Submitted by earlinarizona on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 18:17
Now what everyone has been waiting for. Everyone that has compared lower priced or other equipment and gotten certain results, let’s forget that for the moment. Gossip or heresy from other people forget it for the moment. Load your mind with a clear sheet about proving the viability of this server technology. Unless the test that you have heard about had level matching with a 400th of a DB, disregard it, Unless the other test had solid state and spinning drives to compare throw the results out. Unless the listing test was on a pair of $ 90, 000 speakers (adjusted by owner of Magico) with amplifiers to match, throw those results away too. SO if your mind is clear and you start from knowledge scratch ZERO , LETS GO.
They started with the Windows server internal Solid State drive and PCI express Lynx card. 24/176 music. Quite impressive to say the least. Hearing 24/176 sound was very enlightening, clear, and easy to digest. No digital grunge around the edges. You could just get a cup of hot chocolate next to a fire and listen to this for an extended time. This did not sound like a CD but of a much higher level of sound.
Then with the click of the remote and level controls reset (maybe 10 seconds) we listened to the Mac Pro PCI express Lynx card with Solid State drive. It clearly sounded different with different air around the voice and the space changed. Still same high quality sound as the Windows machine. I was expecting to hear real big differences but the difference was not earth shaking.
Then they put on the older Mac G5 with just PCI Lynx card (not the faster PCI express) and it actually sounded better than the first two. How is that possible with an older machine and only PCI card? Voice had less euphoric sound around it and more in focus. EVERY person in the audience was listening quite intensively.
Then they switched to the Martan server that Magico uses in his personal showroom. It sound even better with more clarity and something special about it but keep in mind we are under a MAJOR Microscope with the listeners. This is a work in progress and not a finished product.
Then one of the people in the front row that was from Skywalker studio asked if we could hear the servers with spinning drives. With the push of a button they activated the internal spinning drives in the servers and we listened. I personally can’t give an opinion on this one because I was different sounding but you loose track of which is actually right. The real pros were lasered in on sound differences.
Then they put on the hard drive that was on an Ethernet line across the room or a NAS drive. As soon as they put that one in you knew the others were better. It all came back to the seminars telling that everything adds jitter or problems an clearly the switchers and long Ethernet cables change things. We all noticed. From that point on no one requested to hear it.
BUT BUT BUT then they went back on the servers and listened again but would hit the remote and turn the Amara software off. Suddenly the audience starts laughing. You can hear the sound being regular Hi Fi even though it is still using the Lynx card. You can imagine how bad a good regular CD player would sound like at this point. My point is you were listening to a very special setup with these servers and Pacific Microsonic units under controlled conditions.
NOW THE BIG CHANGE. In the forum you always hear that higher sampling rate and bit differences just a waste, not needed, ridiculous. This guy and that guy said don’t waste your money. YOU WERE WRONG. Let me repeat that. YOU WERE WRONG. The audience asked if they could switch the D/A to play the selection in 24/96 instead of 24/176. They took a few minutes and then went and started the same song on the server. The magic was just about gone and suddenly the music was uninteresting and not involving. Smaller cloudier music. More haze around the edges and all around less enjoyable after listening to 24/176. At that point we didn’t even have to listen to the other servers to compare because the change of character was clear. Higher bit rate equals better sound. 24/96 is good or even spectacular compared to 16/44 but not when compared to 24/176 PERIOD. 24/192 was not presented here.
24/96 is good or even spectacular compared to 16/44 but not when compared to 24/176 PERIOD. 24/192 was not presented here."
It doesn't seem like DSD was presented either. I believe if you read the opinions on the Digital Audio Denmark website, DSD and DXD are significantly better than 24/192.
EarlinAZ,
Thanks for the write up. I wish I was able to make up to the symposium. I wonder if the parallel nature of PCI versus the highly serialized nature of PCI-Express accounts for some differences in the sound... Well, finding a G5 is a heck of lot cheaper than a new Mac Pro, but too bad it won't run Snow Leopard.
Was the Martan server using a Lynx card as well or is it using it's own electronics?
I was alao at the Saturday session, first just a few clarifications, the server mentioned is the Matan server (not martin) .
My recolection of the order of systems was a bit different, I remember it being the PC, then the G5 then the MacPro.
All the systems in the main demo room (including the Matan) used a Lynx 16AES, the PC, Matan and G5 used the PCI version and the MacPro used the PCIe version.
All these were connected to separate Pacific Microsonics Model 2 machines via AES. The model 2s fed a clock back to the Lynx card so the DAC was in Master Mode slaving the source to its local clock. This is supposed to be a very jitter immune setup, but it was still easy to hear differences in the different setups.
I did not think the NAS sounded that bad, I thought it sounded better than the spinning disk but not as good as the SSD. The SSD definitely sounded better than the spinning disk.
The big surprize was Amara, WOW, I was not prepared for player software making that big of a difference. After having heard it, when it wasn't there I just wanted to cry out "PLEASE turn it back on!"
Without it the whole sense of space just vanished. It seemed like the bottom end rolled up and got but in the background. Of course that could have been that the midrange was being emphasized. Singers seemed like they were plastic cutouts on the stage rather than living breathing human beings.
I very slightly prefered the MacPro with SSD and Amara to the Matan server, but I could easily see how someone could prefer it the other way around. They did things differently and it probably comes down to personal preferences on that one.
The biggest problem with the demos was we didn't enough time to do even more listening.
Thanks very much to those who put this together, it was by FAR the best such comparison session at a public event I have ever heard.
John S.
What OS was the Matan server using? OS X, Win, Linux? Curious if it was a hackintosh, cMP/cPlay type or linux home-brew...
Specific details were not given, other than its not a standard anything and its running some form of Unix. He was using an iPhone to run it.
John S.
I've got a couple of questions reading the above post so here goes ...
1) The PC server - what playback software was it using?
2) When you say you listened to 24/96 version - how had that been created. Was it resampled using the playback machines, or was it a separate recording with the A/D converter set to 24/96 when it was created?
3) You didn't mention it so I assume not, but were you able to do any comparisons between the high-end computer systems and the Sooloos system into the same DAC.
The comments re G5 with Lynx AES16 (PCI) vs. the MacPro with Lynx AES16e (PCIe) seam to follow the anecdotal evidence from other sources so you could claim that point is pretty much proved. However it might have been useful to have 2 identical PCs with both PCI and PCIe cards and then could have done side by side comparison with ONLY the card different between them - but maybe thats just being picky - at the moment it could be argued that all has been shown is that the Audio Core on MacOS runs better under PowerPC code than under Intel code - there are too many other variables to take into account on the actual comparison made.
A comparison between the Lynx AES16e card and a high end firewire interface would also have been interesting to read about - Kent Poon has written that the AFI1 is "The best I heard from any sound card, period." and goes on to put it into context saying "We have both Mac and PC sound interface from RME digiface, Lynx AES16SRC, firewire devices MetricHalo 2D Expanded 2882 +DSP, ULN2 etc."
It might have been interesting if you could have run some of the comparisons with more available hardware too - i.e. does an AES16 give you an advantage over an EMu 1010 into a Bryston BDA-1 with BP-16 pre and 2B SSt2 power amps and a pair of B&W 803D speakers - probably an aspirational system for many people who are interested in the forum.
(Hope you don't mind me commenting on what comparisons you did - I'm sure you took a long time working out what was most interesting ... just thoughts for if you are ever able to hold another symposium I guess)
An interesting thing - you implied that there was a volume difference between the different output cards - if using the same original files into the same DAC, then there must be some manipulation of the data if the final output of the DAC is not the same.
Anyway it sounds like you had a great event - maybe the next one could hold at Real World Studios or The Farm. :-)
Eloise
Mac OSX 10.5 with iTunes (mostly ALAC) --USB--> Musical Fidelity A1008 --> B&W CDM 7NT (iPhone remote)
It sounds as though the event was an outstanding success, well done Chris, it must have taken a huge amount of time to organise everything , so sincere congratulations, I will definitely make every effort to attend the next especially if you serve ( Homer Simpson voice ) 'Shrimp' , well done! Keith.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/
Eloise,
there's a post by John Swenson on PC Audio Asylum that indicates samplitude may have been the PC software used.
John - who is very technical - made this interesting observation:
"All the systems had Lynx AES 16 cards (the MacPro was PCIe, the others were PCI) each connected to its own Pacific Microsonics Model 2 machine via AES. The model 2s sent a clock back to the Lynx cards so the Model 2 was the master."
Having a high quality DAC's clock operate as master seems more and more to be the consistent WINNER in the 'best digital playback' approach sweepstakes. Firewire does this naturally, and Gordon has pioneered a method for USB to do this, and yet people still ooh and ahh over the various DACS that only work with the S/PDIF variants (AES/EBU, Coax, Toslink).
In regards to your (and Kent Poon's) firewire interface comments:
I read on a recording forum recently, a suggestion that DACs like the Berkeley Audio Alpha, for example, should be relegated to 'legacy' audio (meaning to support transports with only S/PDIF output interfaces), and shouldn't be considered by people using computers (due to availability of superior interfaces, i.e., Firewire).
YMMV,
clay
didn't take very good notes. We need to first get the order of the tests and what was in the machines correct. I am reading the posts and already I am somewhat confused. Interesting stuff, but lets work on a correct list and this way other can sign off on it.
Clay, we heard the wadia connected to the Alpha DAC and it was not as good as cd ripped to wav. We also hear an Ayre cd player and also not as good as the computer as source. Its hands down a great dac with any input, buts its really something special with the lynxs card and a computer.
Sonore Fanless Music Player W/Vortexbox Engine -> Playback Controlled from iTouch or Web GUI-> no Mouse, no Keyboard, no Monitor....no Problem -> Lynx L22 & Lynx AES16
The organizers of the event made a few comparisons available for listeners to experience for themselves, on the theory that direct experience is better than just trading second-hand impressions on the forums. I notice that some of the people who didn't actually attend the symposium are already inserting second-hand impressions into the discussions here.
Anyway, here's clarification on a few details that people are asking about. First, the files for comparing sample rates are all direct transfers from an analog source natively at that rate. I know because I spent almost a whole day doing them. After each transfer I rewound the tape, set the convertor and the workstation to the new rate, and played it in again. Three music selections, five sample rates: 44, 88, 96, 176, 192. None of the files were conversions from some other sample rate.
Second: Level matching. During setup we did in fact confirm that each of the servers was putting out the data unchanged, and at the same level. Then the level was checked at the output of the Boulder preamp, and it was confirmed to be the same within four one-hundredths of a dB (not 1/400th, as people apparently understood.) If there was level resetting between cuts, it was only because the operator had used the volume control to fade the selection out. He then returned the level to the same place as before, which is extremely accurate on the Boulder.
Probably someone should post the full configuration for each server, but I'll leave that up to the organizers. Much of the information is correct in the posts and the responses, but it is scattered around a bit. Here I'll just confirm that the PC was using Samplitude as playback software on XP, and Matan's server uses Unix. Also, someone may have implied that the PC used a PCI-E version of the Lynx card, but no, it used a PCI version like the G5.
Paul Stubblebine
Paul Stubblebine Mastering, San Francisco
The Tape Project, LLC
serious student of the audio arts
Is it fair to say that the most significant factors to the quality of the music were (in order of importance):
1- Ultra high-res material (directly transferred from the original masters)
2- Amarra
www.hifiduino.blogspot.com
Sounds like the most significant factor might have been the speakers that cost $25,000.
;)
clay
Thanks for the info on the source of the standard and high res files.
Do I understand correctly that the outputs of each Lynx card was at the same level, and this had been confirmed to 4/100 dB before the event?
Eloise
Mac OSX 10.5 with iTunes (mostly ALAC) --USB--> Musical Fidelity A1008 --> B&W CDM 7NT (iPhone remote)
John,
thanks for posting here. I believe you'll find a more hospitable reception than at AA. :)
cheers
Was there any talk or debate about the ethernet "client/server" delivery method (i.e Squeeze Center,etc) where the server and streaming playback software are on two different machines, connected via ethernet, with theoretical jitter reduction issues (clock is separated from stream/packet, etc.). The reason I ask is that I've demo'd several DACS (Weiss, Berkeley, Bryston, etc.) and yet to find any front end software/hardware combo (limited, however, to a PC running Vista or XP mind you) that comes close to the sonics of feeding a good DAC from a (modded) Transporter via AES/EBU or 75 ohm BNC. I only mention "modded" because although the majority of the mod was to the analog section (completely redesigned and tubed) and therefore not used with the demo DACS, the rest of the mod (tube rectified huge power supply, etc.) may have helped and differentiated vs a stock Transporter, whether using analog or digital output. This sonic advantage was rather large, even when using the Weiss, for example, with it's firewire "sweet spot", via bit-perfect Foobar/XP/ASIO, etc. The AES/EBU or BNC outs from the Transporter to DAC were significantly more 3D, more organic, more lifelike...although limted currently to 24/96 max. Everyone who's heard it in my system, agrees. I know I'm not the only one who's thought of this, too (of course). A few have brought up this sort of "client/server" setup as being theoretically better from a jitter perspective, but wondered if it was anywhere on the radar at the Symposium. Thanks.
"We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.
Eloise,
During setup of course we wanted all the systems at the same level. Mostly I was concerned that someone might have left one of the Model 2's in a non-standard state, or that one of the inputs of the Boulder preamp may have had its sensitivity adjusted--after all, the adjustments are there to be used. So we went through all those settings and returned them to a standard condition.
The Lynx cards are putting out an AES/EBU stream, so I checked that first, and all were at identical levels. Then we played the same tone file out of each server, and switched the Boulder to each input in turn. The output from the Boulder matched in each case within a tolerance of four hundredths of a dB, so we figured that was close enough and went on to other matters.
Paul Stubblebine
Paul Stubblebine Mastering, San Francisco
The Tape Project, LLC
serious student of the audio arts
Ted,
as luck would have it, the only person I know who's experimented with a client-server sort of setup is John Swenson, who normally doesn't post here but has posted in this thread.
Perhaps he will respond.
clay
are going to be the new golden rule around here! Thanks for the clarification Paul!
Clay...you crack me up....good point!
I have to say all this talk about air and space makes me wonder if its like the plazma problem. You know how the green on a football stadium looks like no grass you ever saw in real life. I mean did this music have all this air and space in the first place?
Sonore Fanless Music Player W/Vortexbox Engine -> Playback Controlled from iTouch or Web GUI-> no Mouse, no Keyboard, no Monitor....no Problem -> Lynx L22 & Lynx AES16
My vote for best line of the week, from Mr, Stubblebine :
"I notice that some of the people who didn't actually attend the symposium are already inserting second-hand impressions into the discussions here."
Dear Readers,
Please be patient with us over the next 24-48 hours as we recover and compile for publication the comprehensive info on all of the systems we presented at The Computer Audiophile Symposium. As some of you can relate going on for 30+ hours without sleep isn't condusive to clear articulate thought.
Kind regards,
Maier Shadi
The Audio Salon
Maier@TheAudioSalondotcom
Tim Marutani
Marutani Consulting
MarutaniConsulting@earthlinkdotnet
Hi Everyone - I unpublished a few posts here because they were getting a bit off topic. I love the discussion, but not in this thread. I was unable to just move them into another spot on the forum for now.
Clay - Don't worry about posting links to Audio Asylum etc... It's a very established site and I certainly don't mind getting more info to the readers here.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
I just wanted to say what a fantastic and thoroughly thought out demo, and I agree, it's one of the best I've ever been too. Chris and Maier are really nice guys who know a hell of alot about computer audio as a side! Despite me not being in the industry, and one of the less knowledgable persons in attendance, they covered material that I understood, and showed the obvious, to me, the different sounds of each system. I agree with an earlier post that the G5 and Matins systems sounded best. Along with the Amarro software, the audio was much more natural and analogue sounding. I too was impressed with this software, not to mention it's audio ripping aspect I saw in the vinyl to digital conversion room.
Great going Chris, Maier, Keith Johnson....seeing inside a studio was awesome!, John and James from Sonic Solutions, the Sooloos gentleman I'm forgetting his name, and lastly, Thanks for the high quality of equipment that made it possible to hear the differences in the setups.
Chris Glanton
Interim setup: Battery driven Macbook Pro with 4G Ram, running PM ->Tact 2.2 (with no processing from the Tact), -> Bryston 78-ST monoblocks, or Canary CA-339 300B monoblocks -> Tidal Audio Piano's.
A work in progress...
Chris,
you had no way of knowing this, but.... the off topic discussion on this thread (i.e. the John Swenson separate boxes idea) would eventually have proven to be 'on topic' for a Symposium thread, inasmuch as it's just been revealed on AA that the Matan Server IS an implementation of such.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/5/55446.html
If you'd like, I can start a separate thread on this.
cheers,
clay
Sounds like an interesting demo and great weekend, but I can't help wishing the demo was done blind, or at least part of it done blind. A lost opportunity.
know if the Martan server people have a website?
Sonore Fanless Music Player W/Vortexbox Engine -> Playback Controlled from iTouch or Web GUI-> no Mouse, no Keyboard, no Monitor....no Problem -> Lynx L22 & Lynx AES16
During the beta testing for Amarra, we did implement a variant of blind A/B testing @ my testing facility by having individuals enter the room not knowing the playback condition. we played music and made a change. The unknown change was switching the software I/O. Then we made a second change. This too was a software I/O change, and so forth. The listener would write down the playback numbers and then define which ones they preferred and why.
Your suggestion to place a blind fold over the eyes is quite valid but some individuals prefer to listen with the eyes open and nothing around the head. Some listeners did close their eyes during pre-testing.
The results were consistent using various DA convertors and a plethoria of Mac computers, Mac Book Pro, Mac Mini, Power Mac G5 2.0, Power Mac G5 2.7, and Mac Pro.
Regards,
Maier Shadi
The Audio Salon
Los Angeles, CA
Timothy Marutani
MARUTANI CONSULTING
OAKLAND, CA
Maier/Timothy -- Based on those "sighted but blind" tests, what was the ranking/conclusion?
J River MC15 on SSD laptop; Empirical Audio Ultraclock Offramp; Meridian 861v6; Oppo 83 Blu Ray; Bryston 28b SST2 and VeraStarr amps; Selah Accuton/Fountek line arrays, GR Research surrounds, and Seaton Submersive subs; Lumagen Radiance video processor, Marantz S4 projector
@ brucemck2:
We received overwhelming conclusive results indicating Amarra to be the preferred software I/O.
We also forgot to mention that some testing involved delivering systems to our beta test sites outside from our facilities and visited other Sonic beta test sites.
Again, all the comments are subjective but implemented scientific methods to configure the computers. We standardize the drives, SLC SSD, enterprise HDDs, and two Thecus N7700 NAS drives, raid 5 and raid 1. We also configured the OS in a consistent manner, Tiger and Leopard.
Computer configuration will be compiled and released by Chis in a timely fashion.
Please note we are not saying the software is a "one size fits all" solution. The overall playback system development should always be taken into consideration.
Regards,
Tim/Maier
Can anyone confirm whether the Model Twos were using HDCD @ 24/176? (For those of you who were there, there should have been a blue 'HDCD' light lit up if HDCD was engaged.)
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
Mani Hi, I would really like to hear your model II at some point, I almost bought one ( long story ) a few years back, I don't believe we are too distant, regards Keith.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/
We forgot to mention we had the listeners leave and re-enter the room for another set of A/B listening.
Regards,
tim/Maier
I may be interpreting this wrong but I thought that the HDCD light only comes on when you are playing HDCD material. I believe the HDCD on my DVD player only comes on for instance when I am playing one of the Reference Recordings HDCD discs. If I play a 24/96 disc, the 24/96 light is lit but not the HDCD light.
Thus I use the DAC in the DVD player, which has digital I/O, to determine whether audio files ripped from HDCD discs to my computer and played back are bit perfect. If you have a DAC whose HDCD light comes on when it is playing high-rez 24/96, 24/176.4, or 24/192 audio files that do not have HDCD encoding, then perhaps not all HDCD indicator light parameters are the same.
My question wasn't with regard to whether the playback was bit perfect or not. It most definitely would have been - these guys know what they're doing!
No, I was asking because I know of another Model Two user (who posts on another site) who does not use the unit's HDCD functionality when recording at resolutions > 16/44.1 - he prefers it without HDCD at these resolutions. I just wondered whether the 'creators' of the Model Two used the HDCD functionality at 24/176 during the recording sessions. I'm assuming they did, as KJ uses it for the 24/176 RR files. But it would be good to know for sure.
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
I'm sure we could arrange this.
My wife and I are currently in the middle of a house move - will let you know once I have everything set up again.
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
There seems to be a little confusion on this point, and why shouldn't there be? Originally the blue light only came on when a playback unit detected the HDCD flag in a 44.1/16bit bitstream. Then after a couple of years Pacific Microsonics changed it so that the HDCD flag exists in the output of the Model Two at all sample rates and all wordlengths that it will do. And since then the Model Twos and anything else that detects the flag also lights up the light at any resolution. So for several years now the blue light has not indicated encoded 16 bits, it has just indicated that the unit detects the flag.
So two points: One, not all of the files that may have been played at one time or another at the symposium were recorded through a Model Two, but most were, including the ones that Keith recorded on site. Those that contained the flag lit up the blue light.
Two:your comments about some user of the Model Two not using HDCD functionality at higher resolutions doesn't make sense. When encoding to 44.1/16, there are a couple of options for fitting the 24 bit source into the 16 bit delivery format. The user may use one or the other or neither, operator's choice. But at any setting of 88KHz or higher those options are not even available. You've got a Model Two, Mani, check it out for yourself. There are no options for turning off any so-called HDCD functionality. Unless you count turning off the flag sensing on the monitor input, which has no effect other than changing the blue light to yellow.
Paul Stubblebine
Paul Stubblebine Mastering, San Francisco
The Tape Project, LLC
serious student of the audio arts
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your explanation. I will check things out for myself when I have a spare minute (hopefully early next week).
Paul, did you consider also using an analog master (i.e. tape) as a reference against which to compare the various computer-based setups? A/B comparisons with the reference could have been made really easily, helping to evaluate which computer setup comes closest.
I'm just curious as to why this wasn't tried...
Mani
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
Well, it was up to the organizers, not me, but I thought that having tape would distract from the purpose of the event, which was to share information about the approaches and strategies that people have tried in server design. As it was, we could have used twice as much time for that discussion.
Paul Stubblebine
Paul Stubblebine Mastering, San Francisco
The Tape Project, LLC
serious student of the audio arts
That is perhaps the only criticism I would have of the Symposium. It needed to be twice as long, even it required vendors to sell their products to support the event. I would imagine a 4 hour morning session of presentations and demonstrations, 1 hour lunch, and a 4 hour afternoon session of workshops, sales, discussions and social/professional/hobby networking.
I wish I could have attended and I would guess that no one wanted to leave. I hope the Symposium was a financial success and that there will be a Computer Audiophile Symposium next year.
Buy some space at the Hyatt Denver and run a Symposium during RMAF (or directly before/after). You'll get a number of the industry folks already there, and would be a great draw for us RMAF'ers. Separate ticket, of course. :)
"We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.
Dear Mani:
FYI - as 2/3 the research legs for the symposium, we always reference digital playback to tape and The Tape Project.
Regards,
Maier/Tim
Paul,
I'm confused!
I'm aware that 'Peak Extension' and 'Low Level Extension' are not available @ >16/44.1.
I'm assuming that the 'HDCD flag' to which you refer is the process explained to me by Mark Donahue:
"... the HDCD process alerts the PMI filter chip in the DA converter that the material was created with an AD converter with a known anti-aliasing filter and noise shaping curve. The PMI filter chip can then utilize a reconstruction filter optimized for the specific AD converter used for the creation of the master. This process is invisible to all other DA converters and the HDCD dither/noise shaping is considered to be the dither of choice for high resolution material."
Paul, are you suggesting that this process (or HDCD flag) in the Model Two cannot be turned off when recording an analog source at resolutions > 16/44.1?
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
tmfidelis,
So, which computer setup comes closest to the analog tape???
Pray tell...
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
Dear Mani:
The references have been ongoing comparisons over years. I must revisit the comparisons with the aid of others to give you a clear and precise answer. Comparisons using the tape as a reference greatly aided to verify turning off terminal services in Windows based machines was definitely a correct procedure. Referencing tape playback also made it clear SSD are presently the way to proceed.
Regards,
Tim
Tim Hi, slightly off topic buy, have you had a chance to compare the Berkeley dac to the model II? Thanks in advance Keith.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/
Dear Coops:
With all due respect to your valid inquiry, it is has no bearing with the symposium forum.
Regards,
Tim
Mani,
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the question, but I'm going to check it with the experts to be certain. Then maybe I should start a new thread; I believe we are wandering a bit from the topic of the symposium.
Paul Stubblebine
Paul Stubblebine Mastering, San Francisco
The Tape Project, LLC
serious student of the audio arts
Paul,
Would very much appreciate that.
Look forward to the new topic...
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
I was at the computer symposium and sat in the front row. I know it is heresy, but I was unable to tell the difference among the four computers (XP, G5, MacPro, Matan's). I could hear a difference between SSD and HDD, but not between HDD and NAS. I could hear a difference between iTunes with Amarra and without. My full report is here:
http://www.ultrahighendforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=4102#p4102
Frank
One of the reasons why I asked whether computer audio was compared to analog master tape at the symposium is discussed in the thread 'You can't win....it all designed to make us fail' (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/You-cant-winit-all-designed-ma...).
I don't think live vs. reproduced (digital or analog) is a particularly useful way to judge the performance of an audio setup - you really are comparing apples with oranges here. But comparing a digitzed version of an analog master tape to the original - through the same amplification/speakers/room - now, that's interesting.
timfidelis wrote:
"Comparisons using the tape as a reference greatly aided to verify turning off terminal services in Windows based machines was definitely a correct procedure. Referencing tape playback also made it clear SSD are presently the way to proceed."
I just seems to me such a wasted opportunity not to have done more of this.
Please understand that I think the recording session with KJ must have been facinating (I would have loved to have been there just for this)... but from a purely 'recording techniques' perspective, not from one of helping to evaluate various setups.
Mani.
PS. Still waiting for a new thread Paul...
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two