0.9y-4 - w00t

[summers_tim]

Hey,

I want, belatedly, to echo Fidelio's first comment in this chain!

Initial feelings only, since I only started listening about an hour ago, but this is a BIG, BIG step up from the previous version I had (y-2).

Immediately, bass has more 'slam', to the extent I was about to go and tweek with the subwoofer settings.

Much more foot-tappy.  Literally.

More depth in the image, forward and back.

The best front-end I've ever heard.  Period.

Tim

[AUDIODIDAKT]

Ugh,

Latest XX keeps me really interested and more and more drown to the speakers.
Kind of feeding just that kind of music, were latest xx makes that big difference.
Percussion, percussion and percussion.

It doesn't matter what kind, pauk, wood, drums, bongo's but also the metallic ones like bells, triangel and such.
XX really makes me drool, its sounds most honest ever heard, totally unheard of since the digital music age started.
But again, how to judge, when never heard before.

Really sofisticated, every album becomes a gem again.

Peter, let me know your experiences (with psu on dacs, I mean) about how gitars will do distorted or acoustic.
Try some hardrock albums or try something difficult and complex like Zappa.(can your mind cope with that ?)
This is the final frontier, IMO

How do you perceive complex music, with lots of music samples going one at once.
Thus multi-instrument parts of music were speed becomes really important

Especially with those PSU's on DAC's, you lucky bastard

Nice movie quote from The Italian Job:

I get myself,.....,............Burr Bown Dac's, and speakes SO loud, they can blow a woman's clothes of.

[AUDIODIDAKT]

And turn the "Buzzing" in the music to "Sparkling", get yourself some decent wiring for your reference system, hehe, really!
This will open another dimension.
NOS1 deserves, it. (instead of using those mediocre cables, not your first choice, I know)
Also amps can be closer to DAC and make longer speakercables instead of very long interlinks (not being shielded)
It becomes rather important, at this final stage.
Don't hold your horses on this one.
I can provide you with those, you know that.

 

[manisandher]

A couple of days ago, I had the chance to listen to 0.9y-4 and compare Quad Arc Prediction upsampling with the standard playback of 16/44.1 files on my DAC (i.e. using its own oversampling, the precise details of which I know very little about - I think it's 4x for 44.1).

Let me just start by stating that my DAC is a very capable DAC for 16/44.1 playback. The sound is very fluid, with an incredible bottom end. The dynamics are phenomenal - to the extent that it makes ALL other DACs that I've listened to (quite a few!) sound flat, lifeless and boring. (These include top-end DACs from dCS and Esoteric.)

But my God, QAP still manages to improve things further. It shows up a hint of 'bloom' that my DAC produces with its own oversampling engaged. The sound really is smeared without QAP (but still in a very nice and listenable way).

With QAP, everything becomes more focused. Details and harmonics that were smeared out before can now be heard - it's quite incredible.

There is only one downside that I hear (or at least I think it's a downside) and that is that the bottom end doesn't sound so 'full' with QAP. This could well be that QAP is actually reducing smearing down there. But in any event, it somehow doesn't sound so satisfying without that  bottom-end bloom.

On a final note, and without meaning to upset Peter, there is one thing that I'd like to mention. As good as QAP upsampled 16/44.1 files are, they are absolutley no match for the RR 176.4 HRx files... on my DAC at least.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Oh, there's one thing I forgot to mention. My DAC (actually an AD/DA converter) has some very accurate peak level meters built in to the front panel display. On virtually every 16/44.1 file I play with QAP engaged, the max level warning lights come on. This does not happen with the same files played without QAP.

QAP really is adding something somewhere...

Mani.

[earflappin]

Mani, do I remember correctly that you have a Pacific Microsonics Model 1 or 2? 

[manisandher]

It's the latter... as per my signature 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

QAP really is adding something somewhere...

DAP/QAP ... why not

But that is true ! This is - theoretically - about cut waves because the samples (sample rate) didn't allow the proper peak, and that peak is now added (restored). However, when the track has been mastered at (or near) peak level already, that level is extended a little. But, it can't extend, so what happens instead is that the already cut peak gets widened a bit, and while your meters may not trip on a few samples of maximum value, it may on a few samples more.

Notice that things could really improve for SQ again if I first drop the volume a bit and *then* apply QAP. I'm working in these areas anyway, so I could apply a checkbox for that, so you (we all) can test that.
Notice that I always use attenuated digital volume in the first place, and it is really done in a good/harmless way.

Anyway, many thanks you mentioned it. If there's anything else, just shoot !
Peter

[earflappin]

I notice when turning QAP on that the volume goes up versus having it off.  Why is that?

[PeterSt]

You mean it sounds louder ?

If that is what you mean, yes that can be so, because normally after just under 5KHz there's a roll off, which doesn't exhibit here.
Notice that there is more to explain than this simple sentence, because any good filter doesn't roll off either. However, coming from the opposite direction so to say, a normal filter also rolls of (from above 22050 Hz (120dB attenuated) into the audio band, and hopefully it stops somewhere around 20KHz which it mostly does not because of other anomalies otherwise (the steeper the attenuation, the worse).

But then I am not sure whether it is that you perceive ...

[manisandher]

Unfortunately, I'm not currently in the UK to test whether QAP sounds louder, but I really don't remember thinking that it did. If it weren't for my peak level meters, I'm not sure I would have noticed any difference in output level whatsoever.

On a totally different note, I'd like to share my experience comparing Quad-with-no-upsampling and QAP. Initially, QNU sounds 'clearer'. Everything seems to 'shimmer'. But this gets grating very quickly... almost painful! On many occasions, as I was switching between No-Quad and Quad, I would forget to tick the AP checkbox [EDIT - sorry, I meant to say "select AP from the drop down list"]. After a while, I could tell within a few seconds that AP was not on.

Mani.

[earflappin]

Interesting....perhaps it is just perception.  I'll get my trusty portable frequency analyzer and SPL meter out and run a trial. 

[PeterSt]

Or maybe not.
Let me know !

[earflappin]

I ran a test using an SPL meter.  Going QAP into my DAC increases sound pressure by 5-6 db versus going in with no upsampling.  This occurs independent of whatever filter setting I use on the DAC.

[PeterSt]

Ok, I will check it myself too, but for various frequencies (test tones).