Paging Bimmerman : Your ML DAC

Calling Bimmerman,
I remember you were saying you wanted to play 'higher res' kind of digital music and that your ML supports 24/96. Is that correct ?

Hey Wong Sifu,

Unfortunately my ML No.36s only does 24/48 Max. But I am making the best of it by having the digital signal from my CD Transport go through a de-jittering process first and then the jitter free signal is fed to a Texas Instruments 32 bit floating point DSP chip. Here it undergoes interpolation, which increases the data up to 24 bits. Still 44.1Khz but 24/44.1 instead of 16/44.1.

How does it sound? You have to listen for yourself but those who have heard it say it severely lacks a certain digital characteristic. Similar to the way a DCS stack lacks that characteristic. That's a good thing right?

Oh, by the way, the ML DAC that does 24/96 is the SHARC DSP based No.360s.

That illusive and very expensive No.360s does 24/96 but Mark Levinson can actually reprogram it to handle future digital formats like DSD and beyond. That's what they said in their product literature. The No.360s has long been discontinued though and ML left it at 24/96. I don't think there will be any future upgrades for the 360s unless some genius programmer does a DIY on it and turn it into a DSD crunching machine. That would be real cool!

Ah so, you didn't use files as source but rather CD. I discovered my Proceed AVP has native 24/96 support but the stupid owner's manual does not explain what format. I suspect something but the lazy barger in me thought maybe you might have already gotten the answer for me . Consequently I will have to test it out myself over this coming weekend. If I can get it to work, would be great as the Proceed AVP already sounds wonderful with DTS-MA movie and especially concert soundtracks !

Thanks for responding. I will PM you if I manage to get the Proceed to work.

WongKN wrote:Ah so, you didn't use files as source but rather CD. I discovered my Proceed AVP has native 24/96 support but the stupid owner's manual does not explain what format. I suspect something but the lazy barger in me thought maybe you might have already gotten the answer for me . Consequently I will have to test it out myself over this coming weekend. If I can get it to work, would be great as the Proceed AVP already sounds wonderful with DTS-MA movie and especially concert soundtracks !

Thanks for responding. I will PM you if I manage to get the Proceed to work.

its for sure (99.99% can bet on it) to be PCM format still... the usual S/PDIF but pushed to 24bits, and 96KHz sampling rate.

S/PDIF was actually speced to be able to handle 24bits as an optional feature. So most mfgs that do 24bits, just need to take advantage of this optionality and offer 24bit capabilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDIF

So, any source that would output 24/96 via Toslink, Coax or XLR can just be directly fed into your Proceed DAC and it will just sync and lock on.
No special requirements needed.

Wong Sifu,

Wow! Proceed AVP. I wonder if it sounds like a Mark Levinson? I think it should be the standard SPDIF like Mugenfoo said. Just plug and play. In my case if I keep my No.36s the only option for me is to get a Behringer 2496 device and resample everything down to 24/48. I wonder if the Behringer is of decent enough quality to do the job.

Hey Mugen,

Still waiting for that MMS bro!

In theory for digital, conversion of format but retaining same sampling rate, i.e. 24/96 to 24/96 but between compatible type formats like loseless to loseless, e.g. WAV to FLAC, etc, then there should be no degradation at all. The moment we re-sample or up or down-sample, we risk degradation. From this angle, all of those various formats in the market, FLAC, DSD, etc are superflous because they all do the same thing in the end - produce music. Strictly from a consumer point of view, if only the manufacturers and especially the music studios agrees on a unified, standard format, ANY format as long as it is ONE SINGLE format, then only will the industry move forward. Because, in the end, if we think about it, what we really want is the music. And without music, we can talk about formats and technologies until the cows come home and we will never get anywhere.

In terms of the S/PDIF, I am not sure of the specifications but as a generic electrical connection, it can be used to deliver very high bit-rates, all depends on the sender/receiver circuit. If my Proceed AVP manual can be trusted (no reason why it cannot), the digital inputs, which are RCA and XLR, are paired with receiver circuits which can receive at 12Mbits/sec. This is around 24/192 format. As you discovered, Proceed planned for it to be software upgradeable and thus obselete-proof. HOWEVER, they did not factor in that they themselves are not immortal.

I have some 24/96 files with me. Music like Tom Petty's new Mojo album (buy the blu-ray or LP and they let you download the 24/96 version for free). I will be converting it to various formats this weekend, using my TiVX and various front ends to connect to the AVP and see how it goes.

I think your ML should sound better than my AVP. Proceed is supposed to be a more affordable range of ML. But eventually they also marketed their AV stuff purely through Proceed so in the end I am not sure.

I will PM u when I check things out.

Wong Sifu,

Well so far my ML has been giving me what I feel is quite close to the pinnacle of redbook reproduction without having to mortgage the house for a DCS stack. It does not leave me wanting higher resolution as what I hear is truly satisfying and as real as electronic musical reproduction gets.

But of course this is only what I perceive as I do not have a high res music setup. Still, It would be a no brainier that high res is better still, but for me the question is; will it make my redbook setup unlistenable after listening to high res?

As you have said, perhaps my ML might beat your Proceed AVP up to 24bit/48khz but beyond that I am doubtful it can. It would be interesting if some blind listening tests could be carried out with a panel of listeners from our forum to determine how an over engineered, top tier redbook setup fares in comparison to future high resolution setups. I think that question has been on our minds for some time now ya? So I took the path to find out if there was any life left in redbook or will it go the way of the compact casette tape. And from my journey so far I can only state that the potential for truly satisfying redbook playback exists but at a cost. Now the next question is would it not be wiser to spend that money on future formats???

as for me, for now, it's Viva la CD!

Bimmerman, CD from what I can see, will be with us for a long time to come. In other words, we are STUCK with CD for many years more. Part of this is because of the manufacturer's inability to come to an agreement with a unified standard. So unless I am willing to forgo the bulk of music that is available (e.g. all of Micheal Jackson's music, regardless of what others may think of him), then I simply have no choice but to continue with CD.

For e.g. I had a satisfying listening session over the weekend, with music from Hong Kong and Taiwan singers. I sms'ed a friend about it. We discussed and came to the agreement that most of the songs I enjoyed have been available only on CD. We think some of it is available on another format. But it is not hires format, but rather LPs.

So eventually if one makes a choice: analog or digital, and if one chooses digital, then if a wide choice of music is the desire, unfortunately CDs will continue to figure into the equation, regardless of whether we think it is limited in potential, or that it is a flawed medium or whatever.

The only way is for one to forcibly change his or her musical preference, e.g. to adopt the idea that it is 'not cool' for e.g., to listen to mainstream artists (like Paula Tsui or Sandy Lam for e.g. which were whom I was enjoying over the weekend) and that 'real music' is exemplified by other perhaps more 'exotic' genres.

But as I have explained before, each person has every right to enjoy the kind of music he or she chooses. So such an approach does not make sense. When faced with this, the inevitable fact is that CD continues to be with us. Given that, it makes sense for the person who has adopted digital, either as main/primary, or secondary source of music, to try to make CD sound as good as possible, within the constraints of what he/she has decided to do (i.e. budget, selection of music, free time, etc).

This was what I was hoping to do with my AVP, i.e. music DVDs and Blu-Rays sounded nice and enjoyable through it so hopefully CDs will be much nicer than what I am currently using. Then it got complicated when I found out that it supposedly supports 24/96 natively..... I suppose looking at it positively, I can say that it has become more 'exciting'....

You know Sifu, there were times when I felt like a fool for having invested so much money in something that seemed like a doomed format. Especially when it took so much more investment after the initial purchase to make it sing. I was already quite broke and had to stay away from this website for a while for fear of further poisoning that might do me in!!

It was only quite recently that i found the key elements that made it work. After reading your post, I feel a lot better as I am assured of two major factors that make my effort worthwhile. One is the amazing sound I am getting now and the other is the unbeatable choice of CDs available out there!!!

Finally I can say, come high-rez or high waters, I am at peace with my sound

Perhaps for the sake of sharing I should just quickly mention the elements that worked for me. Sounds like black magic but really it was just a few simple items like a black cat, magnetic levitation and generating my own electricity. Oh, also a magical cord from an old wizard called Adrian.

I look forward to your findings too. Perhaps in a few years time I might be ready to venture beyond 24/44.1 when the lords of the recording rings decide on a common ground. I would have recovered financially too by then.

Yes, it is going to get very very exciting indeed

Ah, a man who has found his inner peace !

BTW, you don't have to call me sifu or anything because I am nowhere near being one by my own reckoning. We are all fellow audiophiles here, or more accurately fellow music lovers (just so happens we have damn fussy expectations when it comes to sound quality).

But I think you have hit the nail on the head, regarding what I have been trying to say. The problem is always the availability of music. For me, I analyzed and saw the situation as it is, very early. But that's simply because I worked in I/T for so many years. In many ways what is happening in digital has been happening in the I/T arena for years. It could be a coincidence, or perhaps none at all, that there are I/T companies who are now venturing into consumer digital electronics (aka DACs).

In my younger years, I was an eager beaver every year when the CONsultants announces the next 'big wave' of advance in I/T. I remember learning the realities of life then, whenever we go eagerly push to our customers the greatest thing since sliced bread. Wow - client-server, wow - object-oriented technology, wow - .COM, every year it is a new thing. But it all comes crashing down when the customer asks "so, I am a bank and I need a solution for my new agent banking system, this new wonder technology you are talking about, let's do it". "Err, sorry your computer doesn't support it". "What ? So how ? Upgrade to the latest model". "Err.. actually there is NOTHING in the market which implements this. it is 'the wave of the future' (in other words, it is all empty air, all talk no substance)".

Eventually it quickly dawned on me. To get through all the hype, in the end, what matters most to my customer was his business, NOT the latest I/T techno-babble. Whatever I/T system he adopts, even if it is an old junk, if it gives him a business advantage, it is THE BEST thing to happen to him. Whatever new toy he buys, if all it does is sit in the computer room and occupy space, in the end, he was simply nothing but a fool.

So everytime I see a new technology in hifi, I always dig pass the hype and ask the question "is the MUSIC available". It is the same with hidef video isn't it ? Until SONY conclusively won the war and Blu-Ray became the single standard, HiDef was unable to move. Simply because people realized, so its 1080p BUT CAN I WATCH THE MOVIES I WANT ?

FWIW, I don't think you made a mistake with your investment. In the end, (for e.g.) you put that CD of Martina McBride singing Valentine and you managed to 'lam' your SO with the most romantic night of her life, then you realize all these talk about RBCD being a dead end and all the talk about hires being the next best greatest thing, they have no meaning at all.

Yup, well said bro. But I did not know an IT dude like you can go cuddly on Martina McBride

Pity but my SO is more of my "Senior Officer" than my valentine. She don't share my passion for music. It's a lonely affair bro. If she ever finds those audiophile spending receipts I keep hidden, i'll be a gonner

Hey, ping me sometime bro and i'll zap you my GPS coordinites and you can come over to assess my sound. Jo and SJ has visited me already. Maybe I can drop by your place some time too? I'm curious about that AVP.

Bimmer, personally I think it is highly unlikely a women will not like music, especially mushy romantic songs. You go and try it on her sometimes. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

When my wife joins me for one of those rare shared music sessions, I always had a lot of fun and joy in introducing her to some of the music I listen to, ranging from those mushy romantic sort, to those bouncy lively songs.

Similarly when my friend and his wife visited us recently, the wife had the whale of a time when I started playing her some of the songs I collected from the 1990s, songs her husband do not play because he is a vinyl guy and songs from the 1990s do not appear in vinyl generally.

In fact I find women are more often the 'foot on the ground' kind, i.e. they tend to see through everything and appreciate the music on its own terms. While often us guys, I at least, can get hung up on silly things like a slight tonal resonance in the lower registers of the female voice in a song from Evita for e.g.

We will keep in touch man.

bimmerman wrote:Yup, well said bro. But I did not know an IT dude like you can go cuddly on Martina McBride

Pity but my SO is more of my "Senior Officer" than my valentine. She don't share my passion for music. It's a lonely affair bro. If she ever finds those audiophile spending receipts I keep hidden, i'll be a gonner

Hey, ping me sometime bro and i'll zap you my GPS coordinites and you can come over to assess my sound. Jo and SJ has visited me already. Maybe I can drop by your place some time too? I'm curious about that AVP.

Yes, I have visited Bimmerman, and I like the sound of his system. It reflects the nature of Bimmerman's discipline in system set-up and fine understanding of music form.

Regards, Jo Ki

Wow! Thanks Jo. Such compliments from you makes me feel that I've just earned a higher degree in the university of audiophilia.

But really, I could not have done it without your input. Thank you Jo.

Bimmer,

Potong steam a bit. Got a bit of problem developed. I forgot the AVP needs to be set-up and the menu output is not working. The guy I bought the AVP from has set it up for only AV. for the diigital inputs I am not sure if this is the reason but 24/96 won't play and 16/44.1 + 16/48 plays. Now testing other modes. Looks like I will need to take the AVP over to the repair guy to see if the menu output can be repaired or not.

Conclusion of this thread. The AVP natively plays up to 24/48k but requires a software upgrade for anything higher (up to 24/96). As Proceed is now extinct, there is no chance of getting this upgrade. That puts an end to this experiment. Bimmerman, I PM'ed you the rest of the story.

Oh no!!! That's really anticlimactic

Say, I did not get that PM. Mind sending it again?

Hi WongKN and Bimmerman,
After seeing u guys talking about the old processor, it kind of get me going back to the PMD-100 Interpolation chip... I believe Proceed AVP using this chip as well? In that case, it is quite impossible for it to run 24bit/96kHz. As the best this chip can do is 24bit/55.2kHz.

This PMD-100 is truly something.. after finish playing around with Texas Instrument DF1704, I give this PMD-100 another chance.. it certainly being outclassed by the DF1704 in term of micro details retrieval and outright transient slam and punch. But it has thin midrange, sonorous high, which is quite scary.. (well, at least in mind system).

PMD-100 is certainly more musical, but does lose some spatial details to the higher sampling chip. Again with much experiment in the footing of equipment, I manage to get this old chip to sing to what I consider is good. Now I understand why Jo Ki does so much mechanical tweaking.. It does change the sound quite dramatically.

Hmm.. Bimmerman, can you explain more on the stuff that u put between ur transport and DAC.. How do u de-jitter?? what is it ? Does it make a different in sound?

Regards,
Adrian

Adrian,

Thanks for your input. I forgot which chip the AVP uses except that they are Motorola DSPs. I will check the owner's manual tonight and check. The receiver circuits (i.e. the circuitry for the RCA and XLR inputs) are supposedly anti-jitter and spec'ed for 12Mb/s transfer rate. The manual claims that with firmware (i.e. software) upgrade, the AVP without any hardware changes will be able to handle DVD-Audio and 24/96kHz music. I guess reading that paragraph misled me as I greedily thought it means the AVP can handle 24/96 natively. But after the experiment, I re-read the manual carefully and it was clear that the AVP as the one I have, is not spec'ed for 24/96 and it was supposedly a future firmware upgrade.

In theory, down-sampling from 24/96 to 24/48 should not incur that great a downgrade. In theory, we just throw away the data 'in between' from the 24/96 source and we will get the 24/48 and our ears should not hear any difference. In theory la of course. I have Tom Petty mojo in 24/96 and I have downsampled it to 24/48. Will be checking that out this weekend.

But with RBCD, it sound very nice, better than a Rega Apollo CD player (as expected) even with a mid-end Marantz SR4001 DVD player as transport. Later when I have rationalized everything, I intend to put my Samsung BDP-1400 as transport and then play Blu-ray concerts as audio only. I will test with down-mixing to 2 channels but I expect eventually I might experiment with 3 speakers audio, using the DTS-MA sound track but just the front and center channels only.

Hi Adrian, sorry for being so vague with the de-jittering. Basically this answeres it: Audio Alchemy DTI Pro32.

Yes, it makes a heckova difference. So much so my Wadia CD transport has become quite hopeless without it. It expands the stage width and depth and unmasks a truck load of details while removing the last trace of any digital sound characteristic that might exist before. Made me realise my No.36s DAC was capable of so much but it was the Wadia which was holding things back.

I have not heard a proper DCS stack before but I suspect it must be something like this. As good as redbook gets.

WongKN wrote:

In theory, down-sampling from 24/96 to 24/48 should not incur that great a downgrade. In theory, we just throw away the data 'in between' from the 24/96 source and we will get the 24/48 and our ears should not hear any difference. In theory la of course. I have Tom Petty mojo in 24/96 and I have downsampled it to 24/48. Will be checking that out this weekend.

If the source was originally RBCD, and then upsampled to 24/96, and then eventually brought back down to 24/48, no big deal.

But if the source was from a native studio 24/96 or 24/192, and then downsampled to 24/48, then there is a massive hit in signal integrity here.

Refer back to the textbook fundamentals of digital audio ie. The Sampling Theorem, the Nyquist frequency and the necessary filters for image rejection, anti-aliasing and what happens when the sample rate is reduced.

I am actually thinking about the original 24/96 source, but working in the digital domain and from the computing point of view, i.e. with the individual samples themselves.

In theory, the samples 'in between' cannot be heard by our ears (again, -in theory only-) and we can write a program that reads in a 24/96 .WAV file as raw data and extracts only those samples corresponding to the 48kHz sampling rate and outputs a new .WAV file (in the correct format) with those sample. Because the Nyquist theorem claims that we humans cannot hear those samples in between so whatever they are, they should not matter. So from the source file, i.e. the .WAV file point of view, the degradation should not matter. Theoretically. I.e. at the source file itself (before the DAC stage itself). (p/s I am ignoring my own opinions on this theory that I am told by scientists I can't hear or detect anything above 20kHz.)

However, it is true that all of these are moot points because from the implementation point of view, the post-processing after the initial DA reconstruction will make a lot of difference, in terms of the filtering for e.g. we still need a quite aggressive filter as 48kHz sampling still introduces artifacts in the 20+kHz sound frequency. So in terms of absolute sound quality, there will be a lot of difference, if we compare two DACs with equally good post-processing output stages. However if I am to compare the AVP againsts a lower end DAC, but both also supports only up to 24/48, then things will be different (it does not mean the AVP will sure win).

The important advantage from this point of view is that the AVP is not going to be attractive if I am to sell it. But if it can be 'recycled' to deliver good sound quality in the hifi system, then that is the big attraction point.

I do agree that if we go do it via DSP, i.e. first decode the 24/96 signal then re-encode it to 24/48, then there will be a huge hit.

Hi WongKN,
A DSP.. hmm, certainly this will have what the manufacturer claim on 24/96kHz. Just need the firmware upgrade. ya, it is sad to hear that the company isnt doing business no more. Wonder will Mark Levinson do something to this if you post them an email~~. Thanks for sharing.

Hi Bimmerman,
Thanks for the info... it get my wet dream starting all over again. I will check on this Audio Alchemy again~~.

Regards,
Adrian

WongKN wrote:
In theory, the samples 'in between' cannot be heard
by our ears (again, -in theory only-) and we can write a program that
reads in a 24/96 .WAV file as raw data and extracts only those samples
corresponding to the 48kHz sampling rate and outputs a new .WAV file (in
the correct format) with those sample. Because the Nyquist theorem
claims that we humans cannot hear those samples in between so whatever
they are, they should not matter. So from the source file, i.e. the .WAV
file point of view, the degradation should not matter. Theoretically.
I.e. at the source file itself (before the DAC stage itself). (p/s I am
ignoring my own opinions on this theory that I am told by scientists I
can't hear or detect anything above 20kHz.)

I'm not familiar with what theory that you are referring to that samples are to be heard or not, unless you're actually trying to listen to the digital PCM pulse noises or something. Perhaps u can clarify further on this.

but the fundamental basic is that the interval samples will dictate what kind of analog frequency that can be RECONSTRUCTED back from the digital sampling slices/samples.

This is one aspect of analog waveform reconstruction in the frequency domain. Here is where the Sampling Theorem and Nyquist Freqs are most widely referred to.

Another aspect is that almost no one talks about perhaps due to lack of general awareness is the analog waveform reconstruction in the TIME-Domain. Here is where again, throwing away samples will wreck havoc on reconstruction efforts. Problems and dilemmas would be the choice of filters to use, pre-echo and post-echo ringing, phase-distortions, etc etc.

Also, while old generation scientists say that humans cannot hear above 20KHz (and we city folks probably suffer earlier rolloffs at 15 , 16KHz already), but that is purely in the steady-state freq domain evaluation. New research has shown that humans can still perceive differences in impulse signals that are badwidth'ed up to 100KHz (a theoretical impulse would be like a Dirac function that extends to infinity, so its Fourier transform would have freq components that extend to infinity as well). No one knows this for sure yet. But the limitation of 20KHz has been challenged to be premature as best.

If i find that link again re. the 100KHz effect, i'll post it here later.

Hi Bimmerman,
Was trying to look around on your AA DTI Pro32.. Not much information on the web; but base on some reviews I can find it is like 1 heck of a product.

I didnt know there is so much improvement can be had between Transport and DAC.. I kind of suspect that the Audio Alchemy may probably taking "evil" approach in this one.. like a DSP re-processing the sound with its own algorithm that "enhance" low level details into something more audible and have it send again to the DAC.

Ok, you are free to shoot me on this one, I have no data to back me up.. but please enlighten me.. totally lack of knowledge here ~

Regards,
Adrian

Mugen,

Yes, you are talking about the quality of the analog signal with different digital formats : 24/48 vs 24/96 which I fully agree as I have pointed this out many times in the past. I am talking about re-formatting a 24/96 signal in the digital format into 24/48. Just the digital data. There is no disagreement once we start doing the DAC. But I am talking about from flac to flac or flac to wav, etc, and converting from 24/96 to 24/48. Given my constraints, the highest I have is 24/48 and as per this logic, 24/48 is going to sound better than 16/44.1, quite likely. But I don't want to go 16/44.1 to 24/48 yet. However, if I have a hi-res file which is in 24/96, then I can play it if I convert it to 24/48. And this is the process I am talking about. No DAC or ADC, just the raw binary data.

OK, but if the source was already "watered down" to 16/44.1, no amount resampling or upsampling or fancy DSP algorithm from this point forward can ever put back any new info or high resolution to try and fix the 16/44.1 problem at all. All the new digital tricks can only make the 16/44.1 seem less harsh and more palatable.

But in the face of true 24/96 that was recorded, mixed and mastered with this native resolution all the way, then the 24/96 will always be the sure winner in making the sound closer to the original analog medium.

adrian4454 wrote:Hi Bimmerman,
Was trying to look around on your AA DTI Pro32.. Not much information on the web; but base on some reviews I can find it is like 1 heck of a product.

I didnt know there is so much improvement can be had between Transport and DAC.. I kind of suspect that the Audio Alchemy may probably taking "evil" approach in this one.. like a DSP re-processing the sound with its own algorithm that "enhance" low level details into something more audible and have it send again to the DAC.

Ok, you are free to shoot me on this one, I have no data to back me up.. but please enlighten me.. totally lack of knowledge here ~

Regards,
Adrian

Hey Adrian,

Bang bang!!! Well, you asked to be shot and I have my Big Iron handy. I was actually listening to the song Big Iron by Marty Robbins the other night and his songs are quite catchy. Mostly about cowboy gunfights. So pardon me for obliging.

Anyway, if I may waltz in between the very engaging discussion between Mugen and KN, I'd like to shed some light on that Audio Alchemy DTI. Just like Marty Robbins, Audio Alchemy is no longer in business so no more DTIs to be had except from the used market. If you would really like to have one, do try ebay or audiogon. If you really cannot find one, I might have to give up my spare unit.

To explain what the DTI does, here's another man's explanation. Trimmed for relevance and clarity:

"The DTI.PRO 32 combines an ultra-low jitter clock recovery system, along with a Texas Instruments 32 bit floating-point Digital Signal Processor (DSP). Input is fed to a Crystal Semiconductor CS8412 input receiver, which sets the "primary lock" on the buried clock signal. After this "primary lock", the signal is sent to either a 44.1 khz or 48.0 khz voltage controlled oscillator (VCXO) to, in most cases, achieve an ultra-low "secondary lock" with a bandwidth of 5hz. This "secondary lock" insures that any remaining jitter components are not correlated with the music. In some rare cases, "secondary lock" may not occur. This would be due to an imprecision in the transport's internal clock; and though you'd still be able to use the PRO 32, you would not be getting it's best performance. In this instance your transport would need to be adjusted or replaced.

Next, the virtually jitter free signal is fed to the Texas Instruments 32 bit floating point DSP chip. Here it undergoes interpolation, which increases the data up to 24 bits. Output of this "enhanced" signal is routed to either the I2S bus (refer to my earlier V3.0 review), as well as to a Crystal Semiconductor CS8402A data transmitter, whose output formats are BNC coax (BNC adapter supplied), ST glass or AES/EBU.

Next step in the process, is to create the best interface possible with your D/A converter. This is accomplished via user selectable dither. (7) settings are possible: HDCD (turning off resolution enhancement, so as to not corrupt the HDCD encoded signal), 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 bit, and none. To get the best sound you can, you need to know or experiment with, the number of data bits your DAC can handle. The key here is that the input receiver, digital filter, and DAC chips must all be able to pass the amount of bits you select. The 22 and 24 bit settings are currently for professional use, but don't be surprised when these higher word lengths are available for home use.

This will be my only warning to you. If you don't want to hear digital take a closer step to the vinyl sound, or if you're faint of investing more money into your system; DO NOT LISTEN TO THE DTI.PRO 32!"

And that was the review. What I have to say is that I mostly agree except that the DTI can be had in the used market without breaking the bank. Regarding your remark about the DTI doing some evil eq to the signal and enhancing it, well no. Why bother? Digital can be improved by just reducing (if not eliminating) jitter. This I believe is all there is to it and the DTI has the timing precision and processing power to do it.

There is another company called Genesis (also defunct but more on that later) who makes a product called the Digital Lens which also does what the Audio Alchemy does but taking a different approach to reducing jitter. Now the Digital Lens is even more rare compared to the AA DTI and much more expensive but if you really want one, you can buy it brand new!!! Interested? Yes? Read on. If not, don't bother.

Now both the Audio Alchemy and Genesis only work up to 24/48Khz and are both no longer in production since the mid or early 1990s. The CEO of Genesis then went on to implement the Digital Lens technology into the PS Audio Perfect Wave transport and by doing so, the built in digital lens now does up to 32/192Khz. But too bad if you want one you'll have to buy the transport as well because the Digital Lens is built in.

On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about it.

Bang bang!

bimmerman wrote:
On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not
really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about
it.

whats your definition of "not really that expensive" ?

bimmerman wrote:


On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about it.

i think it's becos there's more than one way to reduce jitter.

async usb is one other way and i think this way is becoming more popular. just look at the increasing number of async usb dacs in the market - from ayre to wyred4sound to bladelius.

with an async usb dac, you can get very good sound with a laptop or Mac with proprietary drivers. there's no need to buy the ps audio transport.

sflam wrote:

bimmerman wrote:


On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about it.

i think it's becos there's more than one way to reduce jitter.

async usb is one other way and i think this way is becoming more popular. just look at the increasing number of async usb dacs in the market - from ayre to wyred4sound to bladelius.

with an async usb dac, you can get very good sound with a laptop or Mac with proprietary drivers. there's no need to buy the ps audio transport.

Well SF, two camps exist on this matter. One believes a computer has no place in audiophilia. And the other believes otherwise. Both camps argue their points well. PS Audio stresses that no computer parts went into the making of the Perfect Wave transport and that forms the basis of their high rez campaign.

Me, i'm neutral as i have yet to hear a proper computer audio setup to form a firm opinion.

mugenfoo wrote:

bimmerman wrote:
On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not
really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about
it.

whats your definition of "not really that expensive" ?

Hey Moog, scouring ebay some months back, around RM6K landed.

The PerfectWave transport is actually USD3K, but A&L audio's retail price is around RM16K. Not actually RM6K. If it can go for RM6K s/hand in such a short time, that speaks alot for its value amongst the hifi community.

And its only really useful if partnered with its PW DAC due to its proprietary i2s link via HDMI cable between the Transport and the DAC.

But the really cost-no-object CD front end system would be as follows:
1 Master clocking unit. Preferably a Rubidium standard clock.
1 DAC that is slaved to the master clock.
1 Transport that is also slaved to the master clock.

Thats how professional studios rig up their digital front end.

Even the cheap-ass Behringer SRC2496 has a provision to accept an external clock input.

Just follow the Pros. They know whats best. Everything else amongst audiophiles are just a guessing game and guesstimates and interesting mental m@sturb@tions... LoL. IMO of course !

True, very true. Fully synchronous according to a central master clock. That's how we do it in massively parallel mainframe computer systems as well, those that moves terabytes of data every second and processes quadrillions of (complex) instructions per second. Of all the digital playback system so far, my limited experience have only encountered 1 unit which does this, the DCS Scarlatti.

bimmerman wrote:

sflam wrote:

bimmerman wrote:


On paper this PS Audio transport seems very very promising and not really that expensive. But I don't know why nobody is going gaga about it.

i think it's becos there's more than one way to reduce jitter.

async usb is one other way and i think this way is becoming more popular. just look at the increasing number of async usb dacs in the market - from ayre to wyred4sound to bladelius.

with an async usb dac, you can get very good sound with a laptop or Mac with proprietary drivers. there's no need to buy the ps audio transport.

Well SF, two camps exist on this matter. One believes a computer has no place in audiophilia. And the other believes otherwise. Both camps argue their points well. PS Audio stresses that no computer parts went into the making of the Perfect Wave transport and that forms the basis of their high rez campaign.

Me, i'm neutral as i have yet to hear a proper computer audio setup to form a firm opinion.

There are some old generation dinosaurs who fear the coming of the Computer that can replace their RM20K CD transport bought approx 20 years ago. But the fact is that it is already a reality. A standard PC with USB output and appropriate software can already exceed the top most dedicated ancient CD transports.

Forward-looking Audio mfgs look to adding USB inputs to prepare their devices for this reality. Ayre, W4S, Weiss (these guys prefer Firewire but still "computer friendly"), Benchmark, PS Audio, dCS, etc etc.

Another reality is such data interfaces such as Firewire and USB can afford much higher data bandwidth over the audio industry's traditional digital links such as SPDIF, AES/EBU and other flavours of it. PS Audio may not use any computer parts, but it sure wants to talk to a computer by having a USB interface.


Then there are the industry has-beens who despite the glaring ubiquity of USB and Firewire connectivity, they are still unable to support these connecton methods. None of their standalone DACs are USB (or firewire) capable as of this date. Too bad for them. Case in point: Wadia.

mugenfoo wrote:
Another reality is such data interfaces such as Firewire and USB can afford much higher data bandwidth over the audio industry's traditional digital links such as SPDIF, AES/EBU and other flavours of it.

the latest gen usb dacs can accept 32 bit 384Khz.

Hi Bimmerman,
No gun shoot wound, but sh!t bloody stool, must be 1 powerful tai chi force. Thanks for putting me at the right track. Reason why I got such wild idea is I kind of had mine mind fixed on there isnt much jitter from the transport; so the possible gain on jitter reduction would be minimum.

It is hard to imagine how the Audio Alchemy able to correct the data stream anymore, if the arrival of the data is already wrong, as SP/DIF doesnt really major on data correction, so the Alchemy only has the clock to play around with ... Anyway, way over the top for me to understand all these properly.

yah, indeed I was a bit high last night thinking over this, but just realised that Alchemy doesnt Toslink out kind of turn me off. Sorry, that I still a Toslink person. Although the ST glass transmission is available, but my DAC doesnt accept this one.

Damn, I think my progress in high fidelity search is still way behind time..

Regards,
Adrian

Adrian, let's not discuss your bowel movements in a public forum shall we. Eeeeewww!!! and don't you PM me on it either

Now back to the topic at hand. How much jitter the Audio Alchemy removes and how much it improves the digital signal I don't know. Is it the best device for the job. No. Is SPDIF the best way to transmit digital audio. Hell No!

What's a better way then? Well, I believe Mugenfoo has provided the details and it reads like this:

1 Master clocking unit. Preferably a Rubidium standard clock.
1 DAC that is slaved to the master clock.
1 Transport that is also slaved to the master clock.

So there you go.

As for me the Alchemy between Transport and DAC gives me amazing CD playback. I don't have the data to support it but it sure sounds fine to me. Also, this would have to be it for me for a long long time and i ain't complaining as it sounds so fine.

But if I hit the jackpot it would be a different story and I would have to track down Mugenfoo and take him shopping with me.

I agree about the standards part. This was what we were lamenting on, mugen & I, how the many manufacturers just won't come to a common agreement on what standard to use. Thus we have things like wav, flac, alac, and what not. And interface standards like pcm and dsd. Then interface standards like spdif, usb, toslink, and so forth. In the end, the people who suffers are us.

Or perhaps it's all just one giant conspiracy to squeeze more money out of us. I mean, what better way to justify the shit-diculous price of a 'high-end' DAC or transport than to say it has all this and that standards supported....

I have been playing BR in its entirety (without any compression at all), including the DTS-MA (non-HD 24/48 soundtrack) via a USB and there's plenty of bandwidth left so USB is fine. Personally my only reservation with USB is it flimsy design. I suppose I am brainwashed by exotic hifi products, but those tiny thin wires just don't elicit confidence in me. Plus the connectors are so iffy, it is just sliding contact. And the USB is so generic, typical manufacturing tolerances are so lax that we can 'goyang-goyang' the USB connector in its receptacle. I am used to those WBT kind of connection, where we twist the outer-cap for a death grip on the RCA connector.

Even the ethernet connector looks more acceptable to me (plus the fact that it is being used to transfer shitloads of money in the financial sector daily leaves me with possible objection).

Bimmer,

I sent you another PM. Need help, a particularly tough one, and now sourcing every single contact I have to see if my luck looks good !

adrian4454 wrote: Reason why I got such wild idea is I kind of had
mine mind fixed on there isnt much jitter from the transport; so the
possible gain on jitter reduction would be minimum.

you should try out a reclocker 1st and then hear for yourself. Why would you want to dismiss something before having a listen to it first ?
Alot of low to midend transports have poor jitter specs. Thats why adding an external reclocker or in-chassis clock mods like the ones from the Lampizator website can bring massive improvement to a budget/mid range system.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/193jitter/index.html

http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index.html

But most importantly, you must hear it with your own ears to experience it first hand.

Jitter is a very real and measurable problem in D/A conversion.
Here's the proof:

HRT Music Streamer via USB input Jitter Spectrum:


Wadia 27ix with Wadia 270 Transport Jitter Spectrum:


Weiss Medea DAC with RME Digi96/8 Pro PC soundcard Jitter Spectrum:



And here is an example of a DAC with "less than desirable" Jitter-rejection performance, Esoteric D-07 DAC via USB input:

Interesting thread. The DAC would definitely be on my next shopping list. I will be borrowing a Benchmark DAC to try it out.

No money for Weiss, DCS, Ayre, W4S, and those hi-end DAC.

mugenfoo wrote:
And its only really useful if partnered with its PW DAC due to its proprietary i2s link via HDMI cable between the Transport and the DAC.
!

MBL and Wyred4Sound DAC comes with i2s link thru high speed HDMI for future proof.

MBL SACD/CD Transport is already using i2s link thru HDMI to it's DAC since more than a year ago.

Wyred4Sound DAC will accept i2S link thru HDMI ie from PS Audio Perfect wave or others that output thru i2S HDMI.
Moreover, Wyred4Sound's digital and analogue board can be upgraded so it wld not be obsolete unless the company goes under.

Mugen, thanks for the graphs. Sheds a lot of light on the subject.

VS126, While i2S via HDMI is becoming more common among DAC manufacturers, I'm still unsure if they all agree on the same pin configurations. Do you know if they do?

I believe they all share the same pin configuration for audio thru i2s but probably not the same for video.

Wireworld makes highend i2s hdmi using silver. I think their site will shed more light. I am only guessing.

I believed the future connection is thru high speed high bandwidth low jitter i2S HDMI for highend audio.

vs126 wrote:

MBL and Wyred4Sound DAC comes with i2s link thru high speed HDMI for future proof.

I believed the future is i2s thru high speed HDMI for highend audio.

reviewers have tested ps audio's much-hyped hdmi link and have found no clear advantage.

Hi SF Lam, could you kindly point us in the direction of those reviews. I have not found any noteworthy reviews on this product since it's introduction. Definitely not a popular or outstanding product it would seem.

"by mugenfoo Yesterday at 11:25 pm
The PerfectWave transport is actually USD3K, but A&L audio's retail price is around RM16K."


USD3,000 (MSRP) + USD391 (fedex) + 10+10% duties = US$ 4103
= RM12,309 landed

Why is A&L selling it at RM16K ?