Audio Synthesis

Gary,
Have you tried any upsampling on the Discrete at all?
If so do you prefer 88.2 or 176.4? or are you the full 192khz
Do you feel the out lay of another box, digital i/c and isolation will bring good upgrades to the party over the stock built in-upsampler?, tuff call, after experiance with one or 2 dacs, I would persoanlly be looking at other areas to improve the preformance.
The DCS in scad or red back I was refering to.
Transports, look at Accuphase/Wadia/Acoustic Arts/Forcell/Cec/Sonic frontiers/Teac P30/D50 or the like, enough room in these for the clock link mod too.
Gary, are you running direct or through a pre?

 

Tony

The demo used 44.1 and 88.2k from the Chord Blu, as far as I'm aware the Discrete internally oversamples all inputs to over 700k, until I receive it on Friday I'm not sure that this oversampling can be overridden.

Frankly, I've no idea if upsampling of the signal prior to the Discrete has any benefit or not, the equipment the dealer used didn't really have the resolution to highlight any difference. Upsampling isn't something that's uppermost in my mind at the moment to be honest, I just remember that the Elgar Plus didn't really get going until it received an upsampled signal from the Purcell, whether the same applies to a Discrete or not I've no idea. The incompatibility of the interfaces on the Purcell and Discrete preclude testing to find out.

I don't use a pre-amp, I only have digital sources so the volume control on the Decade/Discrete is all I need. However, after extensive auditioning I was unable to hear a detrimental effect of using other digital equipment between the transport and DAC so I have the G98 transport feeding a Meridian 568.2 with the digital output of the 568.2 feeding a Tact RCS feeding a Meridian 518 feeding the Decade (which will be replaced by the Discrete on Friday). Strangely, although I'm not able to discern any detrimental effect of this chain of equipment, I am able to discern a difference between the digital cables/connectors between the boxes. I also have a direct connection from the transport to the DAC and occaisionally switch to this connection just as a paranoia check that the chain of boxes isn't messing up the signal.

Thanks for the list of transports, I'll have to do some digging to find somewhere to audition them.

 

Gary,

I'm sure you can notice differences between digital cables, we can (surprisingly), I wasn't refering to that in the areas for looking at.
Most SRC's don't just contain that, the have some form of reclocking latch/PLL, as well as sample rate conversion & resolution enhancement IE 16<>24 bits, along with another transformer and data transfer buffers. so techincally it aint just u/sampling.
Dcs have a new all in one transport/updampler in one box now.
Depends purely on what you wish to enhance, oversampling is another form of upsampling, which in turn is the industry method of trying to put right what redbook should have been from the beginning. To banish digitarlis
When you had the demo of the chord blu (sic) and you switched to twice stock redbook, what DID it bring to the party for you ?
May be the the reciever chip senses the different sample rate, and by passes the oversampling maybe?
Some digital gear does benefit from being u/s, if air/space/detail and openiness are you bag, then get a loan one.
Personally I've made more gains with the deluis, by rebuilding its power supply than anything else, of coarse adding the purcell helps take up a level, but then the level is much higher, do the same again to the Purcell, and its starting to wake up then.
The MSB is an upsampling Dac, with switchable rates and algorythymic filters and has a msb link which is the same idea as the A/S data link, the use of this is most benefical.
I've tried just about most variations of the SRC theme on this dac and it makes Piss all difference, to get better preformance you have to look else where in the dac.
Decent digital eqipment also greatly benefits from good clean power too, as your using a 518 (which is also a reclocker) this too would benefit from some clean juice.
I fyou wish to try an upsampler, without breaking the bank, a Buhringer Pro SRC is around £150 does all the thing ther purcell does but only goes to 108Khz, but has multiple outs and a word bit genny to, not pretty but it does work well, and can be tweek to show the purcell the way home.
If you can get a transport that outputs 24 bits (which I feel the most critial) then you may find that in conjuction with the A/s is all you will need (for red book) T.

 

Couldn't really tell much difference between 44.1 and 88.2k from the Blu, when I get the Discrete I'll try the 88.2k output from the 568.2 and see what effect it has. If it's an improvement I'll get the Behringer you mentioned and stick it at the end of the chain just before the Discrete as neither the 518 or RCS will accept an upsampled input. Thanks for the tips, sounds like I need to contact you outside of this thread about other modifications, better get my wallet out, looks like it's going to cost a bit!

 

Gary,

Unless you have an early RCS, then it will happily accept any input upto 96khz. It's just the Meridian MHR is encoded

I'm guessing you use an RCS2.0. Have you considered an upgrade to the RCS2.0s?

 

Yes I've considered going for the newer version, moving to the Discrete from the Decade opens up a number of options with the higher available input frequencies, provided that it delivers in the sound quality department.

 

Gary,

Just a thought, why dont you sell everything that you have infront of the Discrete, buy a Pioneer 656, get the ASL conversion, and use the change to go to the Carribean for a holiday!

JTB

 

Lol, go and listen to a G98 compared to the Pio 656 then you'll know why!

Sticking a formula 1 gearbox in a Skoda isn't going to make it a formula 1 car.

 

Funnily enough Gary, I have found the Meridian processors to be highly transport dependent, and the RCS to be far less so.

If it were me, I'd upgrade to an RCS2.2x (although the 2.0s is equally good in sound quality terms), allowing either control of subs, or the integration of studio quality clocking courtesy of something like the Apogee bigben.

How's your mains treatment BTW?

 

I was looking at the 2.2 as the next upgrade, however, the questions in my mind are these:

1. Given that the 2.2 does the same job as the 2.0 what benefit would I see?

2. How good would the integration of my sub be using a 2.2 as opposed to the .1 channel on an AV amp?


The possible answers I came up with to the questions were:

1. The 2.2 has more DSP processors so may be able to more accurately implement the chosen curve. But then would I actually hear the difference?

The higher input frequencies may be of benefit, bringing us back to the question of upsampling.

2. I have a custom built sub in a big cabinet which my sofa sits on top of. For music integration this is not ideal as it would need to be in-line with my main speakers, however, I don't have the space to re-locate the sub. I could take the drivers out and build two smaller subs to go behind the main speakers but they would need to be pretty tall to keep a Q of 0.5. Alternatively I could build a couple of isobaric jobs to get the cabinet size down but I'm in unknown territory there for what the sound would be like, yes the isobaric allows half the volume for the same Q but from my experience of building subs smaller cabinets have a significant influence on the sound quality. I use a variable Linkwitz transform and find that adjusting the Q electrically isn't as good as having a decent sized cabinet to start with.

With regard to mains treatment, nothing, just use Russ Andrews Power Kord's.

I've seen the BigBen mentioned on the Tact forum but haven't investigated what it is or it's benefits.

 

Gary,

you are right in that the processing on the 2.2x is noticeably better than that employed in the original 2.0 and the upsampling really does work. I found the 96khz setting preferrable in my setup (trhe transport output 48khz signal) but I can say the upsampling is everybit as good as the Meridian MHR, and it is not encoded!

The integration of subs using the 2.2x is genuinely in a different league to anything else on the market. By correcting to time alignment of the different speakers to within an 1/8th of an inch, and correcting for any amplitude errors in the crossover area, you really will have no idea where the bass is coming from, even if you crossover at 500hz as in a normal floorstander.

I was using my now redundant K2 15" cabs that allow for use up to 800hz. I had a 100th order (yes really) crossover created on excel that provided all I needed. It really is light years in advance of anything Meridian are doing at the moment. Oh and with the 2.2x, the position of your sub will no longer be a problem.

RCS2.0s and 2.2x both benefit IMO from isolation and seperate mains supply or power conditioners. The PSU in the unit is pretty poor and I found the Tact gear responded more to mains treatment than just about anything else I have tried.

 

You wouldn't per chance be Poda?

www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118137

 

Ah!

Well in a former life yes, but I prefer to forget about AV Forums - I'm no politician!

I'm also now devoid of Tact (surely needed by politicians?), having decided to try valves and vinyl, but I am very familiar with it's strengths, and the effort required to get the best out of it. Might well go back one day

 

Have heard the Elgar Plus on its own and with assistance from a Purcell in a number of different systems at different locations, this a statement that I'd entirely agree with.

I use to own a Delius/Purcell combo too, and the same definitely applied there. IMO, a second hand Delius/Purcell combo is a combo worth considering, but definitely not at new prices. It's strange that the addition of the Purcell makes that much of a difference, but it sure bumps up the price a hell of a lot. It'd be very interesting to stick this Behringer upsampler onto the a Delius (or Elgar) to see what it's like in comparsion to haviing a Purcell. The killer application for the Purcell in a dCS system context is DSD upsampling, I've not yet heard a better i.e. read more "real" sound (with music that is predominantly accoustic/not heavily processed) from red book CD - bloomin' expensive though when you factor in the cost of all 3 boxes.

I don't think the addition of a Purcell would make a value for money improvement to another high quality DAC such as the AS units. In the context of a dCS set-up, it's another way of skinning the cat as it were. Other manufacturers I believe can achieve similar things, as WM has said by looking more carefully at power supplies, a point I agree with. Also, high oversampling is no different to upsampling, that's from a personal experience pont of view disregarding the actual technical workings. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people get a bit too worked up about upsampling, thinking that it has to be had when a piece of kit which doesn't tout upsampling is equally as valid.

 

Merlin

I've been pondering your comment for the last couple of days whilst waiting for the Black Gates in the Discrete to 'run in'. Were you using the internal RCS DAC or an external DAC? In my situation I'm passing the digital signal onto an external DAC and am wondering if the power supply mods are still beneficial.

 

Gary,

I used the RCS into Tact S2150's so you could say I was using external DAC's.

If you look at the SMPS on the RCS it is both fairly crude and poorly isolated (the ERS mod was simple and well worth the effort). Having said that, the S2150 generates a hell of a lot of noise, and needed placement some distance from the RCS. I also used the RCS with a DCS Delius. Again mains treatments and general isolation brought improvements by reducing the "electronic" character I felt the RCS could introduce.

I ended up getting rid of the dCS as the S2150 actually bettered it in many respects. But again, much tweaking was needed to get rid of the digital signature IMO and in the end, the combo simply lacked the involvement of valves and the finest SS to my ears.

 

Ive just gone for digital amp modelling. Very impressive and effective.

Chris

 

Chris,



you look nothing like an amplifier

 

"reducing the "electronic" character"

alanbeeb kindly lent me some vdh cables to try. I used a single 'The First' as a digital connect between the modded Transcend & Dax Decade and a pair of 'The Second' as phono between Decade and power amp. Dare I suggest that it sounded my "organic" - well, less "electronic". It was particularly good on accoustic. I'll try some swapping back and forth tomorrow morning to see whether it was an illusion.

... am enjoying the discussion, and following about half

 

haha! nice one! took me a few minutes to get that.

I was waiting to see if I got a 'shock horror' response from anyone thinking Id turned away from my valve roots..

But, I'll be honest Im using digital amp modelling in front of my valve guitar amp, not my hifi one...
All the same, some interesting parallels. The cosm technology its using (just a term that roland/boss use) uses digital modelling and digital eq just like TACT to effect change. Its quite realistic sounding.
The digital modelling equipment does have a digital character about it, but putting it through a valve integrated guitar amp lessens the effect... Perhaps a bit like putting a TACT through a valve power amp may do. In my context it lessens the digitalitus.

hmm.
interesting stuff.

Chris