System selection a personal perspective

[Chris V]

As you will see from my profile below I currently run two systems.

The first evolved over many years and is very much a near field system almost like wearing giant headphones. It has all the characteristics associated with conventional Hi fi - drive, finesse, detail, low lows and high highs but it is also a DSP system  .

My front end was once a Counterpoint CDP and Linn Sondek/Ittok, but on discovering XXHighend they were both replaced in favour of the Computer.

This system has given me a lot of pleasure and certainly impressed others who came to listen.

My second system is very much a far field system, and follows more closely Peter's philosophy, employing a NOSDAC. The NOSDAC and amp cost less than £400 for the pair  and the speakers which are no longer available were a real find.

Here is my discovery.

As Peter has evolved his software and philosophy I would rather play and enjoy the second system   

[PeterSt]

Hi Chris,

Why do I have the hunch that you are asking (me) for something. But maybe I'm just wrong ...
In that case, unsollicited :

As Peter has evolved his software and philosophy I would rather play and enjoy the second system

But I would rather not. Haha.

Of course I can not guarantee it, but your second system will be too diffuse to my likings. It won't be "accurate", if I'm allowed to express it like that. The "NOS" part in it will be fine *if* it can be sufficiently filtered (read : if that DAC is able to take a sufficiently high sampling rate so the software can sufficiently "filter"), but this should not be counter-acted with an all so much reflecting (180+ degree) radiating speaker. OK, this is why I like horns.

This doesn't put the near field system in my favor, because (let's say) if I don't like one thing at all it is headphones.
haha

Now you know.
Regards,
Peter


PS, for fun :
The whole of XXHighEnd and the NOS1 D/A converter were developed on the same system (read : I listened through "a" system for all these years and what came from that is the software and the DAC as how so many people enjoy it (for being the very best)). Next step was replacing that system by something which could take the software + DAC as a reference, so the system as a whole could be better. That system became the Orelo MKII active speaker (co-operation between BD-Design and Phasure).
Maybe there's someone out there who likes to obtain this development system as a whole, because here it is catching dust now.

[Chris V]

I hear what you're saying Peter, but there were no questions in my early message., just a compliment.

I still have all the elements of both systems which eventually I will make into one and sell all the excess stuff, so the horns could re-enter the equation, but without the DSP etc

I am slowly getting to grips with this digital stuff. Simplistically, do I understand it correctly that XX HighEnd will always give out 192Hz and that any NOS DAC not capable of handling that will compromise the sound?

[PeterSt]

Chris .. no ...
XXHighEnd will output whatever you tell it to, up to a sampling rate of 768000 (because the NOS1(a) can do that).

To the letter I should say : anything under this 768000 (or 705600 as a multiple of 44100) is compromised. But this is a bit of BS if you think that we can only say this because I coincidentally made the filters for (max) 768000.
So this one expresses reality better, I think :

When you have a DAC that can input 192000 the sound will be unnecessary compromised when the upsampling/filtering is done for 96000 only.
Or :
When you have a DAC that can input 96000 the sound will be unnecessary compromised when the upsampling/filtering is done at 48000 only (which implies no filter).
Or :
When you have a DAC that can do 48000 (44100) only, and it is an NOS DAC, it can only do just that and it is not the best (not these days, haha).

A lot has changed the past years ...

Regards,
Peter

[Chris V]

Leave that with me Peter  .

I think I need to do a bit of reading around the subject before I come back with more stupid questions 

[PeterSt]

Chris, seriously, nothing stupid about it. It is only that I can't have answers of 5000+ posts in one post. So I almost feel guilty.
Just ask what you want to know. I mean, it also can not be that a random newbie is not going to get answers other than reading through a whole forum, right ?

Don't hesitate ...
Peter

[Chris V]

Chris, seriously, nothing stupid about it. It is only that I can't have answers of 5000+ posts in one post. So I almost feel guilty.
Just ask what you want to know. I mean, it also can not be that a random newbie is not going to get answers other than reading through a whole forum, right ?

Don't hesitate ...
Peter

Thanks Peter. Please do not feel guilty. Your time is more valuable than mine so I will do some reading and get back to you.

[Chris V]

but this should not be counter-acted with an all so much reflecting (180+ degree) radiating speaker. OK, this is why I like horns.

Regarding the Podium speakers.

They were designed around a different concept to conventional speakers by a professional concert pianist. His aim was to get them to play like musical instruments which use the room rather than trying to overcome its effects. I admit, they are very different to horns but have a virtue of their own.

Your guys at 6 Moons did a couple of reviews on them if anyone is interested.

I am not promoting the Company, which unfortunately went into liquidation a couple of years ago.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/podium2/model05.html

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/podium/1_2.html

[PeterSt]

Chris - Yes, I read the review on the 1.

The story is more technical than you'd imagine (I think );

Throughout time quite some "diffusing" experiences happened over here - most unintentional (for their beginnings). A first one was this : Re: Quantum Heaven (starts in that post and continues to the end).

What happens there is that a special kind of footers "distribute" the sound in the room. Yes, you will read soon about voodoo in there, and the Chinese wisdom which this is based upon I still don't understand. But summarized :
With these footers I measure the SPL to be exactly the same everywhere in the room (room is 12x8mx3m). And this is also audible. Sound is everywhere or at least very very "wide". I'm in a church when a choir sings in a church. Super much amazing.

Meanwhile I get dizzy, drunk from one beer and have headaches. But this could be personal or depends on circumstantial other things, perhaps.

What physically happens (at least witn my own proof) is that the sound energy indeed is spreaded in the room. However, there is no free lunch and what happens in effect is that the otherwise pinpointed or beamed sound is heavily smeared to everywhere.
Nice effect, but the opposite of accurate.

I should add that the "accuracy" is a very explicit propery of the NOS1(a) D/A converter. It is famous for it (but it really is the combination of it being NOS and specially (in-software) filtered at the same time). What I mean is : without this DAC you we not even notice a difference; then all is smeared to begin with. Or, use different filtering than my own (in XXHighEnd) - similar thing.

While this was from 4 years ago, similar "diffusing" happenings occurred. They all travelled the same path : excitement at first, disappointment after a week, especially when "without" was re-attempted.
And just saying : at this very moment a similar thing seems to happen : Windows 10's special smearing; it is far from accurate, it makes more music ( than Windows 8 ), but possibly I won't last forever with it.

Peter

[Chris V]

Yes Peter, I originally bought the Podium Sound speakers to experiment with Layered Sound at home - near field horns complimented by far field panels (played at just sufficient volume to underpin the main speakers).

I could clearly hear the effect, but after a while became bored of it in the home environment (bit like what happened to me with 3D TV).

So the speakers became a system in their own right and do a really nice job when fed a signal from the very 'precise' XXHighEnd.

I am having a clear out of unwanted Hi Fi, so at some stage will need to decide Hedlund horns vs Podium Sound speakers. Not a decision to rush into. 

[Chris V]

OK, my first two slightly more educated question.

1. I see that at its best your software will give out a 32bit/768Khz signal. Are all versions capable of this? If not can you give a a brief idea at which development points (software editions) step ups were made.

2. Does the computer one is using affect the ability to give out 32/768. If so, is there a way to see what one's current computer is achieving?

Thanks Chris

[PeterSt]

Hi again Chris,

I hope you can accept this answer :

This does not matter for you, because you don't have a DAC which can accept (input) that sampling rate. Only one exists which can do that and you don't have it ...

What you theoretically can have is 384 ( 352.8 ) and that's in XXHighEnd fairly much from the start (say 8 years ago).

Anyway :

2. Does the computer one is using affect the ability to give out 32/768. If so, is there a way to see what one's current computer is achieving?

About the ability ? hardly. Your Dell will be fine with it.
And what's achieved is shown in XXHighEnd (left top pane). If all sounds undistorted then what XXHighEnd shows is really happening. Otherwise it could be a driver control panel showing it (like your Fireface's control panel will show it).

Regards,
Peter

[Chris V]

Hi Peter

Am I right in saying that those of us still using a mixture of kit linked by SPDIF or Toslink have a limitation on how much data those cables can carry.

I think I have read that SPDIF can only carry 24 bits at best - not sure about the frequency.

Cheers Chris

[PeterSt]

Chris,

Nah, not really, but it depends a bit ...

I don't think there's an official limit to the bandwidth of SPDIF. However, the transmitters and receivers are often made (or implemented) for their imposed job : process the low bandwidth data of a CD (16/44.1). Of course these days we don't run into that often, like your Fireface is 32/192 capable (over SPDIF).
But it just depends on the device and what the manufacturer wanted it to do.

If I would like to use SPDIF with 32/384 then I would need to find a receiver/transformer which runs at that speed (which is capable to process the implied bandwidth). That is about all. But whether that exists ?
Maybe not because there is no demand for it. Why ? well, we can use USB.
Toslink is even more critical (needs to convert from electrical to light and back), however, that exists in the much higher speeds. Why ? well, because there is demand for it (very long cable lengths - datacommunication solutions). Although we wouldn't call it Toslink any more, but some sort of (often proprietary) other protocol. Otherwise the real Toslink is limited to 24/96 I think.

The short answer is : If your device is not rated for the higher speeds, well, it just is not. And you would not be interested in the cause.

Maybe look at it this way :
If you'd buy a modern D/A converter and it tells you that it can do 32/384 over USB and 24/192 over SPDIF, then you are not going to think about the SPDIF limits and just use USB. Period.
Why so simple ? well, because it just is.
(IF you use a computer !)

Technically it is a 1000 times more difficult. So say for me;
For varirous good reasons I may not like USB for its electrical (non-)merits. So I might like to use SPDIF. Or better not, because of its "jitter specs". So maybe something different again. Like the very first NOS1 version which had an interface which was completely new (and still hasn't been used by anyone as far as I know). But that too went out for its reasons. Point is : when you had bought such a first version, you had connected it by the means provided. Period again.
Or not, because you had to assemble an interface card in the PC; not so convenient. Maybe USB is better because it is all there anyway.

So Chris, I can go on for a while with all sorts of deliberations, but I can tell you : in the end it is not about those merits. It, obviously, is about how the system can sound as a whole, and I can tell you that this has become d*mn complicated lately.
But this is because we are so extremely good at it already. It becomes more and more difficult to improve, which already is very difficult to create such a thing in the "independent domain", so what I create for the better has to end up at your place for the better just the same.
Dangerous stuff ...

Peter

[Chris V]

Sounds like a minefield out there Peter, lucky we have you to help us through it. 

I suppose for those of us not able to afford your NOS the answer is to stick with the established principle of letting your ears be the judge.

I feel more comfortable now I have learnt a bit (no pun intended) about data transfer rates.