Jump to content

kLevkoff

  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. As far as I'm concerned, what we actually end up with remains to be seen, but what they're CLAIMING about the relationship between MQA and DRM seems relatively clear..... If you buy an "MQA file": 1) You will be able to play it in REGULAR NOT MQA format on any regular player or DAC 2) You will be able to play it IN MQA QUALITY on any MQA certified device or player 3) On that MQA certified player you will get an indicator showing you that you really have an unaltered MQA file 4) Since it doesn't contain any DRM, that MQA file will be "just an MQA file"; it will NOT be licensed to you by name, or to the specific devices you own, and will play in full MQA quality on ANY MQA certified device owned by anyone. I found all of that quite clearly contained in his answers about DRM: Each MQA file will contain information and or encryption that can be used to certify that it is identical to the original MQA file and hasn't been altered (authentication), so it will prove to you that it's really the MQA file you thought it was; but it does NOT contain any mechanism to know who you are, or to be licensed to be played only on a specific piece of equipment, or to be playable only by any particular owner (which would be DRM). In other words, in order to play that MQA file at "full MQA quality", you will need to be in possession of ANY MQA certified device, and ANY MQA certified device will be able to play ANY MQA file, at full MQA quality, with no restriction. So, if you want to play an MQA file at full quality, you will have to have purchased an "MQA license" of some sort along the way (in the form of your MQA certified device), but there is nothing included that would prevent you from playing a file you got from someone else, or that would prevent you from providing a copy of a file you have to someone else; (limiting those options is what most of us mean by DRM). Now, to be honest, this is how I interpret the claims that were made, and this seems to agree with their claim of "no DRM". However, honestly, I can't imagine that the music industry would be very pleased with this limitation. (Although, to be equally honest, it is the same situation as they currently have with FLAC.... and, in practice, DRM seems to be quite effective at inconveniencing legitimate customers, and relatively useless at preventing determined pirates. Perhaps they've actually decided that making legitimate customers happy is more important to sales than trying - and failing - to prevent illegal piracy.)
  2. I think you're right - but "prestige" and "pride of ownership" also mean very different things to different people. To one person, being able to afford and own a $20K DAC gets them all excited; while another may be much more excited to own one that performs just as well, and cost half as much - because he "discovered" it; and yet another is proud that he "doesn't spend a lot of money on frills". Is a heated steering wheel a luxury or a practical feature? I guess the answer depends on how cold your hands get without one.
  3. Changing filters certainly does make a difference. Simply changing the sample rate going to the DAC changes how the DAC filters the converted analog audio. I have several DACs that have switchable filters, and they also absolutely do sound different (I won't get into which one is "right", but the difference is pretty obvious). There is a neat software player called Signalyst HQPlayer that lets you pick different software upsampling rates and multiple filters for each - and they all sound different as well (it needs a LOT of CPU power and is a bit pricey, though). To complicate matters even more, you can't always trust Windows, and it interacts with various devices. If I connect my old V-Link (v1) to certain versions of Windows, they ALWAYS upsample everything going to it to 96k (apparently it tells the driver that's all it supports.) But when I connect my Audiophilleo instead, it doesn't resample. (Same settings, so, presumably, it's the drivers that influence Windows to act differently.) Likewise, Windows 7 in DS mode ALWAYS resamples, even when you tell it not to, at least with some DACs. And, finally, I've head that people have tested the resampling capabilities of certain software (by upsampling 44.1 audio to 96, then downsampling the result back to 44.1) - and found that at least some software hugely affects the envelope of transients (which it shouldn't). It would be really interesting to do a study about whether, for example, upsampling to 96k (in and of itself) can be heard, or whether you're just hearing the slight (fraction of a dB) rise in high end because the filter is moved further up. Unfortunately, there are so many variables that it's really hard to separate them entirely. I have a Bifrost, and you can definitely hear all these differences with it. I also have several other DACs, and you can hear the differences on them as well.... even on a few really cheap ones.... and, yes, many of them sound rather different to start with.... so these are differences that are major enough that you can hear them pretty easily. (And, yes, the Bifrost is quite nice; I haven't heard the Gungnir yet.)
  4. Indeed... it just shows how vehemently YOU believe what you said. The problem a lot of "audiophiles" have is in how they interpret information. If I were to say that my car only runs well with a certain brand of gas, most of us would suggest that there's something wrong with my car... because we all understand that cars are *intended* to work properly with a wide selection of commercial gas. Likewise, audio equipment is (and always was) intended to work with all reasonably competent cables, power cords, and such. In engineering terms, unless they far exceed standard specifications, they are all interchangeable. The whole idea that they are not is an affectation (promoted by an industry that makes a lot of money out of that assumption). If you plug your equipment directly into the wall then, considering the (literally) miles of crappy wire and non-audiophile transformers and such the power goes through on the way to your outlet, it would be a miracle if the last few feet of wire made a difference. It is true that, if you use a really functional line filter, and the wire we're talking about only connects your equipment to it, then the shielding and resistance of that wire could make some slight difference. Also, with a power amp, if the cord is unreasonably thin, it could actually limit the power reaching your equipment. (In either of those cases, a "good" heavy, shielded, $15 power cord should avoid the problem.) Either way, the *purpose* of the power supply in your equipment, if its working right, is to totally eliminate that difference.... so, if the difference exists, then your power supply isn't doing its job. Likewise, interconnects *can* make a real difference in the sound - even though they shouldn't and usually don't. They have capacitance and resistance, and some (badly designed) equipment is indeed sensitive to those things. Connect a tube preamp with a very high output impedance to something, and the high end *will* change depending on how much capacitance your interconnects have. However, all it is is a symptom that either your preamp has an excessively high output impedance, or your interconnect has ridiculously high capacitance. In other words, rather than being a "subtle but important detail", it's simply a symptom of a design flaw that is easily corrected. (One does wonder if certain manufacturers deliberately design their equipment that way to help promote the idea that it's "sensitive" or "revealing" - as if that was a virtue.) If your equipment sounds different with various USB cables, then there's something wrong with it (you may be willing to live with the design weakness, but, if not, then fix the problem at the source rather than trying to "tune" it somehow by fiddling with cables....). If your water tastes odd because there's dirt in the bucket, you CLEAN the bucket, or live with it; you don't make a hobby of trying out different (and ever more expensive) varieties of dirt..... that's just silly. We humans are also very good at reading each other (maybe they saw the expression on your face and, consciously or subconsciously, realized you were *expecting* them to notice something.)
  5. You need some context here.... It's quite possible that a bad cable could make jitter worse, which could very well make a big difference in sound - but only if the USB device in question is NOT asynchronous mode (that's why asynch mode is better). An asynchronous mode device is supposed to re-clock the data, thus removing any possible contribution from the cable. Since the Dragonfly IS asynchronous mode USB, assuming it's working right it should be totally immune to any differences between cables (unless the cable is so bad that data is actually not making it through). Now, if you're talking about running analog through that skinny little cable, it's a whole different matter.
  6. In that case, no. USB DACs in general also have a problem in that USB only provides a 5V supply. Either the DAC maker has to use some sort of DC-DC converter to step it up (which can lead to noise issues and draws significant current), or they are stuck with a limited maximum signal level. The phones that I've used with the DF were all low impedance (52 Ohm AKGs), so wouldn't be looking for much voltage. Higher impedance phones would need higher drive levels, which could be a problem for the Dragonfly. I've heard of several USB powered DACs having this issue. Likewise, I've also heard it claimed that some DACs (notably the Wolfson) "do well" on low drive voltages, while others do not. Assuming that the PCs in question are fast enough to put out a clean signal, then it sounds like the DF itself is simply unable to The Stereophile review noted that their first test model clipped at full-scale, but that a later replacement did not. Maybe you should try and find out the vintage on yours..... AudioQuest DragonFly USB D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com
  7. Your problem isn't the Dragonfly. Your problem is WASAPI... and your drivers. On some PCs, WASAPI simply has trouble running certain DACs. (You couldn't have been using WASAPI on Windows XP because XP doesn't do WASAPI - WASAPI is a Windows 7 "thing"; you were using something else - like KS.) WASAPI gives you control over output bit rate, and works very well - when it works. DS lets the PC re-sample the bit rate (you can't stop it), so you can't get bit-perfect output without manually fiddling with settings when you play different files, but DS seems to work more often, more reliably, with more DACs, on more PCs. You will find that the situation varies with different DACs and different PCs. In principle you can troubleshoot things to find out where the actual problem is with WASAPI, but it's easier to just pick one that works well and go with it. Some USB DACs are also known to distort when playing (full scale) music because the DAC chip is running at a reduced voltage. (Since it only happens with WASAPI, though, it's almost certainly that.)
  8. I have a Headstreamer, but not one of the others, and I don't do Mac..... However, I'm inclined to wonder what you're using for source material. I suspect that your Apple devices may simply not be putting out good audio.... The iStreamer ONLY supports 32k, 44.1k, and 48k at 16 bits (which, I believe, is all that Apple is willing to give you). The HeadStreamer supports up to 96/24. (Although 44.1/16 should sound like a CD if it isn't being ruined somehow.) However, an iPod or whatever is likely using compression (like AAC), which pretty much ruins the sound quality. Having a nice clean digital quality output of what starts out as a poor quality digital file won't gain you much. The iPhone isn't actually "an audiophile quality signal source" either You really need to compare them on similar sources - in terms of quality (which won't be easy). I would honestly expect the two HRT devices to sound rather similar - with similar inputs.
  9. No, actually it makes perfect sense. If the Lightning doesn't have the Apple license chip, then they are probably taking the analog output and converting it BACK into digital..... which obviates any advantages you might get by using a digital signal. (But it would allow you to plug that analog input into a DAC if that's your real goal...) Odds are they aren't doing a great job of A-D for $30....
  10. Cables, arggghhhhh. The Dragonfly has asnch-USB, which means that it re-clocks the incoming signal using its own clock. This means that, after the data comes in off the wire, the DF keeps those ones and zeros, throws away the clock that came with the data, and generates a nice new clean clock. Assuming that it works as intended, then it is in charge of "how the data gets there". If the ones and zeros are indeed correct, and you throw away anything else that can possibly make any difference, then there can't possibly be a real difference between cables. (That's assuming the cable isn't so bad that it actually loses ones or zeros, and assuming that the DF works as advertised.) Of course, since nothing is perfect, it may NOT do that 100.0% perfectly. Now, the analog cable coming OUT of the DF could make a big difference.... (in fact, it seems rather fussy about that, which is a design flaw). There are various 6" USB extension cables available from various places (Amazon has several in the $5 to $10 range). I would STRONGLY advise a double-blind listening test before spending more than that. (Or, better yet, Google for Audioquest and how they trick people into buying overpriced cables.....)
  11. You are misunderstanding.... The Apple device sends out a digital signal over USB. There's nothing special about the signal (it is as good or bad as the Apple device is willing to send you.) The Apple "authentication processor" chip does NOTHING except say "hi, I'm here, it's OK to send digital audio, this guy bought a license". It doesn't process or modify the audio. The iStreamer is a DAC, so you're hearing how good or bad a DAC it is. (I have no idea if the Apple device does any nasty processing on the digital signal, like changing the sample rate, BEFORE it sends it out... if so, there may be configuration options you can change there. (I'll bet the iPhone doesn't have options, but the iPad certainly does.)
  12. The iPod (and friends) ALL have an analog output (which is the same as the headphone or line out). This is generally "available" and, of course, it goes through the internal DAC. Anything that doesn't authenticate CANNOT get the digital output from the iPod. They're not dumb enough to put it on the connector. The actual connection with the iPod is pretty much plain old USB.... it just won't give you anything digital unless it has permission.
  13. The Dragonfly has a built-in headphone amplifier with limited power.....
  14. Pretty close, but even more draconian In order for Apple devices to be willing to "let you have" a digital output, you have to include an "Apple license processor" in the dock. This is an actual processor chip that communicates with the Apple device and "tells" it that you are licensed to receive a digital output. From what I hear, the chip itself isn't terribly expensive, and neither is the license, but the process of applying for an actually getting the license is rather a pain. The Wadia was pretty much the only dock out there that had it (and rather expensive at $400) until Pure "took the leap"
  15. I would agree that the Audiophilleo is quite a bit better than the V-Link (I had the original V-Link and now have the AP1). This isn't terribly surprising since the jitter figures for the V-Link (which I saw somewhere in a review) aren't that good at all - somewhere in the high 300+ ps. Apparently normal USB is so bad that even this is a quickly audible improvement, but it's still far from good enough. All that said, though, the original V-Link is now going for around $100, which is 1/10 the price of the Audiophilleo, which means that it's still an excellent buy at its price point. Another interesting thing is that the drivers can make a difference - not just by themselves, but in how they interact with Windows. I currently play audio through a laptop which is running Windows XP pro. When I used the V-Link, with Windows drivers, WIndows believed that the V-Link ONLY supported 96/24, and so upsampled everything to 96k (which does sound somewhat better in many cases). The upsampling couldn't be disabled because that particular incarnation of Windows thought that 96k was the only sample rate supported. The Audiophilleo drivers, however, work as they should, and so will play 44.1 files at their native rate. It just goes to show, however, that you always have to watch for unexpected quirks as well as what you think should be going on when trying to compare equipment.
×
×
  • Create New...