for money.”

nice...but i mean the new lynx...the Lynx AES16-XLR (not the lynx, lynx 2, lynx 2b or lynx 22

)...

think it was just released the start of november or thereabouts...

 

[Wodgy]

Okay, I said I wouldn't post again, but I just happened to discover that the Stereophile review of the Digi 96/8 PAD is now online (the last one I linked to was their review of the Digi 96/8 Pro):
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...541/index.html
For those who don't want to read the whole thing, the measurements are here:
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...41/index3.html

They don't do a full series of measurements because they say "other than the addition of a two-channel A/D converter, RME's Digi96/8 PAD is identical to the Digi96/8 Pro I reviewed in the November 2000 and January 2001 issues."

However, they do make an interesting comment, which seems to agree with lan's advocacy for a computer source+external DAC:
"When I measured the Digi96/8 Pro's D/A stage, I felt it was okay for monitoring but that the card's digital output would be best fed to an external audiophile DAC for the best sound quality."

 

[Intrigue]

Under Further Thought of the original pro review -
"the Digi96/8 Pro had since been significantly revised, and all the samples currently available in the US use a much-better-specified D/A converter for the analog monitor outputs. (The analog outputs on my earlier sample of the card had not featured very good performance, but because I used the card's digital inputs and outputs exclusively, this had not been an issue for me.)"
"Most important, the original's 20-bit AKM4321 DAC chip has been replaced by a 24-bit Analog Devices AD1852"